Archive for the ‘Nonprofits–General’ Category

Dear Nonprofiteer, If I’m not supposed to know about it, how can I complain about it?

October 29, 2012
Dear Nonprofiteer:My wife is the development director for a nonprofit animal welfare organization. I am a dues-paying member of the group, which entitles me to a vote, and to have input at group meetings.

Is it improper for me to express my concern to the board members about policies and practices I have a problem with? My wife has asked me not to, and I understand why.

Last year, I was chairman of the group’s nominations committee. We were charged with recruiting and vetting potential candidates for our board of directors. The application process involved assessing the candidate’s background, skills, network and, not to put too fine a point on it, access to people with deep pockets. This year, the chair of the board made a decision on her own to revise the board member application so that it more closely resembled the application our prospective volunteers fill out. I also have a problem with the fact that all the nomination committee members this year are also board members. I’m not saying that our present board is completely dysfunctional, but even so, I would think that if even if a partially dysfunctional board is picking out its own replacements, that’s like perpetuating the problem.

There are other problems I have with the group, but those two are ones I feel strongly about. The problem is that I wouldn’t know this information except through my wife, because board meetings are not open to the general membership. Even employees aren’t allowed to attend unless they are invited or ask for (and are granted) a spot on the agenda. That’s another thing I have a problem with.

What is my recourse?

Signed, On the Outside Looking In
Dear Outside:
The real question is, what recourse do members have when the Board of Directors is leading the organization in a manner unsatisfactory to its members?  And that in turn is dependent on the group’s bylaws.  From what you’ve reported, the Nonprofiteer gathers that the organization is Board-governed rather than member-governed, meaning that members have very little power.  You say you have “a vote . . . and input at group meetings;” but it seems that votes at group meetings aren’t binding on the Board of Directors, which holds the real power.
But even if the group can overrule the Board of Directors, you’re only one member of the group.  Your “recourse,” such as it is, is to persuade your fellow members that something is rotten on the Board, and secure a group resolution (binding or not) proposing that the Board Nominating Committee include members who are not on the Board and/or that the Board members’ job description be revised to emphasize the need to give and raise funds.
But you say you wouldn’t know about the membership of the Board Nominating Committee, or the revision of the Board members’ job description, except through your wife.  That strikes the Nonprofiteer as bizarre: neither of these things can be considered confidential.  So you’re well within your rights, as a member of the group, to say to other group members, “We don’t even know who’s on the Nominating Committee, or what they’re looking for—how come?” and to petition the Board to release this information.  That way you’re asking a question that any group member would ask—”Who’s being recruited to the Board, to do what, and by whom?”—and not breaching the confidentiality of Board-meeting conversation.
On your general point: most nonprofit Boards are self-renewing, recruiting new members through a committee of old members.  It’s a best practice to have the Nominating Committee chaired by someone who’s leaving the Board rather than someone who’s staying on it, and it’s probably also a good idea to have the Nominating Committee include representation of the organization’s various constituencies (including, in your case, the group); but there’s nothing suspicious or untoward about an all-Board Board Nominating Committee.
In sum: don’t express your opinions to Board members, particularly concerning things you’re not supposed to know.  DO express your opinions to fellow group members, and if you’d like to know who’s on the Board Nominating Committee and what they’re looking for, secure a group resolution to that effect and have it presented to the Board as an inquiry by the collective.
In other words: don’t embarrass your wife.  Her income is at stake.

A useful resource

October 19, 2012

The Nonprofiteer has been fascinated for the past several years by the uses nonprofits make—or fail to make—of highly-skilled volunteers, and has given a fair amount of advice on the subject to whomever will listen.  But she’d be hard-pressed to produce a more careful, lucid, step-by-step account of high-skills volunteer management than that provided by Aaron Hurst of the Taproot Foundation in the new Jossey-Bass Guidebook Powered By Pro Bono.  It includes worksheets to help clients develop projects that are suitable for volunteer assistance (and to identify those that aren’t); instructions on how and why to act like a paying client; and much, much more. 

The only material omission is a discussion of how paid personnel feel about, and deal with, free assistance.  As this must surely be a hot topic at an institution devoted to providing agencies with unpaid labor, the omission must be deliberate, but is probably unwise.  Dealing with resentful staff is part of managing any high-skills volunteer project.

Still, if you’re a hard-pressed Executive Director (or Program Director, or Volunteer Coordinator), this will be the best $34.95 you could spend.

Dear Nonprofiteer, Can a donor dictate the use of her gift? How about if she’s the Executive Director? How about if she’s also on the Board?

October 11, 2012

Dear Nonprofiteer:

I was wondering if it is ethical for an Executive Director to donate to the organization she runs, designating her donation to bonuses or pay raises for the employees that work for her.  She is not paid, thus can remain on our Board.  Seems like a conflict to me.

