tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-80213562024-03-08T01:10:15.636-05:00Philanthropicaphilanthropia sine stercore tauriMadmunkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699616876753174404noreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8021356.post-18657324001508902472008-12-22T16:00:00.000-05:002008-12-22T16:06:11.999-05:00Money Well Spent?I have greatly enjoyed Paul Brest and Hal Harvey's <em>Money Well Spent: A Strategic Plan for Smart Philanthropy</em>. And I'm digging this whole multimedia approach. There's the book itself. There are the supplemental materials on the site <a href="http://www.smartphilanthropy.org/index.html">smartphilanthropy.org</a>, and even a <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-brest">blog</a>. It's a great way to get a conversation going. I hope I can add some value.<br /><br />On the plus side, <span style="font-style:italic;">Money Well Spent</span> is written for a popular audience, which is fantastic. <em>Money Well Spent</em> could definitely encourage people to get involved in organized philanthropy and spur those who already are to be more thoughtful about the difference they might make.<br /><br />Ultimately, though, I think it suffers from some of the <a href="http://philanthropica.blogspot.com/2006/10/from-strategic-giving-to-democratic.html">problems</a> in Peter Frumkin's academic <span style="font-style:italic;">Strategic Giving</span>. Philanthropy may be more strategic, but will a more strategic philanthropy be more democratic?<br /><br />I sympathize greatly with the criticisms voiced by <a href="http://www.ncrp.org/blog/2008/11/strategic-philanthropy.html">Aaron Dorfman</a> (strategy turns grantees into contractors), <a href="http://philanthropy.blogspot.com/2008/10/money-well-spent.html">Lucy Bernholz</a> (giving is as much a matter of the heart as the head), and <a href="http://pcr.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=5857">Bill Schambra</a> (forget the strategy - cut a check). <br /><br />In my own response, I'd like to focus on the first part of the book and the last part of the book, which, for my money, are the most fascinating. In the book's preface, introduction, and first few chapters, Brest and Harvey are laying out the case for strategic philanthropy. In a delightful afterword, the authors anticipate some of the criticisms of strategic philanthropy and attempt to address them. Don't get me wrong. There's great stuff in the middle: presumption in favor of general operating support, mission investments, and a terrific section on "tools of the trade." As "tools of the trade" implies, though, the middle largely constitutes common practice for a growing number of grantmaking professionals. If you're interested in why this constitutes philanthropic practice, and to what extent it should be common practice, and that's where my interest is, well, read on.<br /><br />According to strategic philanthropy, donors, in accordance with their values and some sort of empirically valid assessment of the world, act in the philanthropic space - creating funds, investing assets, making grants to charities, etc. - with a view to getting the most value for their efforts. <br /><br />There's nothing immediately wrong with this view of philanthropy. Who, after all, wants to waste time and resources?<br /><br />But, if it's all about aligning your resources for impact, you have to ask: what sort of impact? That's something to which Brest and Harvey, despite working for specific ends in their own philanthropic work as heads of the <a href="http://www.hewlett.org/Default.htm">William and Flora Hewlett Foundation</a> and <a href="http://www.climateworks.org/">ClimateWorks Foundation</a>, respectively, deliberately don't speak. <br /><br />I think there's something wrong in there, so what I'd like to do over the course of a few posts is throw out the makings of what I'll just go ahead and call a communitarian critique of strategic philanthropy. Even if its authors don't in the course of their work, <em>Money Well Spent</em> "brackets" discussion of substantive, constitutive moral views. This bracketing is a serious weakness of the book and of the philanthropy it promotes.<br /><br />We'll start with "strategy." They keep using this word. I don't think it means what they think it means.Madmunkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699616876753174404noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8021356.post-54294104323231254202008-12-19T13:47:00.000-05:002008-12-19T13:48:04.153-05:00A Fellow HumanPhil Cubeta is far too kind to us at <a href="http://www.gifthub.org/2008/11/anger-is-a-gift-saith-the-mad-monk-quoting-aristotle.html">Gift Hub</a>:<blockquote><a href="http://philanthropica.blogspot.com/2006/10/anger-is-gift.html">One of the best posts ever on philanthropy</a>. Two years ago. And then the next day, one more post. Then total silence. I am sure there are lots of reasons, but one of them is that our sector is so polite, it just kills the human voice. At a tony philanthropic gathering in our nation's capitol, in the Cosmos Club, I sat next to a fellow human who smiled conspiratorially at me and acknowledged that he - yes, he himself - was none other than the mad monk. I asked him to resume blogging, but he never has.</blockquote> I remember that post, and, looking back, I consider it a miniature triumph. It's not every day that you manage to say pretty much what you really think. But where did I go from there? I tried to be a blogger. I failed. <br /><br />There are, indeed, lots of reasons for the inexplicable lapses. While it's true that our sector represses and deadens a certain kind of voice, you shouldn't attribute to martyrdom that which can be adequately explained by cowardice and laziness. I lacked a certain courage, a certain discipline, which this requires. All told, it's really that simple.<br /><br />But I take the moniker seriously. This is a sort of scriptorium for me. I have my tasks, and my inability to carry them out is no excuse for their not being completed. Such is vocation.<br /><br />So expect better from <a href="http://philanthropica.blogspot.com">Philanthropica</a>. I'm turning the lights back on.Madmunkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699616876753174404noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8021356.post-20975124778281705272008-12-19T13:45:00.000-05:002008-12-19T13:45:25.366-05:00Ira Contra MachinaWhy stand on a silent platform?Madmunkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699616876753174404noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8021356.post-37337850519510975262006-11-07T12:03:00.000-05:002006-11-07T11:58:28.511-05:00GOTVToday is Election Day. Make your voice heard - whatever your political affiliation.<br /><br />Find your polling place <a href="https://electionimpact.votenet.com/pfawf/pollboothlocator/index.cfm">here</a>. If you've already voted, great. If not, finish reading and make your way to the polls.<br /><br />Report any problems you encounter <a href="http://www.nationalcampaignforfairelections.org/pages/election_protection">here</a> or call 866-OUR-VOTE.<br /><br />When voting, remember that they work for you, and not the other way around. If you're satisfied with your representatives' performance, keep them on. We can always use good people in government. If you're less than happy with your representatives, fire them and get somebody who truly represents you.<br /><br />Tomorrow, recall that the only person who can truly represent you is you. Don't let Election Day be the only day your elected representatives hear from you. Don't let Election Day be the only day they care about you, your family, your friends, and your fellow citizens. Don't let Election Day be the only day you fight for your loved ones, your values, and your dreams.<br /><br />Vote - because today is a reminder of who's really in charge here. Remember that this morning, remind them of it at the polls, and don't forget it tomorrow.Madmunkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699616876753174404noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8021356.post-39314592461040072282006-11-06T14:09:00.000-05:002006-11-06T14:03:09.883-05:00Anger is a GiftA certain Aristotle quote is trotted out with a bit of frequency, and I have a bit of a problem with it. Here it is on the <a href="http://rockpa.org/about_rpa/why-an-advisor/">Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors</a> site:<br /><blockquote>To give money is an easy matter in any man’s power. But to decide to whom to give it, and how large and when, and for what purpose and how, is neither in every man’s power nor an easy matter. Hence, it is that such excellence is rare, praiseworthy, and noble.