A perplexing situation that has been obvious for generations is how some of the largest foundations begun with money from compassionate American capitalists have morphed into some of the most virulent opposition against capitalism and America.
Fortunately, every so often, principles arise (Bravo Goldman Sachs) as this story from the Wall Street Journal reports.
An excerpt.
“Earlier this month, hundreds of New Yorkers received an unusual dinner invitation from the Lower East Side People's Federal Credit Union.
“The Credit Union, a small lender serving New York's poor, was holding a fund-raiser to celebrate its 25th anniversary. Among the chief sponsors listed on the invitation was Goldman Sachs Group Inc.
“Among the honorees: "Occupy Wall Street."
“They might as well have asked Marie Antoinette to dig into her purse to support Madame Defarge's knitting business.
“Shortly after the invitation was sent out, Goldman withdrew its name from the dinner. It also pulled the plug on its $5,000 funding pledge.
“The debate that ensued—between bankers and nonprofit chiefs, philanthropists and financiers—turned a modest fund-raising dinner into a heated battleground between Wall Street and the Occupy protestors, exposing contradictions on both sides.
“On one side was Goldman Sachs, which told the credit union it didn't want its name or money used to celebrate a protest movement known for placards like "Goldman Sachs is the work of the devil," dinner organizers said. The investment bank's giant glass-and-steel headquarters tower is just blocks away from the protest headquarters in Manhattan's Zuccotti Park.
“On the other side of the debate were several hosts and board members of the credit union, who said honoring the protesters is more important than the money from Goldman—even though the funds were slated to cover a quarter of the dinner's $20,000 cost.
"Their money was welcome, but not at the price of giving up what we believe in," said Pablo DeFilippi, one of the dinner hosts and associate director of member development at the National Federal of Community Development Credit Unions. "We lost their $5,000, but we have our principles."
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Monday, October 24, 2011
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Nonprofit Voters
An interesting article from Blue Avocado about the results of a voting survey of nonprofit employees.
An excerpt.
“In a survey of 560 staff at health and human service nonprofits, a remarkable 100% of senior managers and 92% of "line staff" (non-senior managers) are registered to vote. Wow! And . . .
• Nonprofit staff are 49% more likely to be registered than the general population.
• Nonprofit staff were 21% more likely to vote than the general population (in the 2010 election for governor).
“Letting candidates know that nonprofit staff vote
“SVCN is presenting these findings to the county board of supervisors and to city councils, to show that nonprofit staff are voters. "You'll hear even more from us right before the November election!" vows executive director Patricia Gardner.
“Nonprofit staff volunteer more, too
"Not only do we work in the nonprofit sector," Patricia says, "but we volunteer in the sector -- everyone is doing it!" In fact, 90% of senior managers and 72% of other staff volunteer in the community.”
"We know we [nonprofit staff] put in extra time where we work, but we're also volunteering elsewhere," says Patricia. "Our sector leaders are actively engaged in the community in many ways."
An excerpt.
“In a survey of 560 staff at health and human service nonprofits, a remarkable 100% of senior managers and 92% of "line staff" (non-senior managers) are registered to vote. Wow! And . . .
• Nonprofit staff are 49% more likely to be registered than the general population.
• Nonprofit staff were 21% more likely to vote than the general population (in the 2010 election for governor).
“Letting candidates know that nonprofit staff vote
“SVCN is presenting these findings to the county board of supervisors and to city councils, to show that nonprofit staff are voters. "You'll hear even more from us right before the November election!" vows executive director Patricia Gardner.
“Nonprofit staff volunteer more, too
"Not only do we work in the nonprofit sector," Patricia says, "but we volunteer in the sector -- everyone is doing it!" In fact, 90% of senior managers and 72% of other staff volunteer in the community.”
"We know we [nonprofit staff] put in extra time where we work, but we're also volunteering elsewhere," says Patricia. "Our sector leaders are actively engaged in the community in many ways."
Friday, March 4, 2011
Public Pensions
An article from the California Chamber of Commerce, reporting on a Little Hoover Commission report, that if followed, would impact public pensions substantially, might also impact those from the nonprofit sector.
An excerpt.
“(March 4, 2011) With the debate over public sector pension costs roiling the nation, a bipartisan, independent state commission released a report charting a bold path for pension reforms that would create both short- and long-term budget savings.
“The Little Hoover Commission unanimously adopted Public Pensions for Retirement Security, calling for legislative action to establish the legal authority to allow state and local governments to freeze pension benefits for current workers, and allowing those workers to accrue future benefits under more sustainable pension plans.
“Reform for Current Workforce
“After 10 months of public hearings and background research, commissioners concluded that California’s pension crisis cannot be solved without addressing the obligations of current employees, many of whom have accrued generous benefits augmented during the go-go years of the dot.com and real estate bubbles.
“Without doubt, the proposal will face significant political and legal hurdles. But ignoring the burden that the current obligations place on government budgets and on taxpayers is like pretending the underwater earthquake won’t create a tsunami. The disaster will happen; the only question is how soon. In the words of the commission’s report, “Pension costs will crush government.”
“The commission included a number of forward-looking reforms, too. It recommended a “hybrid” pension model that combines a lower defined-benefit pension formula with an employer-matched and risk-managed defined-contribution plan.
“The commission also suggested that the state explore extending Social Security old-age benefits to uncovered state and local employees, as is the case with the federal workforce.”
An excerpt.
“(March 4, 2011) With the debate over public sector pension costs roiling the nation, a bipartisan, independent state commission released a report charting a bold path for pension reforms that would create both short- and long-term budget savings.
“The Little Hoover Commission unanimously adopted Public Pensions for Retirement Security, calling for legislative action to establish the legal authority to allow state and local governments to freeze pension benefits for current workers, and allowing those workers to accrue future benefits under more sustainable pension plans.
“Reform for Current Workforce
“After 10 months of public hearings and background research, commissioners concluded that California’s pension crisis cannot be solved without addressing the obligations of current employees, many of whom have accrued generous benefits augmented during the go-go years of the dot.com and real estate bubbles.
“Without doubt, the proposal will face significant political and legal hurdles. But ignoring the burden that the current obligations place on government budgets and on taxpayers is like pretending the underwater earthquake won’t create a tsunami. The disaster will happen; the only question is how soon. In the words of the commission’s report, “Pension costs will crush government.”
“The commission included a number of forward-looking reforms, too. It recommended a “hybrid” pension model that combines a lower defined-benefit pension formula with an employer-matched and risk-managed defined-contribution plan.
“The commission also suggested that the state explore extending Social Security old-age benefits to uncovered state and local employees, as is the case with the federal workforce.”
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Our America & Valentines Day in Iran
As Tocqueville noted almost 2 centuries ago:
“Americans of all ages, all conditions, all minds constantly unite. Not only do they have commercial and industrial associations in which all take part, but they also have a thousand other kinds: religious, moral, grave, futile, very general and very particular, immense and very small; Americans use associations to give fetes, to found seminaries, to build inns, to raise churches, to distribute books, to send missionaries to the antipodes; in this manner they create hospitals, prisons, schools….Thus the most democratic country on earth is found to be, above all, the one where men in our day have most perfected the art of pursuing the object of their common desires in common and have applied this new science to the most objects. Does this result from an accident or could it be that there in fact exists a necessary relation between associations and equality?”
(Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 2000 translation by H. C. Mansfield and D. Winthrop. pp. 489-490)
With that as a backdrop, consider this article in the Wall Street Journal discussing Iran’s attempt to ban Valentines Day.
An excerpt.
“In another sign of its ever more improvisational approach to governance, the Iranian regime has outlawed Valentine's Day. "Symbols of hearts, half-hearts, red roses, and any activities promoting this day are banned," announced state media last month. "Authorities will take legal action against those who ignore the ban."
“Some 70% of Iran's population is said to be under the age of 30, so it seems natural that Valentine's Day has caught on in a country where the young keep trying to find non-state-mandated rituals to call their own. The state, for its part, continues to respond with a Whack-a-Mole approach to any social ripple not dreamt of in its philosophy.
“Theocratic regimes invariably suffer from the same besetting sin: As the world evolves, they must either revise their antiquated doctrines or try to hold the world rigidly in stasis. Iran's ruling mullahs keep choosing the latter option. And with mosque and state firmly conjoined, there's no stray detail of daily life so arcane that the scriptures can't be mobilized to rein it in.
“The Iranian state has pronounced against unauthorized mingling of the sexes, rap music, rock music, Western music, women playing in bands, too-bright nail polish, laughter in hospital corridors, ancient Persian rites-of-spring celebrations (Nowrooz), and even the mention of foreign food recipes in state media. This last may sound comically implausible, but it was officially announced by a state-run website on Feb. 6. So now the true nature of pasta as an instrument of Western subversion has been revealed.