Signed, Wondering

Dear Wondering:

The Nonprofiteer sees a conflict of interest in the situation you describe, all right, but it doesn’t have to do with the donation.  Any donor can specify the use to be made of his/her gift, and if those terms strike the recipient organization as too onerous it can simply refuse the gift.  A donation from a foundation restricted to paying the salary of a particular staff member—or to giving salary increases to staff members across the board—would be unexceptionable, and in fact would represent a refreshing understanding by the foundation community that people who work for nonprofits need to clothe their kids and pay mortgages, too.

But.

When the donor is the Executive Director, a gift of this kind might be seen as a way of buying (as opposed to earning) loyalty from the staff.  On the other hand, who’s in a better position than the ED to know that her staff members are overworked and underpaid?

But.

It’s the job of the Board to create and implement the agency’s budget, a budget which presumably includes a line item for staff salaries.  It isn’t really kosher for the Executive Director to unilaterally override this governance decision by whipping out her checkbook.

But.

If there’s a consensus on the Board that the staff is underpaid, and/or that it’s time for a raise if only there were money,  the Executive Director’s decision to alleviate that situation (and capacity to do so) should be as welcome as a similar decision by any other donor.

But.

The Nonprofiteer doesn’t understand “She is not paid, thus can remain on our Board.”  The Executive Director, regardless of her compensation status, should serve as an ex officio member of the Board—that is, a Board member by virtue of her position and not in her individual capacity.   If the Executive Director was on the Board first, she should have resigned when she took on the duties of Executive Director.  The Board’s power is concentrated largely in its ability to evaluate, hire and fire the Executive Director, and if necessary to go into executive session to do so—that is, to kick the ED out of the room.  But if the ED remains a Board member, she can’t be removed from the room, therefore she can’t be discussed frankly, therefore she probably can’t be removed, therefore the Board has no power at all.

So the conflict is between the ED-qua-ED and the ED-qua-Board member.  These two roles cannot coexist, and the balance of the Board should demand that the ED choose one or the other.  This is why it’s not even a good idea to permit a Board member to serve as ED on an interim basis—because the “interim” tends to become the “interminable” without anybody’s noticing.

So.

Now we’re back to the question of the gift.  If the ED remains on the Board, her contribution should be counted toward her mandatory give-or-get; but first the balance of the Board should vote on whether to accept the gift with the conditions she’s attached to it.  The ED-Board member, naturally, would recuse herself from this decision on the grounds that she—what?—has a conflict of interest, in this case between her role on the Board and her role as an individual donor to the agency.

By the same token, if the ED leaves the Board but remains at the agency, the Board once again has the right (and the obligation) to vote on whether to accept the gift she’s offered with the conditions she’s attached to it.  Naturally, this discussion would take place in executive session, with the ED excused from the room.  If Board members think this is a great opportunity to enhance compensation, they should accept; if they think this is a sneaky maneuver to undermine their budget authority, they should reject; but in any case the ED has no right to have her gift accepted unless and until the Board approves it.

To review: the question of the ethics of the donation doesn’t even arise unless the Board neglects its fiduciary obligation to evaluate gifts for unacceptable conditions.  The questionable ethics here are those of all concerned—Board members and ED/Board member alike—in permitting one person to fill two roles.

Once you’ve given someone a disproportionate share of power, you can’t be surprised when she makes a play for a further disproportionate share of power, in this case by brandishing a checkbook.  But the power to prevent the gift lies in the hands of the remainder of the Board, and if they fail to exercise it, they’re the ones whose ethics are questionable.

Take me to the PILOT, once more with feeling

October 9, 2012

Here’s a new wrinkle in the ever-popular saga “Taxation of the Tax Exempt”: members of the Scranton City Council threaten to withhold zoning changes from owners of tax-exempt property unless they make “voluntary” PILOTS (Payments In Lieu Of Taxation).  The Nonprofiteer has long been open to the notion that non-charitable tax-exempt organizations should have to pay property taxes, even as she acknowledges that the definition of  “charitable” remains contested.

But let’s settle these issues in open political debate, with nonprofits able to make their case that they are truly charitable, and/or that their contribution to the public good entitles them to property tax exemption whether or not they’re charitable in some strict definition of the word.  Let’s not torture the concept of “voluntary” by suggesting that a payment extorted in return for rezoning is somehow a free-will contribution to the public fisc.

Cross-posted to samefacts.com

Dear Nonprofiteer, What’s this “shared sacrifice” I keep hearing about?

July 30, 2012

Dear Nonprofiteer,

My mom works for a small nonprofit that recently went through financial hardship.  The organization did everything in its power to keep afloat, including (unfortunately) firing employees and cutting pay, hours, and health benefits for the people remaining. And it has bounced back, for the most part.

Recently managers have given themselves raises based on their own research about pay scales elsewhere. First, is this a conflict of interest? Does it seem unethical to give yourself a raise based on your own research while other employees are not given one at all?

My mom works in the accounting department and has been there for over 10 years. While the company wasn’t doing well she accepted all the cuts while taking on the work load of the people who were let go. Since then, other employees have been given raises, and now make nearly double what she does. She was even promised a pay increase for obtaining her BA in Accounting but it was never delivered.