</blockquote><br />But this quote often leaves something out. Phil Cubeta at <a href="http://www.gifthub.org/2006/10/strategic_givin_1.html">Gift Hub</a> wonders where our "voice[s] of poetry, particularly satire, comedy or carnival" are. I suppose that has its place. I want to know: where are our voices of anger? Who are our Jeremiahs? Who's our <a href="http://imdb.com/title/tt0074958/">Howard Beale</a>? Who is taking us to task? Who among you is <em>angry</em>?<br /><br />I ask because Aristotle was talking about more than philanthropy in his discussion of his doctrine of the mean, from which this passage is taken. Here's the full passage from the <em><a href="http://www.constitution.org/ari/ethic_02.htm">Nicomachean Ethics</a></em>:<br /><blockquote>For in everything it is no easy task to find the middle, e.g. to find the middle of a circle is not for every one but for him who knows; so, too, <em>any one can get angry -- that is easy -- </em>or give or spend money; but to do this to the right person, to the right extent, at the right time, with the right motive, and in the right way, that is not for every one, nor is it easy; wherefore goodness is both rare and laudable and noble. (Ross translation, emphasis mine)</blockquote><br />In the same breath that Aristotle is talking about giving away money, he's also talking about getting mad. Like giving away money, anybody can do it. It comes naturally, but virtue is found in its cultivation.<br /><br />Which is particularly significant. We operate in a sector that aims to deal with some of the world's most devastating and debilitating diseases, the most complex and intractable social problems, and the most unjust and cruel conditions, and yet we speak this forcibly inert, consummately professional language of <em>strategy</em> as if these things are so many billiard balls to be bounced off of one another just so. Where is the outrage?<br /><br />Aristotle <a href="http://www.constitution.org/ari/ethic_02.htm">declares</a>:<br /><blockquote>Righteous indignation is a mean between envy and spite, and these states are concerned with the pain and pleasure that are felt at the fortunes of our neighbours; the man who is characterized by righteous indignation is pained at undeserved good fortune, the envious man, going beyond him, is pained at all good fortune, and the spiteful man falls so far short of being pained that he even rejoices.</blockquote><br />Shorter version: if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention. If you witness someone suffer undeservedly, that ought to madden. If you see someone profit through malice or fraud, that ought to infuriate. When you see cruelty, when you see pain, when you see injustice, and you know it would sacrifice nothing of moral consequence to end that cruelty, to soothe that pain, or right that wrong, and yet it persists, something has to explode inside you if you've got anything resembling a soul. As Paul Ylvisaker wrote in his essay "The Spirit of Philanthropy and the Soul of Those Who Manage It":<br /><blockquote>Don't ever lose your sense of outrage. Bill Bondurant [Executive Director, Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation, 1974-92] can't forget, nor can I after he related it, the wondering comment of an applicant who looked about Bill's comfortable office and lifestyle: "How, Bill, do you keep your sense of outrage?" There has to be in all of us a moral thermostat that flips when we're confronted by suffering, injustice, inequality, or callous behavior.</blockquote><br />Professionalism has its place. Humor and whimsy, I suppose, have their places, too, but so do our passions, so does our anger. And yet we continue to speak this suffocatingly reasonable vocabulary of effectiveness and accountability, this stilted professional jargon of leverage and targets and benchmarks. Do you people ever get angry? <br /><br />Because I could just as easily have lifted Aristotle's words and said the following:<br /><blockquote>To get angry is an easy matter in any man’s power. But to decide at whom to be angry, and how much and when, and for what purpose and how, is neither in every man’s power nor an easy matter. Hence, it is that such outrage is rare, praiseworthy, and noble.</blockquote>Madmunkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699616876753174404noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8021356.post-65299805297261343322006-10-31T13:23:00.000-05:002006-10-31T14:54:50.729-05:00Trick or TreatRamadan just passed, and we're coming up on Thanksgiving, Hanukkah, and Christmas, all holidays that provide occasions for platitudinous discussions of giving, but Halloween and its mass disbursement of sugary wealth doesn't provoke similar discussion. Given the overwhelming sense of gratitude that is supposed to buoy Thanksgiving and the religious underpinnings of the other holidays, it's easy to see why the sector gravitates toward them to wax poetic about what it is that we do here. Amidst all the hustle and bustle of contemporary life, amid the sad commercialism of the holiday season, we are called to pause and remember how fortunate many of us truly are, to think of others who may not be as fortunate, and to give to others without expecting in return.<br /><br />But all that goes out the window at Halloween. And while we'd like to think that Ramadan, Thanksgiving, Hanukkah, and Christmas best exemplify what it is we do around here, Halloween, too, is a metaphor for the philanthropic sector.<br /><br />Consider the plight of the trick-or-treater. What makes for a truly successful trick-or-treater? A male teen (stronger, possible access to personal transportation) without much of a costume (expensive and can impair movement) who targets several wealthy neighborhoods (more and better candy) is easily the better trick-or-treater than the six-year-old waddling around the block in a pumpkin costume with a pair of doting parents. Which nonprofit are you?<br /><br />Consider the plight of the candy distributors. How do you juggle the expectations of the trick-or-treaters showing up now with those of future trick-or-treaters who might show up later that night? Give all the good candy out now or save it until later? Buy the same candy for the entirety of the night? How much do you want left over to enjoy for yourself? Do you give candy to the teens who aren't supposed to be trick-or-treating but are nonetheless out there? Do you decorate? How much? Do you build a haunted house on your porch or a graveyard on your front lawn or do you just carve a pumpkin? Will you dress up? As what? How much will you spend? Do you leave a bowl outside full of candy and, when it's gone, you're done for the night? Do you check out what the neighbors are doing? Do you compete? How well do you measure up? Do you just turn off the porch light and pretend no one's home? What kind of donor are you?<br /><br />Now consider the relationship. The desired mark when trick-or-treaters ring the doorbell is someone who comes to the door, gives you great candy (no Tootsie rolls), and lets you go on your way. The undesirable mark is the elderly gentleman or lady who takes forever to get to the door, has a costume on and tries to scare you, and comments on your costume, before finally insisting on giving you candied apples, which your paranoid parents are just going to make you throw away. The desired trick-or-treater is a young person accompanied by a chaperone to prevent mischief that politely asks for candy out of the depths of a costume that demonstrates their enthusiasm for the holiday and accepts whatever they're given with sincere gratitude. The undesirables are the older kids who ring the doorbell several times, demand good candy, complain if given something other than what they want, and egg your house in retaliation. Naturally, expectations are all over the place. What kind of relationship do you have with your fellow donors or grantees?