“The regime's posture turns the smallest garden-variety gestures into thrilling acts of subversion. Slipping a Valentine card to a girlfriend takes on the significance of samizdat. Every firecracker set off during Nowrooz diminishes the police state's claims to omniscience. The mullahs have appointed themselves the enemy of fun; as a result, wherever fun herniates into view, it is a politicized irruption of defiance….
“In the end, Iran's rulers face an impossible task. Their genesis myth of a society based on a codified schema of sacred laws looks neither codified nor sacred. It convinces no one. Instead, the regime seems dedicated above all to stamping out joy wherever it may accidentally arise—a sour, paranoid struggle against irrepressible forces of nature, change, the seasons, music, romance and laughter. The Iranian people can take comfort: No earthly authority has won that particular contest for long.”
“Americans of all ages, all conditions, all minds constantly unite. Not only do they have commercial and industrial associations in which all take part, but they also have a thousand other kinds: religious, moral, grave, futile, very general and very particular, immense and very small; Americans use associations to give fetes, to found seminaries, to build inns, to raise churches, to distribute books, to send missionaries to the antipodes; in this manner they create hospitals, prisons, schools….Thus the most democratic country on earth is found to be, above all, the one where men in our day have most perfected the art of pursuing the object of their common desires in common and have applied this new science to the most objects. Does this result from an accident or could it be that there in fact exists a necessary relation between associations and equality?”
(Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 2000 translation by H. C. Mansfield and D. Winthrop. pp. 489-490)
With that as a backdrop, consider this article in the Wall Street Journal discussing Iran’s attempt to ban Valentines Day.
An excerpt.
“In another sign of its ever more improvisational approach to governance, the Iranian regime has outlawed Valentine's Day. "Symbols of hearts, half-hearts, red roses, and any activities promoting this day are banned," announced state media last month. "Authorities will take legal action against those who ignore the ban."
“Some 70% of Iran's population is said to be under the age of 30, so it seems natural that Valentine's Day has caught on in a country where the young keep trying to find non-state-mandated rituals to call their own. The state, for its part, continues to respond with a Whack-a-Mole approach to any social ripple not dreamt of in its philosophy.
“Theocratic regimes invariably suffer from the same besetting sin: As the world evolves, they must either revise their antiquated doctrines or try to hold the world rigidly in stasis. Iran's ruling mullahs keep choosing the latter option. And with mosque and state firmly conjoined, there's no stray detail of daily life so arcane that the scriptures can't be mobilized to rein it in.
“The Iranian state has pronounced against unauthorized mingling of the sexes, rap music, rock music, Western music, women playing in bands, too-bright nail polish, laughter in hospital corridors, ancient Persian rites-of-spring celebrations (Nowrooz), and even the mention of foreign food recipes in state media. This last may sound comically implausible, but it was officially announced by a state-run website on Feb. 6. So now the true nature of pasta as an instrument of Western subversion has been revealed.
“The regime's posture turns the smallest garden-variety gestures into thrilling acts of subversion. Slipping a Valentine card to a girlfriend takes on the significance of samizdat. Every firecracker set off during Nowrooz diminishes the police state's claims to omniscience. The mullahs have appointed themselves the enemy of fun; as a result, wherever fun herniates into view, it is a politicized irruption of defiance….
“In the end, Iran's rulers face an impossible task. Their genesis myth of a society based on a codified schema of sacred laws looks neither codified nor sacred. It convinces no one. Instead, the regime seems dedicated above all to stamping out joy wherever it may accidentally arise—a sour, paranoid struggle against irrepressible forces of nature, change, the seasons, music, romance and laughter. The Iranian people can take comfort: No earthly authority has won that particular contest for long.”
Thursday, February 10, 2011
American Philanthropy
As a result of working on yesterday’s post I came across an excellent article by Heather Mac Donald in City Journal focusing on the efforts to infuse American Philanthropy with identity politics.
An excerpt.
“American philanthropy is the envy of the world. Since colonial times, when Benjamin Franklin’s Junto Society, a proto–think tank of public-minded Philadelphia citizens, developed volunteer fire departments and a lending library, Americans have evolved a unique civic culture of giving and entrepreneurial problem solving. From 1995 to 2002, charitable donations as a percentage of GDP were nearly six times higher in the United States than in France and 14 times higher than in Germany. In 2007, America’s charitable giving amounted to $306 billion. No wonder that European universities and arts organizations look first to their American alumni and patrons for support when their government funding dries up.
“Yet American generosity is under fire. A growing number of activists and politicians argue that foundations should meet diversity targets in their giving and on their staffs. If foundations fail to diversify “voluntarily,” threaten the race, ethnicity, and gender enforcers, they risk legislation requiring them to do so. In other words, the diversity police, having helped bring on the subprime meltdown through mortgage-lending quotas, now want to fix philanthropy. And instead of rebuffing this power grab, the leaders in the field have rolled over and played dead.
“The idea that foundations should view the world through the trivializing lens of identity politics dates back to the 1980s, when some liberal foundations, including the Ford Foundation, started asking groups seeking grants to report the race and sex of their staff and board members. But today, politicians are getting into the act. This latest diversity push began in 2005, when the Greenlining Institute, a “multiethnic advocacy group” in Berkeley, started pumping out studies claiming that foundations were ignoring “communities of color.” (This despite the fact that in California, 39 percent of large foundations’ grants primarily benefit minorities, according to the Foundation Center, a respected research body.) Greenlining’s definition of helping a community of color: bestowing foundation grants on a nonprofit whose staff and board are at least 50 percent minority. In other words, the Greenlining effort is purely a jobs racket. The racial composition of a nonprofit’s staff and board has exactly zero relation to whether it is actually helping minorities. Agronomists supported by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations helped wipe out famine in Southeast Asia by developing high-yield cereal crops; pressure to diversify their labs would have hindered their research, not advanced it.”
An excerpt.
“American philanthropy is the envy of the world. Since colonial times, when Benjamin Franklin’s Junto Society, a proto–think tank of public-minded Philadelphia citizens, developed volunteer fire departments and a lending library, Americans have evolved a unique civic culture of giving and entrepreneurial problem solving. From 1995 to 2002, charitable donations as a percentage of GDP were nearly six times higher in the United States than in France and 14 times higher than in Germany. In 2007, America’s charitable giving amounted to $306 billion. No wonder that European universities and arts organizations look first to their American alumni and patrons for support when their government funding dries up.
“Yet American generosity is under fire. A growing number of activists and politicians argue that foundations should meet diversity targets in their giving and on their staffs. If foundations fail to diversify “voluntarily,” threaten the race, ethnicity, and gender enforcers, they risk legislation requiring them to do so. In other words, the diversity police, having helped bring on the subprime meltdown through mortgage-lending quotas, now want to fix philanthropy. And instead of rebuffing this power grab, the leaders in the field have rolled over and played dead.
“The idea that foundations should view the world through the trivializing lens of identity politics dates back to the 1980s, when some liberal foundations, including the Ford Foundation, started asking groups seeking grants to report the race and sex of their staff and board members. But today, politicians are getting into the act. This latest diversity push began in 2005, when the Greenlining Institute, a “multiethnic advocacy group” in Berkeley, started pumping out studies claiming that foundations were ignoring “communities of color.” (This despite the fact that in California, 39 percent of large foundations’ grants primarily benefit minorities, according to the Foundation Center, a respected research body.) Greenlining’s definition of helping a community of color: bestowing foundation grants on a nonprofit whose staff and board are at least 50 percent minority. In other words, the Greenlining effort is purely a jobs racket. The racial composition of a nonprofit’s staff and board has exactly zero relation to whether it is actually helping minorities. Agronomists supported by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations helped wipe out famine in Southeast Asia by developing high-yield cereal crops; pressure to diversify their labs would have hindered their research, not advanced it.”
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Democracy & Nonprofits
So much of the organized effort to ensure freedom arises and is sustained in the world comes from the nonprofit sector, and that effort is inspired by great ideas, a foundational one of which is explored by the seminal 2004 book by Natan Sharansky, The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny & Terror.
Against the background of what is now occurring in the Middle East, the Wall Street Journal reports on Mr. Sharansky's current perspective.
An excerpt.
“If you want a glimpse of how I think about foreign policy, read Natan Sharansky's book, 'The Case for Democracy.'" With that comment in 2005, George W. Bush created a best seller, impelling hordes of statesmen, policy wonks and journalists to decode this Rosetta Stone of the "freedom agenda."
“In the book, Mr. Sharansky argues that all people, in all cultures, want to live in freedom; that all dictatorships are inherently unstable and therefore threaten the security of other countries; and that Western powers can and should influence how free other countries are. Rarely have these arguments been dramatized as during the past weeks—in Tunisia, Jordan, Yemen and especially Egypt. So late Wednesday night I interviewed Mr. Sharansky to hear his explanation of our current revolutionary moment.
