"Battleground" States

Thursday, July 8, 2010 by Betsey Russell
An interesting article from Reuters caught my eye yesterday. It was about a proposal in New York to cut state tax deductions for charitable giving for the weathiest citizens. As the article reports, "New York lawmakers want to cut the tax break on charitable giving for about 3,500 people earning more than $10 million a year to 25 percent from 50 percent in a bid to raise $100 million in extra money for the state."

All the usual suspects are quoted in response to this article: foundation heads and nonprofit execs decrying the thought; Paul Schervish from the Center of Wealth and Philanthropy at Boston College saying it won't really be a big deal. The same arguments that have been raging on the national scene were all there. 

The big difference? This is about a specific state

As we know, ideas that are not completely salable to the national populous often become tested at the state level. But when it starts to happen in our field, which has, let's face it, lived in relative anonymity for decades, it can be a little jarring. And exhausting to contemplate. 

As states begin to focus more on foundation rules and foundation legislation, it means that foundations in those states must become more adept at educating lawmakers about foundations and sharing philanthropy information no just about their states as a whole, but by state representatives' districts. Gone are the days of simply adding a passive "amen" to the Council on Foundations' work in Washington. We've got to get busy here at home. 

I'm happy to know that the Southeastern Council of Foundations is leading the charge, supporting statewide grantmaker networks that are focused on policy, and providing several state-focused policy sessions at the upcoming 2010 Annual Meeting. Hopefully, this will help more foundations in our region understand the challenges ahead and how to tackle them most effectively. 

Which of the states in the Southeastern Council of Foundations' region will be the first to introduce legislation similar to New York's?

My money's on Florida. What about yours?


The Lack of Standards Can Kill!

Tuesday, April 6, 2010 by Guest Blogger
Ron Hagan is a featured speaker at the upcoming SECF Conference on Investing for Foundations, April 22-23 in Atlanta. Click here to learn more or to register.

Standards are something that most of us accept as part of our everyday life.  They have become such an integral part of our existence that the average person gives little or no thought to everyday products and services, and how they work.  Standards make modern conveniences possible: light bulbs fit into lamps, electronic files are transferred over the Internet, trains move between states because the tracks are the same gauge, and the list goes on.

 

The American National Standards Institute defines a standard as "a recognized unit of comparison by which the correctness of others can be determined."  Simply put, standards make life safer and help organizations operate more efficiently.

 

In spite of the vital role that trustees of foundations play in protecting the economic health of charitable institutions, uniform standards that define how they should perform their fiduciary duty do not exist.  The investment community compounds the risk for donors caused by the lack of a fiduciary standard.  For example, procedures vary greatly from one investment firm to another for selecting and monitoring money managers and the securities in which they invest.  The reason; firms that provide investment advice, manage mutual funds, and offer alternative investing programs have yet to adopt common rules.

 

Imagine if airplane manufacturers had no standards to guide the way wings are made.  Many airplanes just would not fly and there would be no commercial aviation industry.  Yet tens of thousands of transactions, affecting the accounts of donors and beneficiaries, are handled every day without a recognized standard for managing the investment decision-making process at foundations.

 

No better example of the catastrophic effect of the lack of standards exists than events of September 11, 2001.  In the communications world, interoperability is very important.  It is a word that describes how electronics equipment exchanges information directly and satisfactorily between devices and their users.  On September 11th, many emergency response agencies were unable to communicate due to the use of different communications equipment and frequencies.  The Department of Defense reported later that hundreds of people died on September 11th due to the lack of a needed communication standard.  Because of the unfortunate lessons learned at the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, local, state, and federal emergency agencies are all looking for universally accepted interoperability standards and equipment to enable radio and telephone communication between responding units.  Sadly, their efforts are too late to save victims of the 9/11 attacks.

 

While it is unlikely that people will die from the lack of fiduciary standards, the economic threat is wreaking havoc.  Massive fraud cases like the Madoff and Stanford Group’s Ponzi schemes gained their start because fiduciary standards were missing.  Although more subtle, a just as serious danger lurks.  The difficulty fiduciaries have in benchmarking investment firms’ practices, due to the absence of standards, sets up the potential for the depletion of asset values from undisclosed fees and conflicts of interest.

 

The lack of standards to guide the conduct of fiduciaries is primarily responsible for the uncertainty felt by trustees and members of investment committees.  Confusion and chaos in committee rooms are symptoms of a similar situation that existed on a wide scale right after World War II.  The realignment of nations quickly showed that a less regional and more global economy was forming.  In order to ensure that products and services could move across borders, standardized ways of making them were needed to guarantee their quality.  Just as countries needed standards to make global commerce safe and profitable, so, too, foundations need uniform process standards for its fiduciaries and their investment providers.

 

Ronald E. Hagan

Chairman of the Board of Directors - The Investment Fiduciary Leadership Council

www.iflcouncil.org

 

 

Ron Hagan has served as chairman of the non-profit Investment Fiduciary Leadership Council since 2008.  He is also President and CEO of Roland|Criss which is a Professional Fiduciary Organization serving foundations and pension plans in a named fiduciary capacity.  Ron has a lengthy career in helping trustees develop their oversight skills in the four disciplines for fiduciaries; governance, controls and practices, administration, and investments.  Prior to joining the Roland|Criss team he was a Senior Vice President and member of the Executive Committee of the First National Bank of Commerce where he served as a fiduciary on its Asset Liability Management Committee.  Earlier in his career Ron was a Principal with Booz, Allen & Hamilton.  His duties at Booz, Allen included advising executives of Fortune 500 companies on prudent fiduciary processes.