<br /><br />There's your sector right there. We can decorate over it, dress it up in fancy costumes, and declare a holiday, but there it is, all too human. We stare out the window at the costumed freaks demanding our hard-earned wealth. We ring the doorbell and hope the guy behind it isn't the cheapskate the other guy was. We are eager costumed people running about, looking for bits of sugar to brighten our night. We are weary people doing what we can and looking for a little gratitude in a world of desperation and greed. Pause between Hershey bars tonight and give it a bit of thought.<br /><br />We're going to spend <a href="http://www.thestreet.com/_googlen/funds/toponepercent/10318586.html?cm_ven=GOOGLEN&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA">$4.96 billion</a> this year on Halloween. Will we be better people for it?<br /><br />Foundations gave almost <a href="http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/statistics/pdf/01_found_fin_data/2004/02_04.pdf">$32 billion</a> in 2004. Will we be better people for it?<br /><br />Trick or treat?<br /><br />Give it some thought and have a safe and happy Halloween!Madmunkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699616876753174404noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8021356.post-46834417047235049052006-10-31T10:48:00.000-05:002006-10-31T11:08:30.341-05:00Another Level of GivingUpon careful reading of Maimonides' "<a href="http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=45907">Eight Levels of Charity</a>," Madmunk humbly proposes another level:<br /><blockquote>Perfect charity is done when, by your gifts, the recipient is not only no longer dependent on others but is a giver himself as well, for, if at day's end, he is still the recipient and you are still the giver, his hand is not truly strengthened and, indeed, nothing much has changed.</blockquote>Madmunkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699616876753174404noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8021356.post-83931679320489428772006-10-26T16:44:00.000-04:002006-10-26T16:41:18.316-04:00The Real Difference Between Charity and Philanthropy<em><center>"The most powerful force in the universe is compound interest."<br />Albert Einstein</center></em><br />The adage "give a man a fish, you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime" is, for many, at the heart of the difference between charity and philanthropy. Charity refers to the relief of suffering while philanthropy is the seeking out of the root causes of social problems and solving them. There is much truth to this. After all, that's the distinction Rockefeller and men like him drew when they insisted that they were doing something more, something greater, than their merely charitable peers.<br /><br />Nonetheless, I believe that the true difference between the <em>charity</em> that is practiced by your average schmoe who tosses the Salvation Army a few coins at Christmas, and the <em>philanthropy</em> practiced by a man whose foundation is involved in a number of innovative initiatives aimed at effecting important social change is much simpler: compound interest.<br /><br />While I marvel at American philanthropy's insistence on private solutions to public problems, its Tocquevillean associations, and its incredible can-do Yankee individualism and generosity, I am in still greater awe of its true genius: an entire system dedicated to harnessing the engine that is compound interest for the good of humanity.<br /><br />When the charitable man makes a <em>donation</em>, he digs in his pockets for whatever he's got on him or he conscientiously strokes a check for a sizable sum and hands it off to a grateful beneficiary. Bada-bing-bada-boom. Charity.<br /><br />When your philanthropist, on the other hand, makes a <em>grant</em>, that money's coming from a foundation, or a giving circle, or a donor-advised fund, where that money is invested for social benefit. You can make grants for the next five days, the next ten years, or <em>forever</em>. Bada-bing-bada-BOOM! Philanthropy!<br /><br />While the charitable man's power is exerted and exhausted in the act of giving, the philanthropist's power is conserved even as it's exerted. <br /><br />Give a man a fish, feed him for today. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime. Charity is for today; philanthropy is forever.<br /><br />There's your difference between the philanthropic and the "merely" charitable: compound interest.Madmunkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699616876753174404noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8021356.post-13599119133958035872006-10-24T10:48:00.000-04:002006-10-24T10:52:26.841-04:00A Gentle Reminder of What It Is We Do in This SectorI got a prospectus from a socially responsible investment group and this petite parable was printed on their materials:<br /><br /><em>Thousands of starfish washed ashore. A little girl began throwing them in the water so they wouldn't die.<br /> <br />"Don't bother, dear," her mother said, "it won't make a difference."<br /> <br />The girl stopped for a moment and looked at the starfish in her hand.<br /><br />"It will make a difference to this one."</em>Madmunkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699616876753174404noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8021356.post-55746537369847541002006-10-22T16:16:00.000-04:002006-10-27T15:05:03.443-04:00From Strategic Giving to Democratic GivingPeter Frumkin's great achievement in his new volume, <em><a href="http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/189025.ctl">Strategic Giving: The Art and Science of Philanthropy</a></em>, is to declare what philanthropy is for a significant group of donors and philanthropic professionals: the development and carrying out of a coherent strategy for effecting social change.<br /><br />I was impressed with Frumkin's main argument surrounding a "philanthropic prism," the five components of a philanthropic strategy: the value produced through giving, the vehicle of institution for giving, the time frame guiding giving, the identity and style of the giver, and the logic model supporting the giving. I could certainly imagine a donor sitting down and thinking through these issues and attempting to bring greater alignment and coherence to their philanthropic project.<br /><br />I was also heartened to hear a voice in favor of constructive failure. For Frumkin, an ardent defender of the pluralism the sector represents, failure and mistakes come with the territory. We're dealing with complex social phenomena and attempting to effect social change. It's not a question of whether or not we're going to make some mistakes. That will happen. The question is: will we learn from these experiences? Are we up for the kind of scrutiny that pores over our failures as well as our successes? Do we report on our failures so that we and others might improve? For Frumkin, we can learn just as much from those challenges as we can from successful pilot projects, and I wholeheartedly agree.<br /><br />Most of all, I am keenly interested by Frumkin's claim that the effectiveness and accountability questions obscure what's really at issue in these debates: legitimacy. In some sense, these questions of effectiveness and accountability define current debate, and credit Frumkin for seeing these arguments for what they truly are, questioning the right of private donors, philanthropic institutions, and professionals to act on behalf of the public. Our sector tends to focus on effectiveness and accountability as proxies for the real issue: what ultimately justifies philanthropic action? What legitimizes this sector? <br /><br />According to Frumkin, "the best and only source of real and lasting legitimacy for philanthropy rests in the development of sound strategy." This argument intrigued me, so, at <a href="http://www.hudson.org/files/pdf_upload/Transcript_2006_10_19.pdf">a recent panel discussion </a>on <em>Strategic Giving</em>, I took the opportunity to ask Frumkin about it afterward. Frumkin contended that sound strategy is a necessary but not a sufficient condition of philanthropic legitimacy. Without a strategy, it's unlikely that we'll be effective. Without being able to point to results, we cannot be truly accountable. Without accountability, not mere transparency, we cannot claim legitimacy for our sector.