"The reason people are going to the streets and making revolution is their desire not to live in a fear society," Mr. Sharansky says. In his taxonomy, the world is divided between "fear societies" and "free societies," with the difference between them determinable by what he calls a "town square test": Are the people in a given society free to stand in their town square and express their opinions without fear of arrest or physical harm? The answer in Tunisia and Egypt, of course, has long been "no"—as it was in the Soviet bloc countries that faced popular revolutions in 1989.
“The comparison of today's events with 1989 is a common one, but for Mr. Sharansky it is personal. He was born in 1948 in Donetsk (then called Stalino), Ukraine, and in the 1970s and 1980s he was one of the most famous dissidents in the Soviet Union—first as an aide to the nuclear physicist-turned-human rights activist Andrei Sakharov, then as a champion for the rights of Soviet Jews like himself to emigrate. His outspoken advocacy landed him in the Soviet Gulag for nine years (including 200 days on hunger strike).
“Mr. Sharansky was released from prison in 1986, after his wife Avital's tireless campaigning earned his case international renown and the strong support of President Ronald Reagan. He moved to Israel, where he eventually entered politics and served until 2006 in various ministerial posts and in the parliament. Throughout, he preached and wrote about, as his book's subtitle puts it, "the power of freedom to overcome tyranny and terror."
“This idea is the animating feature of a worldview that bucks much conventional wisdom. Uprisings like Tunisia's and Egypt's, he says, make "specialists—Sovietologists, Arabists—say 'Who could have thought only two weeks ago that this will happen?'" But "look at what Middle Eastern democratic dissidents were saying for all these years about the weakness of these regimes from the inside," and you won't be surprised when they topple, he says.
“And yet policy makers from Washington to Tel Aviv have seemingly been in shock. Many of them—on the right and the left—look upon the demise of Hosni Mubarak and the potential rise of the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood with dread.
"Why is there such a big danger that if now there will be free choice for Egyptians, then the Muslim Brotherhood can rise to power?" Mr. Sharansky asks. "Because they are the only organized force which exists in addition to Mubarak's regime." Mr. Mubarak quashed almost all political dissent, with the general acquiescence of his American patrons. But he couldn't stop the Brotherhood from spreading its message in mosques. Meanwhile, he used the Brotherhood as a bogeyman, telling the U.S. that only he stood between radical Islamists and the seat of power.”
Against the background of what is now occurring in the Middle East, the Wall Street Journal reports on Mr. Sharansky's current perspective.
An excerpt.
“If you want a glimpse of how I think about foreign policy, read Natan Sharansky's book, 'The Case for Democracy.'" With that comment in 2005, George W. Bush created a best seller, impelling hordes of statesmen, policy wonks and journalists to decode this Rosetta Stone of the "freedom agenda."
“In the book, Mr. Sharansky argues that all people, in all cultures, want to live in freedom; that all dictatorships are inherently unstable and therefore threaten the security of other countries; and that Western powers can and should influence how free other countries are. Rarely have these arguments been dramatized as during the past weeks—in Tunisia, Jordan, Yemen and especially Egypt. So late Wednesday night I interviewed Mr. Sharansky to hear his explanation of our current revolutionary moment.
"The reason people are going to the streets and making revolution is their desire not to live in a fear society," Mr. Sharansky says. In his taxonomy, the world is divided between "fear societies" and "free societies," with the difference between them determinable by what he calls a "town square test": Are the people in a given society free to stand in their town square and express their opinions without fear of arrest or physical harm? The answer in Tunisia and Egypt, of course, has long been "no"—as it was in the Soviet bloc countries that faced popular revolutions in 1989.
“The comparison of today's events with 1989 is a common one, but for Mr. Sharansky it is personal. He was born in 1948 in Donetsk (then called Stalino), Ukraine, and in the 1970s and 1980s he was one of the most famous dissidents in the Soviet Union—first as an aide to the nuclear physicist-turned-human rights activist Andrei Sakharov, then as a champion for the rights of Soviet Jews like himself to emigrate. His outspoken advocacy landed him in the Soviet Gulag for nine years (including 200 days on hunger strike).
“Mr. Sharansky was released from prison in 1986, after his wife Avital's tireless campaigning earned his case international renown and the strong support of President Ronald Reagan. He moved to Israel, where he eventually entered politics and served until 2006 in various ministerial posts and in the parliament. Throughout, he preached and wrote about, as his book's subtitle puts it, "the power of freedom to overcome tyranny and terror."
“This idea is the animating feature of a worldview that bucks much conventional wisdom. Uprisings like Tunisia's and Egypt's, he says, make "specialists—Sovietologists, Arabists—say 'Who could have thought only two weeks ago that this will happen?'" But "look at what Middle Eastern democratic dissidents were saying for all these years about the weakness of these regimes from the inside," and you won't be surprised when they topple, he says.
“And yet policy makers from Washington to Tel Aviv have seemingly been in shock. Many of them—on the right and the left—look upon the demise of Hosni Mubarak and the potential rise of the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood with dread.
"Why is there such a big danger that if now there will be free choice for Egyptians, then the Muslim Brotherhood can rise to power?" Mr. Sharansky asks. "Because they are the only organized force which exists in addition to Mubarak's regime." Mr. Mubarak quashed almost all political dissent, with the general acquiescence of his American patrons. But he couldn't stop the Brotherhood from spreading its message in mosques. Meanwhile, he used the Brotherhood as a bogeyman, telling the U.S. that only he stood between radical Islamists and the seat of power.”
Monday, January 31, 2011
Technology: Friend & Foe
In a reminder of the power of technology in relation to the current events in Egypt, the Hauser Center blog notes how governments and individuals can both benefit from its enormous power.
An excerpt.
“As hundreds of thousands mill in the streets of Cairo and other Egyptian cities, it appears that another authoritarian Middle Eastern regime is about to fall to the rage of masses mobilized and coordinated by cellphones and the internet.
“In response, Egypt’s police state shut down the internet and cut off virtually all cellphone service both within the country and between it and the outside world. Satellite communications have also been disrupted by government jamming. (None of this, curiously, seems to have stemmed the flood of images of or broadcasts about the disorders featured on the 24 hour news channels and web sources like Al Jazzera and the BBC).
“Many “progressives” are professing horror and surprise at the internet shut down — yet had little to say when, last summer, the White House requested that Congress grant the president an internet “kill switch” that would allow our government to do exactly the same thing….
“The Roman emperor Nero wished the Roman people had one neck. With IT, alas, his wish has more or less come true — but on a global scale.
“While the media and friends of civil society celebrate the power of the new technology to topple tyrants, we would do well to keep in mind that its power, wielded by would-be tyrants, can also be used to suppress revolutionary social movements.”
An excerpt.
“As hundreds of thousands mill in the streets of Cairo and other Egyptian cities, it appears that another authoritarian Middle Eastern regime is about to fall to the rage of masses mobilized and coordinated by cellphones and the internet.
“In response, Egypt’s police state shut down the internet and cut off virtually all cellphone service both within the country and between it and the outside world. Satellite communications have also been disrupted by government jamming. (None of this, curiously, seems to have stemmed the flood of images of or broadcasts about the disorders featured on the 24 hour news channels and web sources like Al Jazzera and the BBC).
“Many “progressives” are professing horror and surprise at the internet shut down — yet had little to say when, last summer, the White House requested that Congress grant the president an internet “kill switch” that would allow our government to do exactly the same thing….
“The Roman emperor Nero wished the Roman people had one neck. With IT, alas, his wish has more or less come true — but on a global scale.
“While the media and friends of civil society celebrate the power of the new technology to topple tyrants, we would do well to keep in mind that its power, wielded by would-be tyrants, can also be used to suppress revolutionary social movements.”
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Nonprofit Media-Based Ministries
Congress, as reported by the Senate Committee on Finance, is beginning to look more closely at the activities of these groups and what develops could also impact other nonprofit churches and nonprofits in general.
An excerpt.
“WASHINGTON -- Sen. Chuck Grassley, ranking member of the Committee on Finance, today released a staff review of the activities and practices of six media-based ministries and reports concerning other churches and religious organizations referred to the committee. He pursued this review as part of an ongoing effort to strengthen the tax-exempt sector. The review contains a summary of findings and identifies key issues for discussion by stakeholders.
“The tax-exempt sector is so big that from time to time, certain practices draw public concern,” Grassley said. “My goal is to help improve accountability and good governance so tax-exempt groups maintain public confidence in their operations.”
“Grassley said tax-exempt policy involving churches and religious organizations is an area Congress hasn’t looked at in decades. Then-Senator Mark Hatfield’s 1977 request to evangelical groups to be more transparent caused the formation of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA). Joining this organization has become like a Good Housekeeping seal of approval for those in the evangelical community.