GUEST POST - A Snapshot from Foundations on the Hill

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 by Mike Howland

We've all just returned from Foundations on the Hill, and today I offer my blog space to Helen Ishii, our director of member and government affairs, who led SECF's charge of 50 people up the steps of Capitol Hill and lived to tell about it. The results were the best we've seen from any Foundations on the Hill event to date. My hat's off to Helen for pulling us all together. Here's her reflection from the experience:

I'm sitting across from a couple of very bright Congressional staffers, making idle chit chat and finding connections with less than six degrees of separation, as we await Rep. Boozman (D-AR-3rd) to return from a vote to meet with us. I appreciate that the Congressman finds our visit important enough to return to the office, especially as it's now 5:00 p.m.  I also appreciate that in every office we've visited today, someone in our group has found a personal connection to at least one staffer and also often to the Member of Congress. These personal connections have proven important over the years as they are often what makes a staffer or Member comfortable calling on us as a resource.

This is my 6th trek to DC for Foundations on the Hill. This physically exhausting trip has become a valued annual event for our members, 50 of whom made it this year. These hearty souls put many miles on their soles as they walk and walk and walk the halls on the Hill. This year they have visited 94 Members of Congress from the 11 states in the Southeastern Council of Foundations' (SECF) region. Every year we return to educate the ever revolving supply of extremely young, extremely bright and extremely inexperienced staffers about the work of foundations, as well as to inform Members of Congress on the issues impacting our sector.

This year I joined our teams from Arkansas and South Carolina as they made their visits. Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) immediately "got" the importance of basing the TANF (Temporary Aid to Needy Families) funding formula upon need and the benefit that would accrue to all Southern states. She also remarked about how helpful it was to have the same message delivered to her Southern colleagues by other SECF members.

Everyone saw how a cap on charitable deductions could be harmful to the sector.  As to be expected, the chair of the House Budget Committee, Rep. John Spratt (D-SC-5th) asked about the "scoring" of H.R. 4090, which will simplify the private foundation excise tax to a flat rate. We were able to answer his question, thanks to the briefings we'd received from COF the day before.  Soon, blessedly soon, I'll be walking to the METRO to catch a flight home, where I'll finally be able to soak my aching feet and begin my thank you notes to continue the relationships begun today.

- Helen Ishii, SECF Director of Member and Government Relations

Foundations Must Help Media, Public Understand Philanthropy Information

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 by Mike Howland

An article in the January 10 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, "Transition from Sparks Hospital to Charitable Entity a Long Process," is noteworthy in two respects: it is a great example of a local reporter, Laurie Whalen, reaching out for a larger perspective on philanthropy, setting up a foundation and foundation regulations; and it underscores the importance of having foundation officials who are accessible to the media, willing and capable of explaining philanthropy policy in terms that the average reader can digest and comprehend.

In this instance, Heather Larkin, president and CEO of the Arkansas Community Foundation in Little Rock, offered a very helpful explanation of health conversion foundations, while articulating that transparency and accountability must be hallmarks of all foundations. Kudos to Whalen and Larkin for helping Arkansas citizens to understand the challenges and nuances involved in the creation of the Fort Smith Regional Healthcare Foundation out of the sale of the non-profit Sparks Regional Medical Center to a for-profit health care provider and simultaneously increasing public awareness of the extraordinary benefits that foundations offer their communities.

Why Effective Philanthropy Isn't Democratic

Monday, January 4, 2010 by Betsey Russell
I've been mentally wrestling lately with the tension that appears to be growing in our country between democracy and philanthropy. (It's a fun mental exercise when one is pretending to nap in order to avoid an excess of familial love over the holidays.)

For those of you who are sticklers for semantics, in my mental arguments, I consider democracy in the purest form: one person, one vote. I also simply "philanthropy" to mean "charitable giving." 

The Chase online giving debacle and the concept of "voting" for philanthropic decisions brought this question to a head for me. After announcing with great fanfare that they would provide a transparent way for Facebook users to determine how $4 million in corporate philanthropy would be disbursed, Chase took down their public scoreboard and reined in their process when the top vote-getters turned out to be causes that Chase found to be too controversial. The result has been some significant brand backlash for Chase. 

But even if Chase hadn't chickened out, would this approach to giving really have been effective? What knowledge did the thousands or millions of voters bring to the process other than the know-how to click a button when asked? 

For me, it underscores something that I've stated before: effective philanthropy is NOT a democratic undertaking. Instead, philanthropy is a very personal method of providing support to a cause or addressing an issue that resonates with the giver or givers. While I do believe that a variety of educated perspectives help strengthen understanding and result in better decision-making, I think opening that process to the masses simply makes it a free-for-all or popularity contest. 

One of the best means that I've seen of combining a focused approach AND a variety of perspectives to make effective giving decisions takes place at the Atlanta Women's Foundation. Their grantmaking committees extend beyond the board of directors to include women of all races and from all economic strata. These women gather together several times over the course of the grantmaking process, attend site visits together, and have passionate, intense discussions about which organizations will have the greatest impact on Atlanta's most vulnerable women and children. It's a heart-wrenching process that I've been through more than once. 

And there is never, ever, a single vote taken.

It's not a democracy. It's an educated, informed consensus. It leaves open questions and possibilities for the next go round, and engages its participants far beyond a simple "aye" or "nay." It's very hard work — and educating broader audiences about its effectiveness is even harder. But it beats a popularity contest any day.