<br /><br />This is where I think Frumkin and many donors miss and will continue to miss an important opportunity. By whom exactly is Frumkin's prism to be used? Where does this discussion of values and vehicles take place? From the look of things, it's for donors - with the possible help of advisors, given Frumkin's skepticism of philanthropic professionals - with the goal of creating a coherent strategy. However, values are not developed in a vacuum, nor do we make grants and conduct the business of philanthropy in isolation. The development of a philanthropic strategy happens in a social context, not least because donors don't do it all themselves. Armchair philanthropy simply doesn't happen.<br /><br />Frumkin doesn't claim that strategy is a sufficient condition for philanthropic legitimacy because it actually does very little in the way of convincing the public that donors have the right to act publicly on their behalf. Is the Gates Foundation's massive charitable wealth justified because Gates has a strategy? Are their grants more legitimate because they've got a logic model? Strategies and logic models certainly help - but only because they're often useful in getting people's consent to continue philanthropic work.<br /><br />I assert that philanthropic action is legitimate if and only if all those involved consent to the action (and, I would argue, in some way participate in it and benefit from it). Truly legitimate philanthropy is democratic philanthropy. To adapt Frumkin: the best and only source of real and lasting legitimacy for philanthropy rests in the development of <em>shared</em> sound strategy.<br /><br />This is where donors and philanthropic professionals alike miss an important opportunity to democratize the philanthropy prism. When a donor wants to accomplish something, their wealth can be used not only to achieve their philanthropic goals but to build a community, to build democracy. Donors should be encouraged to invite others into their philanthropic prism, to experience it and all the challenges and triumphs that come with it. Donors can afford to be strategic, can afford to think about appropriate logic models, time frames, and charitable vehicles. What of those who cannot afford "strategy" but nonetheless stand to lose or gain by the philanthropist's actions? What of them? By inviting them in, by working with them, side by side, for common benefit, donors can give others control of their own destiny, perhaps for the first time. Our goal is not necessarily coherent strategy(although that certainly helps), but cohesive communities.<br /><br />To some extent, this already happens. As I noted, we are not armchair philanthropists. We discuss our views with others, learn, act, and grow among family, friends, colleagues, fellow trustees, fellow philanthropoids, and fellow citizens. We don't do this all by ourselves. I contend, though, that strategic giving ought to be a collective enterprise, deliberately developed of, by, and for the people. It can start with anyone, a new donor, a seasoned program officer, or your average citizen with a little money to give, but it continues with others. <br /><br />Every grant is a new social contract, and I hope that given the choice between creating a strategy and creating a community, donors will opt for creating community by inviting them to participate in their strategic giving. That way, philanthropic legitimacy has a better chance of being assured because philanthropy will not mean one thing to a significant group of donors and philanthropic professionals. It will mean the development and carrying out of a shared strategy for improving our common life in one way or another. It will mean something to everyone.Madmunkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699616876753174404noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8021356.post-10379727527992637512006-10-19T01:01:00.000-04:002006-10-19T16:38:15.523-04:00On Notice<a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger2/1388/979/1600/onnotice%20%282%29.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger2/1388/979/320/onnotice%20%282%29.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a>Madmunkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699616876753174404noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8021356.post-24495032958332638212006-10-18T23:10:00.000-04:002006-10-18T23:11:11.069-04:00Is this thing on?<a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger2/1388/979/1600/rasputin.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger2/1388/979/320/rasputin.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />What do you say you and me try this one more time?<br /><br />My name is Madmunk, and this is <em><a href="http://philanthropica.blogspot.com">Philanthropica</a></em>.Madmunkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699616876753174404noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8021356.post-1126105753294271022005-09-07T11:33:00.000-04:002006-10-15T20:14:09.452-04:00Estate Tax ResourcesThe upcoming vote on the estate tax has been <a href="http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/3082/1/382" target="_blank">postponed</a> as Congress concentrates on the Katrina relief effort. I was unable to attend a <a href="http://philanthropica.blogspot.com/2005/08/save-estate-tax.html" target="_blank">recent blogger conference call</a> on the estate tax, but Becky Lewis at OMB Watch was kind enough to send along these resources discussed at the conference, which I pass along to you with some suggestions of my own:<br /><br /><strong>General Resources</strong><br /><li><a href="http://www.ombwatch.org/budget/EstateTax/ETtalkingpoints.pdf" target="_blank">Americans for a Fair Estate Tax Talking Points</a></li><br /><li><a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=1001871" target="_blank">Estate's Rites</a></li><br /><li><a href="http://www.coalition4americaspriorities.com/pdfs/pollfindings.pdf" target="_blank">Recent Estate Tax Poll Results</a></li><br /><li><a href="http://www.cbpp.org/estatetaxmyths.pdf" target="_blank">The Estate Tax: Myths and Realities</a></li><br /><li><a href="http://www.ombwatch.org/" target="_blank">OMB Watch</a>'s <a href="http://www.ombwatch.org/budgetblog" target="_blank">Budget Blog</a></li><br /><br /><strong>Books</strong><br /><li><a href="http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=Mo5HCIt9r8&isbn=0691122938&itm=1" target="_blank">Death by a Thousand Cuts</a></li><br /><li><a href="http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=Mo5HCIt9r8&isbn=080704718X&itm=3" target="_blank">Wealth and Our Commonwealth: Why America Should Tax Accumulated Fortunes</a></li><br /><br /><strong>Organizations</strong><br /><li><a href="http://www.cbpp.org/" target="_blank">Center on Budget and Policy Priorities</a></li><br /><li><a href="http://www.coalition4americaspriorities.com/" target="_blank">Coalition for America's Priorities</a></li><br /><li><a href="http://www.ombwatch.org" target="_blank">OMB Watch</a></li><br /><li><a href="http://www.faireconomy.org/estatetax/" target="_blank">United for a Fair Economy</a></li><br /><br />If you have any more suggestions, let me know. I'll be updating this post as I find more.Madmunkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699616876753174404noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8021356.post-1120143789686675962005-08-31T00:40:00.000-04:002006-10-15T20:13:24.998-04:00The best argument against the estate tax everTed Frank at <a href="http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/002462.html" target="_blank">Overlawyered</a> (via <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8382695/#050630" target="_blank">Clicked</a>), talking about how much Batman/Bruce Wayne would get sued for his exploits in the movie <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372784/" target="_blank">Batman Begins</a>, contends: <blockquote>Separately, Wayne's escapades would never have been possible in the first place if there had been an estate tax: otherwise, his wealth would've been dissipated by the government by two successive taxations on the Wayne Estate, one when his parents died, the other when Alfred declared him dead and inherited Bruce's assets.