“According to the ECFA, Hatfield issued his request in response to legislation introduced by Rep. Charlie Wilson that would have required certain disclosures by organizations soliciting funds. Similarly, Grassley expects that the issues raised as part of the staff review will generate discussion about increasing accountability among all types of churches and religious organizations, not just evangelical groups. “The staff review sets the stage for a comprehensive discussion among churches and religious organizations. I look forward to helping facilitate this dialogue and fostering an environment for self-reform within the community,” Grassley said.
“Grassley wrote to six media-based ministries in November 2007, based on requests for review from members of the public who wrote to him because of his previous tax-exempt oversight work. In addition, these ministries had received media coverage and attention from watchdog groups. One of the six ministries, Joyce Meyer Ministries, responded fully to Grassley’s inquiry and joined the ECFA in March 2009
. Benny Hinn of World Healing Center Church also provided complete answers to all questions. Both ministries wrote to Grassley to explain they have undertaken significant internal governance reforms. “I appreciate these efforts,” Grassley said. “Self-correction can be more effective than government action. It’s something that’s worked with other entities I’ve looked at, such as the Nature Conservancy and the Smithsonian Institution and some top colleges that were amassing large endowments without increasing student aid.”
An excerpt.
“WASHINGTON -- Sen. Chuck Grassley, ranking member of the Committee on Finance, today released a staff review of the activities and practices of six media-based ministries and reports concerning other churches and religious organizations referred to the committee. He pursued this review as part of an ongoing effort to strengthen the tax-exempt sector. The review contains a summary of findings and identifies key issues for discussion by stakeholders.
“The tax-exempt sector is so big that from time to time, certain practices draw public concern,” Grassley said. “My goal is to help improve accountability and good governance so tax-exempt groups maintain public confidence in their operations.”
“Grassley said tax-exempt policy involving churches and religious organizations is an area Congress hasn’t looked at in decades. Then-Senator Mark Hatfield’s 1977 request to evangelical groups to be more transparent caused the formation of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA). Joining this organization has become like a Good Housekeeping seal of approval for those in the evangelical community.
“According to the ECFA, Hatfield issued his request in response to legislation introduced by Rep. Charlie Wilson that would have required certain disclosures by organizations soliciting funds. Similarly, Grassley expects that the issues raised as part of the staff review will generate discussion about increasing accountability among all types of churches and religious organizations, not just evangelical groups. “The staff review sets the stage for a comprehensive discussion among churches and religious organizations. I look forward to helping facilitate this dialogue and fostering an environment for self-reform within the community,” Grassley said.
“Grassley wrote to six media-based ministries in November 2007, based on requests for review from members of the public who wrote to him because of his previous tax-exempt oversight work. In addition, these ministries had received media coverage and attention from watchdog groups. One of the six ministries, Joyce Meyer Ministries, responded fully to Grassley’s inquiry and joined the ECFA in March 2009
. Benny Hinn of World Healing Center Church also provided complete answers to all questions. Both ministries wrote to Grassley to explain they have undertaken significant internal governance reforms. “I appreciate these efforts,” Grassley said. “Self-correction can be more effective than government action. It’s something that’s worked with other entities I’ve looked at, such as the Nature Conservancy and the Smithsonian Institution and some top colleges that were amassing large endowments without increasing student aid.”
Monday, January 17, 2011
Catholic Church Defaced
In this article from California Catholic Daily, the eternal discrimination against the Catholic Church—the oldest nonprofit organization in the world—continues.
An excerpt.
“The vandals who spray-painted “Kill the Cathlics” on a wall of a Catholic church in Anaheim a week ago apparently traveled about 20 miles to a parish in Irvine to scrawl an identical message on a walkway at St. Thomas More parish.
“An identical phrase (with misspelling) was spray-painted on a wall at Saint Boniface Catholic Church in Anaheim,” the Orange County Register reported in a three-paragraph story on Jan. 13. “Both incidents were discovered (last) Tuesday morning.”
“Saint Thomas More Catholic Church is located at 51 Marketplace in Irvine.
“The graphic graffiti saddened parishioners, and church officials are working with police to find whoever is responsible for the crime, diocese spokesman Ryan Lilyengren said,” according to the Register.
“No additional details were provided.
“California Catholic Daily reported on Jan. 12 that Graffiti reading “Kill THE CATHLICS” had been spray-painted on a wall of St. Boniface Catholic Church in Anaheim, but at the time it was not known that an identical misspelled message had been painted on a wall at St. Thomas More in Irvine, a 20-mile drive from Anaheim.”
An excerpt.
“The vandals who spray-painted “Kill the Cathlics” on a wall of a Catholic church in Anaheim a week ago apparently traveled about 20 miles to a parish in Irvine to scrawl an identical message on a walkway at St. Thomas More parish.
“An identical phrase (with misspelling) was spray-painted on a wall at Saint Boniface Catholic Church in Anaheim,” the Orange County Register reported in a three-paragraph story on Jan. 13. “Both incidents were discovered (last) Tuesday morning.”
“Saint Thomas More Catholic Church is located at 51 Marketplace in Irvine.
“The graphic graffiti saddened parishioners, and church officials are working with police to find whoever is responsible for the crime, diocese spokesman Ryan Lilyengren said,” according to the Register.
“No additional details were provided.
“California Catholic Daily reported on Jan. 12 that Graffiti reading “Kill THE CATHLICS” had been spray-painted on a wall of St. Boniface Catholic Church in Anaheim, but at the time it was not known that an identical misspelled message had been painted on a wall at St. Thomas More in Irvine, a 20-mile drive from Anaheim.”
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Hope & Change
Certain times seem to generate optimism, others pessimism, and for many observers of the public arena, this is one of those very optimistic times, as we wait for the results of the elections across the country that will surely usher in a new sense of public policy making.
With all of the hitches in the formerly ascendant narrative putting some halt to its once remorseless advance; the stiller, smaller, voices of the people have been raised in a dynamic chorus of hoping for change, and it does appear that change will occur, at least in public leadership.
Whether the change in public leadership—assuming it does happen—will actually lead to a change in public policy, remains to be seen, as many who enter the halls of power from main street often become so self-enamored by their very ascension, that they forget how and on whose shoulders they arose, but I am optimistic it will happen and they will not forget.
With all of the hitches in the formerly ascendant narrative putting some halt to its once remorseless advance; the stiller, smaller, voices of the people have been raised in a dynamic chorus of hoping for change, and it does appear that change will occur, at least in public leadership.
Whether the change in public leadership—assuming it does happen—will actually lead to a change in public policy, remains to be seen, as many who enter the halls of power from main street often become so self-enamored by their very ascension, that they forget how and on whose shoulders they arose, but I am optimistic it will happen and they will not forget.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Microsoft Helps Advocacy
In this New York Times article, Microsoft's efforts are described, which is very good news for nonprofit advocacy groups, who are often the only vehicle to get out information crucial to people’s lives, especially in countries dominated by tyranny.
An excerpt.
“MOSCOW — Microsoft is vastly expanding its efforts to prevent governments from using software piracy inquiries as a pretext to suppress dissent. It plans to provide free software licenses to more than 500,000 advocacy groups, independent media outlets and other nonprofit organizations in 12 countries with tightly controlled governments, including Russia and China.
“With the new program in place, authorities in these countries would have no legal basis for accusing these groups of installing pirated Microsoft software.
“Microsoft began overhauling its antipiracy policy after The New York Times reported last month that private lawyers retained by the company had often supported law enforcement officials in Russia in crackdowns on outspoken advocacy groups and opposition newspapers.
“At first, Microsoft responded to the article by apologizing and saying it would focus on protecting these organizations in Russia from such inquiries.
“But it is now extending the program to other countries: eight former Soviet republics — Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan — as well as China, Malaysia and Vietnam. Microsoft executives said they would consider adding more.
“We clearly have a very strong interest in ensuring that any antipiracy activities are being done for the purpose of reducing illegal piracy, and not for other purposes,” said Nancy J. Anderson, a deputy general counsel and vice president at Microsoft. “Under the terms of our new nongovernmental organization software license, we will definitely not have any claims and not pursue any claims against nongovernmental organizations.”
An excerpt.
“MOSCOW — Microsoft is vastly expanding its efforts to prevent governments from using software piracy inquiries as a pretext to suppress dissent. It plans to provide free software licenses to more than 500,000 advocacy groups, independent media outlets and other nonprofit organizations in 12 countries with tightly controlled governments, including Russia and China.
“With the new program in place, authorities in these countries would have no legal basis for accusing these groups of installing pirated Microsoft software.
“Microsoft began overhauling its antipiracy policy after The New York Times reported last month that private lawyers retained by the company had often supported law enforcement officials in Russia in crackdowns on outspoken advocacy groups and opposition newspapers.