</blockquote> When you tax the rich, their sons can't afford the appropriate lairs, vehicles, and gadgetry to effectively dispense vigilante justice. Is that the kind of America you want to live in?<br /><br /><a href="http://philanthropica.blogspot.com/2005/08/save-estate-tax.html">Save the estate tax</a>!Madmunkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699616876753174404noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8021356.post-1125461457971590482005-08-31T00:08:00.000-04:002006-10-15T20:14:07.119-04:00Save the Estate TaxFrom <a href="http://www.ombwatch.org/" target="_blank">OMB Watch</a>: <blockquote>Join our conference call Wednesday at 2:00 EST and learn how you can help stop President Bush and the Republicans in Congress from doing what they do best: acting in the interests of the wealthiest in our society.<br /> <br />The estate tax is the most progressive part of the tax code, and it is under seige. Repealing it will save a handful of wealthy and powerful individuals billions of dollars, while making the rest of us pay more. The effort to repeal the estate tax is one of the most egregious examples of taking from the poor and giving to the rich. <br /> <br />We need your help in order to combat the plethora of cash currently being spent by pro-repealers. Join us to find out how you can help fight back to preserve this important and progressive tax.<br /> <br />Details are below - Please RSVP to <a href="mailto:blewis@ombwatch.org">blewis@ombwatch.org</a> if you plan on joining:<br /> <br /><strong>What</strong>: Blogger Conference Call on Estate Tax <br /><strong>When</strong>: Wednesday, August 31, from 2:00 - 3:00 pm EST<br /><strong>Where</strong>: By Phone (Dial-in at 1.800.820.4690; passcode: 2022348494) <br /><br /><strong>Moderated by</strong>:<br />Adam Hughes, Budget Policy Analyst, <a href="http://www.ombwatch.org/" target="_blank">OMB Watch</a><br /><br /><strong>Policy Experts</strong>:<br />John Irons, Director of Budget and Tax Policy, <a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/" target="_blank">Center for American Progress</a> <br />Joel Friedman, Senior Fellow, <a href="http://www.cbpp.org/" target="_blank">Center on Budget and Policy Priorities</a></blockquote>Madmunkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699616876753174404noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8021356.post-1125326884551912612005-08-30T19:31:00.000-04:002006-10-15T20:14:04.805-04:00CharityFocusJane King at <a href="http://easyphilanthropy.blogspot.com" target="_blank">The Giving Blog</a> <a href="http://easyphilanthropy.blogspot.com/2005/08/charity-focus.html" target="_blank">points people</a> to an organization called <a href="http://my.charityfocus.org/login/" target="_blank">CharityFocus</a>.<br /><br />According to the <a href="http://charityfocus.org/about/index.php?pg=more" target="_blank">website</a>: <blockquote>CharityFocus has no paid staff members. A common downfall of nonprofit organizations is that their pure intentions are often overshadowed by the challenges for survival. What begins as a way to serve others, very easily becomes a self-propagating system that aims to stay alive at all costs. Noticing that trend, CharityFocus took another route -- keep the organization fully volunteer-run. No money to raise, no vested interests, no hidden agendas, no image to uphold. So long as volunteers give, the organization will continue to thrive. </blockquote><br />It's gloriously utopian: <blockquote>CharityFocus has no leaders, no followers; its strength comes from its emptiness and its beauty resides in the hearts of its volunteers.</blockquote><br />Take a look at their <a href="http://charityfocus.org/about/?pg=prog" target="_blank">programs</a>. Amazing. I'd tell you to donate, but I don't think they want your money.Madmunkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699616876753174404noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8021356.post-1125435642676007232005-08-30T17:06:00.000-04:002006-10-15T20:14:05.976-04:00Hurricane KatrinaI haven't said anything about Hurricane Katrina because there's really nothing to say when these things happen.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=18473" target="_blank">FEMA</a> has information on how you can help.<br /><br />As for me, I donated to the <a href="https://www.redcross.org/donate/donation-form.asp" target="_blank">Red Cross</a>.<br /><br />Please do what you can for those in need.<br /><br />Once you've done that, come back and read the rest of this.<br /><br />First, if you're one of my conservative readers who just puts up with my left-leaning ways, and you're a fan of G.W. Bush, scroll to the next paragraph. Nothing to see here. <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2005/08/30/as-katrina-struck-bush-vacationed/" target="_blank">This</a> just burns me. And so does <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2005/08/29/the-superdome-society/" target="_blank">this</a>. And <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2005/08/29/slashed-hurricane/" target="_blank">this</a>. Now you could argue that <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/" target="_blank">Think Progress</a> is exploiting the tragedy for to score political points with these posts. I'd reply that <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0825-24.htm" target="_blank">it takes one</a> <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0306-03.htm" target="_blank">to know one</a>. The fact is, at times like these, we need funds and we need leaders. And I have learned <a href="http://www.nptimes.com/Aug05/sr1_npt50.html" target="_blank">where to begin looking for those things</a> - and <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/" target="_blank">where not to</a>. [UPDATE (5:25 PM): I'll give Bush some credit. <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/08/30/national/w104616D57.DTL" target="_blank">He's cancelling his vacation</a>, which is great. So why do I find myself recalling <a href="http://www.thedailytimes.com/sited/story/html/182750" target="_blank">this</a>?]<br /><br />Foundation boards and staff, please take a moment to review your emergency grantmaking policies. If you don't have one, get one. I know you've got an endowment to manage and program areas that deserve your continuous support, but there's no reason that your foundation can't give a little in the event of some calamity. Many certainly do, and that relief is incredible. The Council has some resources on <a href="http://www.cof.org/Content/General/Display.cfm?contentID=2230" target="_blank">disaster grantmaking</a> created in the wake of 9/11 that can help you with your discussion. Just make disaster relief a part of your foundation's machinery so that when disaster strikes, the funds to rebuild are there.<br /><br />Philanthropists as a group should also prepare for these things. If your program area is scientific research, the more we know about how hurricanes form and behave, the more prepared we can be for them. Also, every region has its natural disasters - earthquakes in California, hurricanes in the southeast, tornadoes in the plains - is there any way that funds can be set up in a given region as a sort of philanthropic insurance in the event of these disasters? Foundations could contribute to a separate regional fund or to a set of donor-advised funds at community foundations in the area so that funds would be available for use in the event of a disaster. I know, I know, it's called <a href="http://www.fema.gov/" target="_blank">FEMA</a>. It's called the <a href="http://www.redcross.org/" target="_blank">Red Cross</a>. But, seriously, do such funds exist? If not, would they be a good idea? Philanthropy as social insurance - it might be worth some thought.<br /><br />Finally, philanthropists ought to be concerned with <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8CA7E681.htm?campaign_id=apn_home_down&chan=db" target="_blank">rising levels of poverty</a> in our country. Natural disasters disproportionately affect the poor. Your important work in matters of social and economic justice matters, especially at times like these.<br /><br />For now, though, don't think. Give.Madmunkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699616876753174404noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8021356.post-1125345138323282072005-08-30T16:00:00.000-04:002006-10-15T20:14:05.548-04:00Telling StoriesWhile I'm in the mood on <a href="http://philanthropica.blogspot.com/2005/08/against-donor-intent.html" target="_blank">donor intent</a>, <em>The Chronicle of Philanthropy</em> has a <a href="http://philanthropy.com/premium/articles/v17/i22/22003501.htm" target="_blank">story</a> on storytelling in family foundations.<br /><br />Now I’ve never heard of anyone who said, "Talking to your kids about your philanthropy is a really bad idea. Talking about your values with your children is just plain despicable. And telling stories! God, that’s just...criminal."<br />Nonetheless, I started reading Darlene Siska's piece with tremendous skepticism. I read the slug, "Foundation leaders spin tales from their families' lives as a way to share values and traditions," and, instantly, I was off --<br /><br />Storytelling? You mean indoctrination. What’s the point of storytelling if it props up the dated views of a backward donor? Storytelling is great in and of itself; it’s just that when people say "storytelling," especially in family foundations, they don’t mean "sharing" stories. They mean older generation gets to tell the younger generation a story, so that the littluns lern they place. When did we start assuming only one generation has a story worth telling? If your stories are going to keep the next generation from telling its own, then sucks to your storytelling. Families might want to ask: why do I want to tell this story? to share my experience? or to duplicate it? to enlighten? or to indoctrinate? Families should be encouraged to tell their stories — as long as they understand that their story isn’t the whole story. As for me, stories? I don't need no stinking stories.<br /><br />Yes, I've been sitting on those issues for a while... I might want talk to somebody about that. But the article seems impervious to my skepticism: most storytelling is simply not that didactic; most story-tellers, simply not that vicious.<br /><br />If anything, storytelling can save us from the philanthropy-speak that too often bogs us down in meaningless buzzwords. <a href="http://www.wcgmf.org/" target="_blank">William Caspar Graustein Memorial Fund</a> trustee William C. Graustein argues later in the article:<blockquote>Story works at a very different level than analytical thinking...We're schooled to think analytically, but story communicates at a level that is much more powerful at building things like trust and imagination.</blockquote> Narrative short-circuits the <a href="http://www.emcf.org/pub/jargon/index.htm" target="_blank">philanthropy-speak</a> we frequently fall back on, breathing new life into our discussions. Just when thought you could get away with dismissing a grantee, with a wave of your "we're looking for a more collaborative, scalable approach" wand, they tell you what the grant would mean for the people they serve. Just when you thought you could dismiss your cousin Percy's latest program idea, he tells you how much Grandpa cared about that sort of thing. Suddenly, the people behind the buzzwords appear. It was easier, you think, when they were just buzzwords, but it makes for better philanthropy.<br /><br />Stories? I think we could use some <a href="http://civicreflection.org/" target="_blank">good stories</a>.Madmunkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699616876753174404noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8021356.post-1125215239488920482005-08-30T11:40:00.000-04:002006-10-15T20:14:03.029-04:00Against donor intent<a href="http://philanthropy.typepad.com/hail_sons_daughters_of_ca/2005/08/its_morning_in_.html" target="_blank">Phil Anthropoid</a>'s reflection on an op-ed in <a href="http://www.forbes.com/finance/free_forbes/2005/0905/042.html" target="_blank"><i>Forbes</i></a> has me thinking about donor intent, and I suppose it's as good a time as any to declare my instinctive hostility toward it.<br /><br />This isn't to say that I don't think the views of those who have gone before us shouldn't factor into our decisions. G. K. Chesterton once wrote, "Tradition is the democracy of the dead," and I believe that - our forebears should get a vote. I also believe, though, what Mordecai Kaplan said, "The past has a vote not a veto." So I guess I'm not against donor intent so much as the privileged status of the donor. The donor's views shouldn't count for any more than ours simply because they're the donor's views.<br /><br />Frequently, the appeal to donor intent is a sham. Say I want my family foundation to venture into a particular program, but my cousin, Percy, prefers things to stay as they are and have been for a long time. Percy might appeal to the values and vision of our venerable grandfather who established the foundation. My dear cousin, however, couldn't care less about Grandpa's values and vision except in this particular case where it serves his purposes. It's me vs. Percy right now, but if my cousin can swing it, it'll be me vs. the grandfather without whose wisdom we wouldn't even be having this argument. Suddenly, I'm arguing uphill. Instead of deciding between the alternatives before us and arguing the case on its merits, we often wrap ourselves in tradition and deliberately confuse the issue. <br /><br />If we had any respect for so-called donor intent, we'd see a great deal fewer people appealing to it. Think about it this way: imagine Percy could actually resurrect my grandfather, bodily with all his opinions, thoughts, hopes, dreams, and fears. Instead of Grandpa-the-argument, which is all donor intent makes him, we'd actually have Grandpa-the-person back. My cousin and I are arguing, and he says, "We'll settle this the old-fashioned way - VOODOO!" <br /><br />You have your board meetings; we have ours, okay? <br /><br />So my grandfather appears. Naturally, my cousin resurrects him thinking that my grandfather will agree with him, but what if he doesn't? <br /><br />"Sorry, but I think Madmunk's right on this one. Grandson, what kind of a name is Madmunk?" <br /><br />Or, more likely, what about the next issue? Maybe, when the discussion moves on, my cousin would very much like my grandfather to go back to being dead. Grandpa was all for Percy on Issue #1, but on Issue #2, he's sided with me.<br /><br />"Sorry, but I think Madmunk's right on this one."<br /><br />"What are you talking about?<br /><br />"I think maybe Madmunk's got a point."<br /><br />"I think maybe you should go."<br /><br />"No, I think I'll stay. Grandson, what kind of a name is Percy?"<br /><br />My cousin doesn't want my grandfather around anymore, but he's opened Grandpa's Box and there's nothing to be done now. In fact, I think he might come around to my point of view after enduring a stern lecture from Grandpa:<br /><br />"Madmunk, why should Grandpa's views count for any more than mine?"<br /><br />And now we're on to something.<br /><br />Thomas Paine wrote in his <a href="http://www.ushistory.org/paine/rights/c1-010.htm" target="_blank"><i>Rights of Man</i></a>: <blockquote>There never did, there never will, and there never can, exist a Parliament, or any description of men, or any generation of men, in any country, possessed of the right or the power of binding and controlling posterity to the 'end of time,' or of commanding for ever how the world shall be governed, or who shall govern it; and therefore all such clauses, acts or declarations by which the makers of them attempt to do what they have neither the right nor the power to do, nor the power to execute, are in themselves null and void. <strong>Every age and generation must be as free to act for itself in all cases as the age and generations which preceded it.</strong> <strong>The vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies.</strong> <strong>Man has no property in man</strong>; neither has any generation a property in the generations which are to follow. The Parliament or the people of 1688, or of any other period, had no more right to dispose of the people of the present day, or to bind or to control them in any shape whatever, than the parliament or the people of the present day have to dispose of, bind or control those who are to live a hundred or a thousand years hence. Every generation is, and must be, competent to all the purposes which its occasions require. <strong>It is the living, and not the dead, that are to be accommodated.