“At first, Microsoft responded to the article by apologizing and saying it would focus on protecting these organizations in Russia from such inquiries.
“But it is now extending the program to other countries: eight former Soviet republics — Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan — as well as China, Malaysia and Vietnam. Microsoft executives said they would consider adding more.
“We clearly have a very strong interest in ensuring that any antipiracy activities are being done for the purpose of reducing illegal piracy, and not for other purposes,” said Nancy J. Anderson, a deputy general counsel and vice president at Microsoft. “Under the terms of our new nongovernmental organization software license, we will definitely not have any claims and not pursue any claims against nongovernmental organizations.”
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Donor Disclosure
The problem with it is that controversial nonprofit organizations could see revealed donors subject to political or public intimidation as a result, and that is not a good thing.
As important as is the need for transparency in public policy, donor privacy must be protected, and this article from the Chronicle of Philanthropy reports on an attempt to open donor records.
An excerpt.
“The National Alliance on Mental Illness includes something on its Web site that is highly unusual in the nonprofit world: detailed, up-to-date information about its donors.
“Each quarter it posts the names of all corporations and foundations that gave the charity more than $5,000, the specific amount they contributed, and how the money was spent.
“Visitors can see, for example, that in the second quarter of 2010, Pfizer paid $35,000 for a corporate membership; Ortho-McNneil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals $60,000 to NAMI Beginnings, the group’s quarterly magazine; and Eli Lilly $250,000 to the Campaign for a Better Tomorrow, a program to help the charity carry out its educational, advocacy, and training programs.
“The alliance, a prominent advocacy group in Arlington, Va., started posting such details last year after Sen. Charles E. Grassley, of Iowa, began to investigate its financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry.
“Now Mr. Grassley— the senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee—is turning an eye to 33 additional nonprofit medical groups. And he has made it clear he would like them to follow the mental-illness alliance’s lead.
“These organizations have a lot of influence over public policy, and people rely on their leadership,” he says. “There’s a strong case for disclosure and the accountability that results.”
“Confidentiality of Donors
“While the investigation is focused on medical issues, it could have implications for all charities that receive donations from businesses in areas that overlap with their nonprofit missions.
“The Nature Conservancy, for example, recently came under fire from some supporters who worried that donations from BP were undermining the group’s response to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The nonprofit group had to spend time trying to allay such concerns, pointing to policies and procedures that they said prevented any undue influence.
“The investigation also challenges the notion, protected by law, that charities have discretion over how much to reveal to the public about their donors.”
As important as is the need for transparency in public policy, donor privacy must be protected, and this article from the Chronicle of Philanthropy reports on an attempt to open donor records.
An excerpt.
“The National Alliance on Mental Illness includes something on its Web site that is highly unusual in the nonprofit world: detailed, up-to-date information about its donors.
“Each quarter it posts the names of all corporations and foundations that gave the charity more than $5,000, the specific amount they contributed, and how the money was spent.
“Visitors can see, for example, that in the second quarter of 2010, Pfizer paid $35,000 for a corporate membership; Ortho-McNneil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals $60,000 to NAMI Beginnings, the group’s quarterly magazine; and Eli Lilly $250,000 to the Campaign for a Better Tomorrow, a program to help the charity carry out its educational, advocacy, and training programs.
“The alliance, a prominent advocacy group in Arlington, Va., started posting such details last year after Sen. Charles E. Grassley, of Iowa, began to investigate its financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry.
“Now Mr. Grassley— the senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee—is turning an eye to 33 additional nonprofit medical groups. And he has made it clear he would like them to follow the mental-illness alliance’s lead.
“These organizations have a lot of influence over public policy, and people rely on their leadership,” he says. “There’s a strong case for disclosure and the accountability that results.”
“Confidentiality of Donors
“While the investigation is focused on medical issues, it could have implications for all charities that receive donations from businesses in areas that overlap with their nonprofit missions.
“The Nature Conservancy, for example, recently came under fire from some supporters who worried that donations from BP were undermining the group’s response to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The nonprofit group had to spend time trying to allay such concerns, pointing to policies and procedures that they said prevented any undue influence.
“The investigation also challenges the notion, protected by law, that charities have discretion over how much to reveal to the public about their donors.”
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Government Debt & Nonprofits
As governments struggle with debt they have legislated themselves into, the ability of nonprofits to count on government funding is being severely reduced, and that is a good thing.
The animating ethic of nonprofit work are the free gifts from philanthropists to perform valuable service for the public.
The coercive aspects of tax money funding such work has created a morass of nonprofits largely replicating the stifling atmosphere of bureaucracies where providing and accessing services to individuals is very burdensome.
As reported in Governing, this is a financial situation likely to get much worse, but it doesn’t have to.
An excerpt.
“States, cities and many nations around the globe are facing an existential threat in the form of a massive fiscal imbalance between expected revenues and promised expenditures. They are bracing before previously unseen levels of debt and deficits, many in fact may be on the verge of bankruptcy.
“Some are already feeling the effects of the wave of debt. The most notable example is Greece, but Spain, Italy, Ireland and Portugal are all dealing with serious fiscal distress, while countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States are looking at sobering forecasts.
“States such as California, New Jersey and New York are currently staving off insolvency thanks to federal largesse in the form of the stimulus package -- and even with $30 billion in such "bailout" funds from Washington, D.C., California was issuing IOUs in lieu of payment during the summer of 2009 and faced a $20 billion gap at the start of 2010.
“Local governments from Vallejo, Calif., (which declared bankruptcy in 2008) to Detroit are looking at a death spiral of tax hikes and population flight.
“The underlying threat is something we call "the Gap." The Gap is a twofold problem, consisting of a fiscal gap between revenue and expenditures and a performance gap between the way government currently operates and the realities of the new economy.
“The fiscal gap has both a cyclical and a structural component. Its cyclical guise emerges when the economic cycle dips, causing public spending to outstrip revenues in the short to medium term. This is happening all over the world as it happened in previous recessions, and it will happen in future ones. The prevailing wisdom of 20th century economics was that these cyclical downturns were acceptable because the ups and downs of the economic cycle balance public finances.
“Given the fiscal outlook as we enter the 21st century, however, this is no longer valid. The structural nature of the current Gap, while exacerbated by the cyclical downturn, is more fundamental. That is, even if there is an economic upturn, a sizable Gap will persist. Democratic societies have over-committed their current and future resources. Steadily rising costs for social security, old-age pensions and health-care benefits, together with significant demographic shifts, mean that incremental changes will prove insufficient. Permanently dealing with The Gap requires fundamentally different thinking and actions.
“At first glance, closing the Gap appears to be an economic problem, a financial puzzle that can be solved by selecting the right set of policy choices. It is not. Rather, it is a challenge of the entire democratic governance model. Politicians, voters, political action groups, public employee unions and a whole slew of competing interests make the political reality of navigating the path to sustainability particularly daunting.”
The animating ethic of nonprofit work are the free gifts from philanthropists to perform valuable service for the public.
The coercive aspects of tax money funding such work has created a morass of nonprofits largely replicating the stifling atmosphere of bureaucracies where providing and accessing services to individuals is very burdensome.
As reported in Governing, this is a financial situation likely to get much worse, but it doesn’t have to.
An excerpt.
“States, cities and many nations around the globe are facing an existential threat in the form of a massive fiscal imbalance between expected revenues and promised expenditures. They are bracing before previously unseen levels of debt and deficits, many in fact may be on the verge of bankruptcy.
“Some are already feeling the effects of the wave of debt. The most notable example is Greece, but Spain, Italy, Ireland and Portugal are all dealing with serious fiscal distress, while countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States are looking at sobering forecasts.
“States such as California, New Jersey and New York are currently staving off insolvency thanks to federal largesse in the form of the stimulus package -- and even with $30 billion in such "bailout" funds from Washington, D.C., California was issuing IOUs in lieu of payment during the summer of 2009 and faced a $20 billion gap at the start of 2010.
“Local governments from Vallejo, Calif., (which declared bankruptcy in 2008) to Detroit are looking at a death spiral of tax hikes and population flight.
“The underlying threat is something we call "the Gap." The Gap is a twofold problem, consisting of a fiscal gap between revenue and expenditures and a performance gap between the way government currently operates and the realities of the new economy.
“The fiscal gap has both a cyclical and a structural component. Its cyclical guise emerges when the economic cycle dips, causing public spending to outstrip revenues in the short to medium term. This is happening all over the world as it happened in previous recessions, and it will happen in future ones. The prevailing wisdom of 20th century economics was that these cyclical downturns were acceptable because the ups and downs of the economic cycle balance public finances.