</strong> When man ceases to be, his power and his wants cease with him; and having no longer any participation in the concerns of this world, he has no longer any authority in directing who shall be its governors, or how its government shall be organised, or how administered. (The emphasis is all mine; those are incredible lines.)</blockquote><br />Now, you might argue that I shouldn't be appealing to historical figures in a discussion against donor intent, but I think it shows that history has a place in the discussion. I'm not against that - especially when they state the case very well. I'm against the presumption that the views of the donor matter more simply because he or she made the money. I don't listen to Thomas Paine because he's Thomas Paine. I listen to Thomas Paine because the guy was right. Similarly, I shouldn't listen to the donor because he or she was rich but because they had something important to say.<br /><br />So I suggest a compromise. Donors should be allowed to speak, but that speech should be limited. Donors, if you have a specific intent (and by specific I mean anything more specific than "for the general improvement of humankind," but I could be persuaded otherwise) for your charitable dollars, you must place a time limit on the existence of the foundation (anything from the lifetime of the donor to, say, one or two generations). If you want the money to go to a specific community or cause, you must limit the number of generations you bind to that community or cause. When the foundation's time is up, it must either spend down or convert to a general-purpose foundation. The next generation must be allowed to chart its own course.<br /><br />You see, I see this a lot from deliberative democracy theorists. "If only people were informed and gathered to discuss the issues, they would make the right decisions," they say, and by the "right" decisions, they too frequently mean "their" decisions. In the same way, if people want more respect for "donor intent" and a true "democracy of the dead," I say let them have it. Just understand that it will be a true democracy, which means at least two things: the past isn't always going to vote with you, and neither will I.Madmunkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699616876753174404noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8021356.post-1116618776914566032005-08-28T00:38:00.000-04:002006-10-15T20:13:04.055-04:00Who is Madmunk?Either I was cursed with very cruel parents; I was blessed with very prescient parents who prepared me for a career as a supervillain, D&D fanatic, or blogger; or, Madmunk is a pseudonym.<br /><br />Anonymity has an important place in the philanthropic world. The great philosopher <a href="http://www.myjewishlearning.com/daily_life/Tzedakah/TO_Tzedakah_H_and_D/Tzedakah_J_Trad/Maimonides_Eight_Degrees.htm" target="_blank">Moses Maimonides</a> placed anonymous giving just below the highest form of giving, entering into a partnership, in his eight levels of charity. Anonymity can protect the benefactor from unsolicited requests and enable him or her to practice giving solely for giving's sake. For these reasons, among others, donors sometimes seek to remain anonymous.<br /><br />Anonymity also has an important place in the blogosphere. It protects a blogger from ad hominem attacks and frees a blogger to say what he or she thinks and feels without fear of reprisal. For these reasons, among others, I have elected to publish under a pseudonym.<br /><br />If you must know, I live and work in the DC metro area, my heroes are Thomas Paine and Friedrich Nietzsche, and my favorite Bath & Body Works fragrance is Sheer Freesia. For those of you who do know who I am or happen to find out, I trust you to keep my identity secret for the time being. <br /><br />I can be reached <a href="mailto:philanthropica@gmail.com">here</a>.<br /><br />In the meantime, my name is Madmunk, and this is <i>Philanthropica</i>.Madmunkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699616876753174404noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8021356.post-1125172634530656272005-08-27T16:10:00.000-04:002006-10-15T20:14:02.818-04:00Emerging Issues Tours Philanthropy's BlogosphereThe <a href="http://www.cof.org/" target="_blank">Council on Foundations'</a> blog <a href="http://blogs.cof.org/emergingissues/2005/08/blogs-on-philanthropy.html" target="_blank">Emerging Issues</a> gives a rundown of philanthropy's blogs. <br /><br /><a href="http://philanthropica.blogspot.com" target="_blank"><i>Philanthropica</i></a> is graced with a mention (thanks very much!), and Candidia Cruikshanks over at <a href="http://www.thehappytutor.com/archives/2005/08/council_on_foun.html" target="_blank">Wealth Bondage</a> is simply thrilled with the recognition.<br /><br />Thanks to Phil for all his work getting the conversation going.Madmunkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699616876753174404noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8021356.post-1125152282075562532005-08-27T10:35:00.000-04:002006-10-15T20:14:02.718-04:00The Weary TitanTimothy Garton Ash in <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1555820,00.html" target="_blank"><i>The Guardian</i></a> (via <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9051256/#050826" target="_blank">Clicked</a>): <blockquote>If you want to know what London was like in 1905, come to Washington in 2005. Imperial gravitas and massive self-importance. That sense of being the centre of the world, and of needing to know what happens in every corner of the world because you might be called on - or at least feel called upon - to intervene there. Hyperpower. Top dog. And yet, gnawing away beneath the surface, the nagging fear that your global supremacy is not half so secure as you would wish. As Joseph Chamberlain, the British colonial secretary, put it in 1902: "The weary Titan staggers under the too vast orb of his fate."</blockquote><br />Someone else noticed, I see. I work in the district, and I've been telling friends lately that it feels like Paris just before the Revolution. His analogy's a better one. I don't imagine guillotines - just the end of an era. There's a creeping anxiety beneath the Mall's monuments. You feel like you're standing on top of something that can't quite hold itself together, can't go on much longer. It could be your political leanings, but even some people on the other side of the aisle can sense that all is not well in DC. I know a few folks who were here a decade ago or grew up here long ago and now have moved back, and, for them, there has been a tremendous change in the tenor of the city. Whether or not you agree with his claim that "Iraq is America's Boer war," I think Ash is on to something, and you can feel it in DC.<br /><br />But this little blog of ours is supposed to be about philanthropy, and Ash's conclusion is a test for the philanthropic imagination: <blockquote>So this is no time for schadenfreude. It's a time for critical solidarity. A few far-sighted people in Washington are beginning to formulate a long-term American strategy of trying to <b>create an international order that would protect the interests of liberal democracies even when American hyperpower has faded</b>; and to encourage rising powers such as India and China to sign up to such an order. That is exactly what today's weary Titan should be doing, and we should help him do it.</blockquote><br />People set up foundations in perpetuity and make international grants, but do we consider when making these grants that America may not always occupy the place it does in today's international order? Can we count ourselves among those far-sighted few?<br /><br />I ask because I don't think that looking at the world with these questions in mind demonstrates any lack of faith in America. If anything, it demonstrates a tremendous faith in our principles to think that they can and should survive even when the power that once sustained them passes away. Philanthropy is our way of assuring that our ideals live on even though we do not, that America still lives though its hyperpower fades.Madmunkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699616876753174404noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8021356.post-1125087353897066402005-08-26T16:15:00.000-04:002006-10-15T20:14:02.508-04:00If you're going to reform the sector......we have <a href="http://www.ssireview.com/pdf/2005SU_pov_masaoka.pdf" target="_blank">a few suggestions</a>.
<br />
<br />Authors Jan Masaoka and Jeanne Bell Peters offer an amazing set of "reforms to make nonprofits more effective and accountable." You'll wish you'd thought of them. You'll wish you'd said it first and laid it all out there like this. I know I do; they had me from proposal #1.
<br />
<br />Scrapping "concerns of what is politically achievable," Masaoka and Peters are freed to tell it how it should be. It's fantastic. Circulate this to everyone you know. As much as I respect what Independent Sector has done with the Panel, I'd like this in the back of our leaders' minds come this fall.
<br />
<br />Thanks to reader Nick for pointing us to this great critique.Madmunkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699616876753174404noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8021356.post-1125067068716057212005-08-26T15:34:00.000-04:002006-10-15T20:14:02.199-04:00SRIStephen Viederman, former president of the <a href="http://www.noyes.org/" target="_blank">Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation</a> and co-founder of the <a href="http://www.theglobalacademy.org/ifr.asp" target="_blank">Initiative for Fiduciary Responsibility</a>, emailed <a href="http://philanthropica.blogspot.com"><i>Philanthropica</i></a> some time ago with some fantastic resources on socially responsible investing (SRI) and the power of institutional investors to change the world for the better through shareholder resolutions and strategic investments. You can email Viederman <a href="mailto:stevev@igc.org">here</a> for those resources. They were just a few articles but very interesting stuff.<br /><br />I'm extrapolating here and more than likely projecting, but I detected three major themes for philanthropists in his works:<OL><li><b>agents</b>: philanthropy is mainly the province of large institutions run by elites, a group of folks Robert Monks simply called "top people;"</li><br /><li><b>aims</b>: the philanthropy of these large institutions tends to favor the status quo; and</li><br /><li><b>actions</b>: many foundations have become grant factories, forgoing the responsibility to consider the political, social, and environmental consequences of their investments out of a misplaced concern for the bottom line (when evidence shows that SRI can actually produce better results).</li></ol><br />Reading through the articles, I am struck by the tremendous democratizing power of SRI. You'll notice that these themes basically describe a philanthropy of, by, and for elites as opposed to a more democratic philanthropy of, by, and for the people. Institutional investors, particularly foundations, can exert a powerful check on corporate power through their status as investors. We do tremendous good with our grants; imagine the good that could be accomplished via shareholder resolutions and the like.<br /><br />SRI also democratizes the investment discussion. One of the things that I think keeps the philanthropic world in the shadows is that a lot of people don't know how foundations work exactly. The simple mechanics of it are lost on many who just see rich people giving money away here or there (or not). Furthermore, even those in the foundation world (and you find this, for instance, when training new board members) don't quite understand how the investment side of foundations works. I don't always anyway. With SRI, however, investments aren't an esoteric analysis of economic forces and trends but a consideration of the political, social, environmental, moral, and cultural implications of one's investments as well as that analysis. This makes investment not just a discussion for the financially hyperliterate but for everyone. I may not understand how to protect the bottom line in the way my expert investment manager would, but I do know that I don't want to compromise my mission through dealing with certain types of companies and that I might need to change how I deal with a company to make a difference. SRI makes that desire part of the investment equation, and it's brilliant.<br /><br />Thanks to Steve for sending the stuff our way.Madmunkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699616876753174404noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8021356.post-1124915982934523732005-08-25T10:43:00.000-04:002006-10-15T20:14:01.355-04:00A Cynic's Guide to the Foundation World, Part One<b>Community Foundations</b><br />In 1914, Frederick Goff did for philanthropy what halitosis did for Listerine: he created the "The Community." While no one knows who exactly this Community is (The Community does not keep membership records), thanks to Goff, we all know that (1) we owe it a great deal; (2) we are supposed to "give back" to it; and (3) community foundations like Goff's Cleveland Foundation can help us do that. Despite such auspicious beginnings, however, today, community foundations are the ruling elite's answer to the redneck front lawn, little more than parking lots for inoperable giving vehicles. Cut a philanthropist's grass, and you'll find another donor-advised fund his wife didn't know existed.<br /><br /><b>Company-sponsored Foundations</b><br />American corporations sponsor foundations the same way you sponsored that adorable child you saw on TV. Ever wonder what Sally Struthers' camera crew was eating? (Mmm, hey, let's order some pizza. No, you can't have any. This is mine.) Think about that the next time you read a corporate foundation's annual report. Thirty-five cents does go a long way, but if you spent half as much on grants as you did on PR, you could go much further. Company-sponsored foundations, however, are hampered by the fact that corporations are created to maximize shareholder value; hence, they cannot in good conscience give away someone else's hard-earned money. Corporate foundations, thus, have a great deal to learn from family foundation program officers.<br /><br /><b>Operating Foundations</b><br />For the discriminating philanthropist who truly understands that nonprofits are too stupid to be trusted with your philanthropic dreams, operating foundations allow you to foist your conception of the common good on unsuspecting at-risk folks without the annoying middlepersons. If you're up for "Extreme Makeover: Social Engineering Edition," consider the operating foundation your Home Depot. Sure, it might be better to call a plumber after a toilet explodes, but, hey, you're doing just fine on your own. Thank you very much. It's only medical research that could save millions of lives or none at all, a think tank that can inform Congress or lead it astray, or a museum that can preserve our common human history for generations to come or let it disappear forever - honestly, how hard can it be?<br /><br /><b>Independent Foundations</b><br />If a foundation doesn't give back to The Community, provide excellent PR for a foundering corporation, or, well, operate, the foundation is considered "independent." This independence, however, is exceedingly tenuous. As long as the your investment manager takes good care of your wallet, regulation isn't overly burdensome, the IRS doesn't order an audit, and the state attorney-general takes his foot off your neck, you're independent. Since none of these conditions currently obtain, "independent foundation," like "civil society," is a contradiction in terms.<br /><br /><b>Family Foundations</b><br />Family foundations form the last bastion of the aristocracy in our civilization on the brink of collapse. It’s incredibly important, nay, vital to the continued prosperous existence of our polyarchic society that you hold your considerable wealth hostage to your dysfunctional family dynamic. This incredible power to change the world for the better must be mercilessly tied in perpetuity to your dated dogma, backward values, and mindless idiosyncrasies lest the underclass climb out of the muck in which we so painstakingly keep them.Madmunkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699616876753174404noreply@blogger.com2