“Given the fiscal outlook as we enter the 21st century, however, this is no longer valid. The structural nature of the current Gap, while exacerbated by the cyclical downturn, is more fundamental. That is, even if there is an economic upturn, a sizable Gap will persist. Democratic societies have over-committed their current and future resources. Steadily rising costs for social security, old-age pensions and health-care benefits, together with significant demographic shifts, mean that incremental changes will prove insufficient. Permanently dealing with The Gap requires fundamentally different thinking and actions.
“At first glance, closing the Gap appears to be an economic problem, a financial puzzle that can be solved by selecting the right set of policy choices. It is not. Rather, it is a challenge of the entire democratic governance model. Politicians, voters, political action groups, public employee unions and a whole slew of competing interests make the political reality of navigating the path to sustainability particularly daunting.”
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Nonprofits & Transformation
Transformation, whether of individuals or communities, is often the animating drive of nonprofit formation, and when it is combined with individual talent, ample resources—which can be passion and persistence as much as money—the transformation desired can occur, and this article from Governing is about transformation from the ground up.
An excerpt.
“Government reformers often seem to believe that transformation is a matter of simply showing officials a better, proven way to "do government" better, faster and cheaper. As though all we need to do is spread the good word, provide technical assistance and then watch in delight as governments transform themselves across the country.
“Transformation doesn't work that way.
“Increasing the "supply" of government transformation is not enough. The Center for Creative Leadership posits that transformation happens when the combination of demand, vision, knowledge and belief exceed resistance. Reformers have worked hard on creating and sharing the vision, knowledge and examples of transformed government. Unfortunately, we have yet to significantly increase the demand side of the equation among the general public or the public workforce.
“Without a strong "demand," transformation will continue to muddle forward haltingly at best. Even with today's revenue crunch and drastic cuts screaming that we cannot incrementally improve our way forward, we continue to resist big change. Such is the power of the bureaucratic paradigm. Too often, demand for change is low and resistance wins.
“Most observers also realize that simply railing at government and "starving the beast" does not produce better government, just less government, sometimes. A better option exists. Instead of painfully cutting money and people out of the way we do things now, transformation presents a better path -- though certainly not an easy one -- to closing budget gaps without raising taxes.
“So what does constructive "demand" for transformed government look like? A couple of examples come to mind.
“In Virginia, the business community became frustrated with state government's short-term thinking, exacerbated by governors limited to one term. Led by John "Dubby" Wynne, the Virginia Business Council approached the governor at that time, Mark Warner, and basically said that political campaign contributions would cease unless state government became more strategic and performance oriented.
“Warner responded and subsequent governors have built on that progress. The Council on Virginia's Future, Virginia Performs and the rest of the state's performance system are now award-winning national models. The business community still solidly backs these efforts, regularly seeking commitments from gubernatorial candidates to maintain a strategic and performance focus for the state.
“In Dallas, former CEO Don Williams illustrates how one person can create "demand." On stepping down from full-time leadership at Trammel Crow, a major real estate firm, Don launched himself into making Dallas a better place, particularly for those in South Dallas areas blighted by the legacies of segregation, poverty and neglect.
“He created the Foundation for Community Empowerment to be "a change agent to marshall people, data, ideas and resources to lift up South Dallas and make Dallas a whole city." Don's civic engagement and leadership have led to:
• Dallas Achieves, a strategy to improve challenged urban schools;
• Frazier Redevelopment Initiative, a community redevelopment arm for Dallas’s "Lower Ninth Ward;" and
• The J. MacDonald Williams Institute, gathering, analyzing and sharing data to "prove up" anecdotal claims of poor residents to guide and support improvements in housing, health, civic culture, economic development and political engagement.”
An excerpt.
“Government reformers often seem to believe that transformation is a matter of simply showing officials a better, proven way to "do government" better, faster and cheaper. As though all we need to do is spread the good word, provide technical assistance and then watch in delight as governments transform themselves across the country.
“Transformation doesn't work that way.
“Increasing the "supply" of government transformation is not enough. The Center for Creative Leadership posits that transformation happens when the combination of demand, vision, knowledge and belief exceed resistance. Reformers have worked hard on creating and sharing the vision, knowledge and examples of transformed government. Unfortunately, we have yet to significantly increase the demand side of the equation among the general public or the public workforce.
“Without a strong "demand," transformation will continue to muddle forward haltingly at best. Even with today's revenue crunch and drastic cuts screaming that we cannot incrementally improve our way forward, we continue to resist big change. Such is the power of the bureaucratic paradigm. Too often, demand for change is low and resistance wins.
“Most observers also realize that simply railing at government and "starving the beast" does not produce better government, just less government, sometimes. A better option exists. Instead of painfully cutting money and people out of the way we do things now, transformation presents a better path -- though certainly not an easy one -- to closing budget gaps without raising taxes.
“So what does constructive "demand" for transformed government look like? A couple of examples come to mind.
“In Virginia, the business community became frustrated with state government's short-term thinking, exacerbated by governors limited to one term. Led by John "Dubby" Wynne, the Virginia Business Council approached the governor at that time, Mark Warner, and basically said that political campaign contributions would cease unless state government became more strategic and performance oriented.
“Warner responded and subsequent governors have built on that progress. The Council on Virginia's Future, Virginia Performs and the rest of the state's performance system are now award-winning national models. The business community still solidly backs these efforts, regularly seeking commitments from gubernatorial candidates to maintain a strategic and performance focus for the state.
“In Dallas, former CEO Don Williams illustrates how one person can create "demand." On stepping down from full-time leadership at Trammel Crow, a major real estate firm, Don launched himself into making Dallas a better place, particularly for those in South Dallas areas blighted by the legacies of segregation, poverty and neglect.
“He created the Foundation for Community Empowerment to be "a change agent to marshall people, data, ideas and resources to lift up South Dallas and make Dallas a whole city." Don's civic engagement and leadership have led to:
• Dallas Achieves, a strategy to improve challenged urban schools;
• Frazier Redevelopment Initiative, a community redevelopment arm for Dallas’s "Lower Ninth Ward;" and
• The J. MacDonald Williams Institute, gathering, analyzing and sharing data to "prove up" anecdotal claims of poor residents to guide and support improvements in housing, health, civic culture, economic development and political engagement.”
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Nonprofit Concentration Often Hurts Downtowns
The community discussion revealed in this story from the Maui News—while reflecting the situation in the Hawaiian town—also resonates with a Sacramento situation.
In Sacramento, it is accepted fact—by local business and residential communities—that the concentration of homeless and other social service nonprofits in the Richards Blvd/12th Street/North Sacramento vicinity has severely degraded the quality of life for businesses and residents in and around the area.
This negative impact extends to downtown where panhandling, loitering, and related crime have added to the long-term difficulty of renewing the lower K Street area.
Helping the less fortunate or those who have fallen on hard times is an important aspect of community and individual compassion and charity; but it is not something that should be at the expense of the public safety or economic viability of the larger community.
Helping another should not harm someone else.
An excerpt from the Maui News.
“WAILUKU - Even as the makeover of Wailuku town continues in a decades-long redevelopment project, some merchants and residents expressed concern Friday that a concentration of social services in the area could attract homelessness and crime.
“Wailuku either already is or will soon become home to a halfway house, housing for the developmentally disabled, a residential mental health care center, a free clinic, a battered women's shelter and a soup kitchen, said resident and commercial broker Susan Halas.
"I'm not advocating kicking any nonprofit out, not at all, but maybe we should consider that we are at a tipping point," Halas said when reached by phone Friday. "At some point, if you only have people there because they are receiving assistance, if nonprofits occupy a large percentage of your available space, then it becomes difficult for for-profits to come in."
“But Wailuku businessman Richard Dan said Market Street was in no way a new hotbed of crime.
“Dan agreed there is a problem with "annoying" drunks at the privately owned banyan tree park at the corner of Market and Vineyard streets but said that overall the complaints are overblown.
"They are trying to say there are junkies nodding off in the alleys, and that's not the truth," Dan said.
“The Maui Redevelopment Agency has adopted a plan for the 60-acre area calling for mixed use, such as buildings that combine residential, business, office and retail functions. But Executive Director of Wailuku Main Street Association, Jocelyn Perreira said the group still has a way to go toward its goal.
“Some residents and merchants blame the MRA - a recommending agency for redevelopment in Wailuku - for the influx of nonprofits to the area. Others say it's still too early to pass judgment on the effects of a master plan developed years ago.”
In Sacramento, it is accepted fact—by local business and residential communities—that the concentration of homeless and other social service nonprofits in the Richards Blvd/12th Street/North Sacramento vicinity has severely degraded the quality of life for businesses and residents in and around the area.
This negative impact extends to downtown where panhandling, loitering, and related crime have added to the long-term difficulty of renewing the lower K Street area.
Helping the less fortunate or those who have fallen on hard times is an important aspect of community and individual compassion and charity; but it is not something that should be at the expense of the public safety or economic viability of the larger community.
Helping another should not harm someone else.
An excerpt from the Maui News.
“WAILUKU - Even as the makeover of Wailuku town continues in a decades-long redevelopment project, some merchants and residents expressed concern Friday that a concentration of social services in the area could attract homelessness and crime.
“Wailuku either already is or will soon become home to a halfway house, housing for the developmentally disabled, a residential mental health care center, a free clinic, a battered women's shelter and a soup kitchen, said resident and commercial broker Susan Halas.
"I'm not advocating kicking any nonprofit out, not at all, but maybe we should consider that we are at a tipping point," Halas said when reached by phone Friday. "At some point, if you only have people there because they are receiving assistance, if nonprofits occupy a large percentage of your available space, then it becomes difficult for for-profits to come in."
“But Wailuku businessman Richard Dan said Market Street was in no way a new hotbed of crime.
“Dan agreed there is a problem with "annoying" drunks at the privately owned banyan tree park at the corner of Market and Vineyard streets but said that overall the complaints are overblown.
"They are trying to say there are junkies nodding off in the alleys, and that's not the truth," Dan said.
“The Maui Redevelopment Agency has adopted a plan for the 60-acre area calling for mixed use, such as buildings that combine residential, business, office and retail functions. But Executive Director of Wailuku Main Street Association, Jocelyn Perreira said the group still has a way to go toward its goal.
“Some residents and merchants blame the MRA - a recommending agency for redevelopment in Wailuku - for the influx of nonprofits to the area. Others say it's still too early to pass judgment on the effects of a master plan developed years ago.”
Thursday, April 29, 2010
L.A. Arts Turmoil
Shrinking public budgets create tension—and often chaos—in the nonprofit sector as the traditional stability of government funding for nonprofits disappears, and political favorites find a more welcoming audience; all of which may or may not be good for the nonprofit and arts community, as reported in this story from the Los Angeles Times.
An excerpt.
“L.A. arts advocates are girding for two more battles at City Hall.
“One is fighting Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's plan to take away $415,000 in arts grants from groups that qualified under the standard competitive application process, in favor of four that he chose.
“The other is preserving rent-free use of city buildings by nonprofit organizations, including leases on 245,000 square feet devoted to the arts. The city council's budget and finance committee voted last week to require nonprofits to pay at least half the market rate in rent, plus utilities and maintenance — potentially costing arts tenants several hundred thousand dollars a year.
“The controversies spring from the city's most tumultuous budget season in memory — a season in which L.A.'s arts community already has had to defend its turf repeatedly. In February, arts advocates filled the city council's hearing room and e-mail in-boxes, successfully fighting off a plan to eliminate the Department of Cultural Affairs' main revenue source, a guaranteed share of hotel taxes. In March, the issue was funding for neighborhood arts centers.
“Now comes Villaraigosa's plan to divert money to his four handpicked programs — part of a budget proposal that calls for a 24.8% reduction in arts spending. It has some wondering whether being well-connected at City Hall could become key to getting a city arts grant. And a the plan to end free use of city facilities by nonprofits — including at least 19 arts groups — has raised concerns that the added cost could put some out of business.
“In light of these continuing struggles, which she calls the "five firestorms," Danielle Brazell, head of the Arts for L.A. advocacy group, wonders whether elected leaders have lost sight of the social and economic benefits that underlie having a municipal arts policy.
"Are city leaders looking five feet in front of them, or are they looking to the horizon? Are we trying to build a greater Los Angeles, or are we trying to get through the day? Based on the behavior I'm seeing, it's the latter," Brazell said Monday. She wonders why, out of nearly $7 billion in city spending, arts items pegged at $10.9 million in the mayor's budget proposal — down from $14.5 million — are coming in for such scrutiny. "It doesn't make sense to me."
“The plan to tighten the city's policy on the 900,000 square feet it leases to nonprofit groups has been in the works for several years and is not driven by the budget crisis, said councilman Bernard Parks, chair of the budget and finance committee. The point, he says, is to make sure such leases go only to groups that are effective and on sound financial footing. They could receive a 50% discount from fair-market rents, but only if council members agreed to cover the cost of rent breaks out of their district's discretionary spending account.”
An excerpt.
“L.A. arts advocates are girding for two more battles at City Hall.
“One is fighting Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's plan to take away $415,000 in arts grants from groups that qualified under the standard competitive application process, in favor of four that he chose.
“The other is preserving rent-free use of city buildings by nonprofit organizations, including leases on 245,000 square feet devoted to the arts. The city council's budget and finance committee voted last week to require nonprofits to pay at least half the market rate in rent, plus utilities and maintenance — potentially costing arts tenants several hundred thousand dollars a year.
“The controversies spring from the city's most tumultuous budget season in memory — a season in which L.A.'s arts community already has had to defend its turf repeatedly. In February, arts advocates filled the city council's hearing room and e-mail in-boxes, successfully fighting off a plan to eliminate the Department of Cultural Affairs' main revenue source, a guaranteed share of hotel taxes. In March, the issue was funding for neighborhood arts centers.
“Now comes Villaraigosa's plan to divert money to his four handpicked programs — part of a budget proposal that calls for a 24.8% reduction in arts spending. It has some wondering whether being well-connected at City Hall could become key to getting a city arts grant. And a the plan to end free use of city facilities by nonprofits — including at least 19 arts groups — has raised concerns that the added cost could put some out of business.
“In light of these continuing struggles, which she calls the "five firestorms," Danielle Brazell, head of the Arts for L.A. advocacy group, wonders whether elected leaders have lost sight of the social and economic benefits that underlie having a municipal arts policy.
"Are city leaders looking five feet in front of them, or are they looking to the horizon? Are we trying to build a greater Los Angeles, or are we trying to get through the day? Based on the behavior I'm seeing, it's the latter," Brazell said Monday. She wonders why, out of nearly $7 billion in city spending, arts items pegged at $10.9 million in the mayor's budget proposal — down from $14.5 million — are coming in for such scrutiny. "It doesn't make sense to me."
“The plan to tighten the city's policy on the 900,000 square feet it leases to nonprofit groups has been in the works for several years and is not driven by the budget crisis, said councilman Bernard Parks, chair of the budget and finance committee. The point, he says, is to make sure such leases go only to groups that are effective and on sound financial footing. They could receive a 50% discount from fair-market rents, but only if council members agreed to cover the cost of rent breaks out of their district's discretionary spending account.”
Monday, April 26, 2010
Taxing Nonprofits Update
Even small towns are considering joining this effort to tax nonprofits, as this story from the Martha's Vineyard Gazette notes.
An excerpt.
“Mimi Davisson, chairman of the finance committee, said she too heard the grumbling, but she defended the work of her board. “We presented voters with a balanced budget, let’s not forget that. And that was the result of a lot of hard work, deep thought and public input,” Ms. Davisson said.
“She too was not surprised when voters rejected most of the override questions. “All you had to do was sit there for the first 30 minutes of town meeting to get an idea of the mood people were in. We knew it was possible the overrides could fail, so we took the attitude of: if they pass, that’s fine. If they fail, we will do without,” she said, adding:
“As a finance committee that’s the best you can do — give people options.”
“Looking ahead, Ms. Davisson said she would like to see the town explore a payment in lieu of taxes program for large nonprofit institutions located in town such as the Martha’s Vineyard Hospital. She also said the town should look seriously into joining with other towns to regionalize services and departments.”
An excerpt.
“Mimi Davisson, chairman of the finance committee, said she too heard the grumbling, but she defended the work of her board. “We presented voters with a balanced budget, let’s not forget that. And that was the result of a lot of hard work, deep thought and public input,” Ms. Davisson said.
“She too was not surprised when voters rejected most of the override questions. “All you had to do was sit there for the first 30 minutes of town meeting to get an idea of the mood people were in. We knew it was possible the overrides could fail, so we took the attitude of: if they pass, that’s fine. If they fail, we will do without,” she said, adding:
“As a finance committee that’s the best you can do — give people options.”
“Looking ahead, Ms. Davisson said she would like to see the town explore a payment in lieu of taxes program for large nonprofit institutions located in town such as the Martha’s Vineyard Hospital. She also said the town should look seriously into joining with other towns to regionalize services and departments.”
Friday, March 26, 2010
Nonprofits & Property Tax Exemption
In what may be an emerging trend, the city of Baltimore is considering removing some of the tax exemption of nonprofits, as the Baltimore Sun reports.
An excerpt.
“Citing numerous examples of waste and mismanagement, a citizens group appointed to analyze city services recommended that Baltimore study privatizing trash collection, create a program to quickly dispose of vacant houses and consider extracting property taxes from nonprofits such as hospitals and schools.
“The 150-member transition committee, selected by Mayor Stephanie C. Rawlings-Blake to advise her as she took the reins of city government, blasts the Department of Housing and Community Development in particular, saying it "appears to lack a clear and coherent vision for revitalizing ... neighborhoods."
“Additionally, it criticizes the department's management of the Head Start program and charges that the department sits on funding for development projects, creating "significant delays."
“The committee also levied harsh words at the Department of Recreation and Parks, condemning it as "crippled and without direction," and deploring a "lack of transparency" in the agency's capital budget.
“The members of the transition team, appointed shortly before Rawlings-Blake took office Feb. 4, spent weeks meeting with agency heads and employees to draft their recommendations.
“Their analysis exposes numerous examples of redundancy, including one city-owned building shared by four government-sponsored programs, each of which uses a different cleaning service.
“The report comes as Rawlings-Blake prepares to present a dire preliminary budget Wednesday that includes profound cuts to city services to make up for a $121 million deficit.
"It's a critical time for me to have independent advice from community and business leaders," Rawlings-Blake said.
“The mayor's budget includes several of the transition team's recommendations, according to those who have been briefed on it.
“The report suggests numerous ways for the city to raise revenue, including a tax on bottles and other containers, raising hotel taxes and levying property taxes on nonprofits.”
An excerpt.
“Citing numerous examples of waste and mismanagement, a citizens group appointed to analyze city services recommended that Baltimore study privatizing trash collection, create a program to quickly dispose of vacant houses and consider extracting property taxes from nonprofits such as hospitals and schools.
“The 150-member transition committee, selected by Mayor Stephanie C. Rawlings-Blake to advise her as she took the reins of city government, blasts the Department of Housing and Community Development in particular, saying it "appears to lack a clear and coherent vision for revitalizing ... neighborhoods."
“Additionally, it criticizes the department's management of the Head Start program and charges that the department sits on funding for development projects, creating "significant delays."
“The committee also levied harsh words at the Department of Recreation and Parks, condemning it as "crippled and without direction," and deploring a "lack of transparency" in the agency's capital budget.
“The members of the transition team, appointed shortly before Rawlings-Blake took office Feb. 4, spent weeks meeting with agency heads and employees to draft their recommendations.
“Their analysis exposes numerous examples of redundancy, including one city-owned building shared by four government-sponsored programs, each of which uses a different cleaning service.
“The report comes as Rawlings-Blake prepares to present a dire preliminary budget Wednesday that includes profound cuts to city services to make up for a $121 million deficit.
"It's a critical time for me to have independent advice from community and business leaders," Rawlings-Blake said.
“The mayor's budget includes several of the transition team's recommendations, according to those who have been briefed on it.
“The report suggests numerous ways for the city to raise revenue, including a tax on bottles and other containers, raising hotel taxes and levying property taxes on nonprofits.”
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Tax Property of Nonprofits?
In this story from the Albany New York Times Union, the idea is being proposed as legislation, and it is an idea with long history, cutting to the heart of the nonprofit ideal, that work for the public good by non-governmental organizations, should be tax exempt as a way the public—in addition to donations—supports their work.
An excerpt.
“ALBANY -- A plan that would require nonprofit organizations -- from private colleges to public authorities -- to pay property taxes is being put together by a high-ranking lawmaker as Democrats who dominate the Senate develop a budget that will come with some real estate tax relief.
"It's our No.1 priority," said one senator headed for a private budget conference of Senate Democrats Tuesday.
“Three Senate officials said a budget resolution to be released soon would likely include at least parts of a circuit-breaker bill introduced by Sen. Jeff Klein, D-Bronx, and quite possibely the whole package. The component of Klein's bill most likely to be part of the plan calls for a $290 million STAR program for low-income senior citizens. The circuit breaker Klein envisions would give property taxpayers a credit or rebate based on their income level.
“While Klein's proposal would cost money -- Senate officials estimate $1.2 billion -- Senate Majority Leader Pedro Espada, D-Bronx, said he is researching a revenue-raising proposal. It would require nonprofits to pay into the real estate tax base so that tax relief would be spread through a community. He said he wants to include public authorities owned by the state in the group of currently tax-exempt entities that would have to share the real estate tax burden.
"Have nonprofits contribute at a time of national sacrifice," Espada said. "It's not such a bad idea." A person familiar with his plan said he is expected to introduce a bill next week. It is projected to raise hundreds of millions of dollars.
“The Espada plan would likely require nonprofit property owners, including private colleges, to pay taxes. He is proposing some exemptions, such as for small nonprofits. It is unclear whether his bill would cover the nonprofit health services network he runs in the Bronx.”
An excerpt.
“ALBANY -- A plan that would require nonprofit organizations -- from private colleges to public authorities -- to pay property taxes is being put together by a high-ranking lawmaker as Democrats who dominate the Senate develop a budget that will come with some real estate tax relief.
"It's our No.1 priority," said one senator headed for a private budget conference of Senate Democrats Tuesday.
“Three Senate officials said a budget resolution to be released soon would likely include at least parts of a circuit-breaker bill introduced by Sen. Jeff Klein, D-Bronx, and quite possibely the whole package. The component of Klein's bill most likely to be part of the plan calls for a $290 million STAR program for low-income senior citizens. The circuit breaker Klein envisions would give property taxpayers a credit or rebate based on their income level.
“While Klein's proposal would cost money -- Senate officials estimate $1.2 billion -- Senate Majority Leader Pedro Espada, D-Bronx, said he is researching a revenue-raising proposal. It would require nonprofits to pay into the real estate tax base so that tax relief would be spread through a community. He said he wants to include public authorities owned by the state in the group of currently tax-exempt entities that would have to share the real estate tax burden.
"Have nonprofits contribute at a time of national sacrifice," Espada said. "It's not such a bad idea." A person familiar with his plan said he is expected to introduce a bill next week. It is projected to raise hundreds of millions of dollars.
“The Espada plan would likely require nonprofit property owners, including private colleges, to pay taxes. He is proposing some exemptions, such as for small nonprofits. It is unclear whether his bill would cover the nonprofit health services network he runs in the Bronx.”
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Nonprofits and Politics
The ability of nonprofits to advocate politically is being examined, as reported by The National Journal, as a result of the recent Supreme Court decision that corporations are persons—long enshrined in law—and they have freedom of speech and cannot be restricted in their political donations and advocacy.
An excerpt.
“In the wake of the Supreme Court's recent ruling to deregulate corporate political spending, public attention has focused squarely on whether businesses and for-profit companies will now lavish big money on elections.
“But Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission may have as much or more impact on another type of incorporated organization -- nonprofits of all stripes. These include 501(c)4 advocacy groups, 501(c)5 labor unions, 501(c)6 trade associations and even 501(c)3 charities, which face both fresh opportunities and dangers in the wake of Citizens United.
“Associations and advocacy groups can be expected to ramp up their political activities, election lawyers say. At the same time, the ruling -- by equating corporate and individual First Amendment rights -- could trigger sweeping changes in IRS law as it applies to political activity, some tax experts say. All this could thrust 501(c)3 charities, which are now barred from engaging in partisan political activities, into an uncomfortable spot.
"Potentially, it's going to profoundly change nonprofit tax law," said Frances R. Hill, a professor at the University of Miami School of Law. Questions raised by the ruling include: Is the ban on partisan political activity for 501(c)3 charities now vulnerable to constitutional challenge? What about the ban on charities making political contributions? It's only a matter of time before these questions land before the high court, Hill argued.
"Their general constitutional principle is that corporations are persons, and we can't distinguish among them," Hill said of the Supreme Court. "So I would regard it as a sweeping case that has the potential for changing the entire landscape for exemption in the area of political involvement."
An excerpt.
“In the wake of the Supreme Court's recent ruling to deregulate corporate political spending, public attention has focused squarely on whether businesses and for-profit companies will now lavish big money on elections.
“But Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission may have as much or more impact on another type of incorporated organization -- nonprofits of all stripes. These include 501(c)4 advocacy groups, 501(c)5 labor unions, 501(c)6 trade associations and even 501(c)3 charities, which face both fresh opportunities and dangers in the wake of Citizens United.
“Associations and advocacy groups can be expected to ramp up their political activities, election lawyers say. At the same time, the ruling -- by equating corporate and individual First Amendment rights -- could trigger sweeping changes in IRS law as it applies to political activity, some tax experts say. All this could thrust 501(c)3 charities, which are now barred from engaging in partisan political activities, into an uncomfortable spot.
"Potentially, it's going to profoundly change nonprofit tax law," said Frances R. Hill, a professor at the University of Miami School of Law. Questions raised by the ruling include: Is the ban on partisan political activity for 501(c)3 charities now vulnerable to constitutional challenge? What about the ban on charities making political contributions? It's only a matter of time before these questions land before the high court, Hill argued.
"Their general constitutional principle is that corporations are persons, and we can't distinguish among them," Hill said of the Supreme Court. "So I would regard it as a sweeping case that has the potential for changing the entire landscape for exemption in the area of political involvement."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