She has brought these issues up but nothing has been done for her. She’s a dedicated worker, going out of her way to take on more work and more education for nothing more than the occasional cost-of-living increase.

Does this happen often? Is it common to see managers in non-profits overcompensate themselves even though it was their poor decisions that almost caused the organization to go under? Does it seem wrong that the employees who fought to keep it afloat have not been given the same percentage increase?

Have you come across any literature or articles on the subject?   I feel terrible for my mom because I know her work ethic and her commitment to the good the organization does for the community.  She deserves to be paid more than an entry-level accountant and her employer should have recognized that long ago.

Signed, Daughter in High Dudgeon

Dear Daughter:

You’ve asked two separate questions, really: first, is this ethical behavior?  Second, is it common behavior?  The first question is easier than the second.

Of course it’s not ethical for leaders to provide themselves with raises before restoring their subordinates to their pre-emergency level of compensation.  Employees who are considered essential enough to be retained during times of crisis, albeit at reduced pay and benefits, must be considered essential enough to be rewarded once the crisis is through.

However, many managers (and the Boards of Directors to whom they report) assume that employees are working there for the love of the agency and/or that any monkey could do the job those employees are being underpaid to do.  This is the proverbial Catch-22: we pay you so little, you and your work must be worthless; since you’re worthless, why should we pay you any more?

The only way to respond to this is to document how people who do the same job are paid elsewhere.  Your mother should use her financial skills to find out what BA accountants with similar responsibilities are paid at similar-sized agencies in your city or county.  Then she should take this documentation to the Executive Director with a specific demand for an increase in pay and benefits to at least parity with her professional peers.  It’s always harder for an ED to refuse a raise based on outside comparables, whereas if your mother tries to compare herself with people in her own agency the ED can always checkmate her with, “Well, but Ellen works three extra nights a week,” or, “But Josephine has been here since 15 minutes before you arrived.”

The other advantage of seeking outside comparables is that it will give your mother a sense of the job market.  It’s hard to think of moving elsewhere after years of loyal service, especially while feeling committed to the agency’s mission and clients.  But that’s no reason to be treated like a slave.  (And salaries from other agencies may include ones paid to men.   No one ever believes that women are paid less than men for the same work until they encounter the cold hard facts for themselves.)

Notice that the major fault is the agency’s unwillingness to restore your mother’s salary now that there’s money available again.  The fact that managers documented the market for their services, and then rewarded themselves based on that documentation, is more an apparent conflict of interest than an actual one.  If everyone does his/her job it doesn’t really signify who did the research about comparable compensation: only the Board of Directors can give the Executive Director a raise, and the Board is designed to be independent of the ED.

But perhaps the Board isn’t actually independent, which leads to the question about whether your mother’s situation is a common one. It’s very common in nonprofit organizations for the Board of Directors to be utterly in the Executive Director’s thrall and prepared to do as s/he says without any independent evaluation whatsoever. This is partly because many nonprofits are still run by their founders, to whom every Board member is personally loyal, and partly because Executive Directors manage their agencies full time while Board members govern them only part time.

So if the Executive Director of a small nonprofit wants to skim off a raise for him/herself while withholding money from his/her subordinates, it’s easier for him/her to do so than it would be in a larger nonprofit with a professional human resources department, or in a regular business.  (The Nonprofiteer herself once succeeded an ED who had helped herself to a raise: knowing that the Board Treasurer signed checks without paying attention to the amount, s/he simply took advantage of that fact.)

But however easy, or common because easy, such practices may be, they are unethical.  If your mother can’t get the raise she deserves by offering honest comparables to her boss, she should find a new job and, on the way out the door, send a letter to the Board president and treasurer (or the whole Board) denouncing the ED’s shoddy financial practices.  It won’t get Mom the raise she hungers for but she will get to enjoy the dish best served cold: revenge.

A Request for Help for a Colleague

July 25, 2012

Our colleagues at the Nonprofit Quarterly are in the middle of a cash crunch.  They’ve secured a matching gift for whatever they’re able to raise in the next few weeks, so if you can make a contribution, please do.  Here’s the link: https://npo1.networkforgood.org/Donate/Donate.aspx?npoSubscriptionId=1005205&uniqueID=634686260386608459

Without the Nonprofit Quarterly, and especially its daily digest of nonprofit news, the Nonprofiteer wouldn’t know what’s going on in the sector.  She suspects she’s not alone.  Please give what you can to preserve this resource for us all.

Going where the action (and money) is

April 24, 2012

An excellent piece of news today: the National Council of Nonprofits and the Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest have merged.  Why is this such good news?  Because many nonprofits have let the fear of losing their 501(c)(3) status keep them from participating in the democratic process in appropriate and legal ways.  And now, with budgets squeezed at the state and local as well as the national level, whatever organizations fail to put themselves in lawmakers’ faces will end up without the resources they require.

Lawmakers, like most other people, pay attention to what grabs their attention, which during a legislative session is whatever gets brought up by the people literally standing around the lobby waiting to talk to them.  Human services agencies need to be in that cohort; so do arts groups and environmental groups.  (Hospitals and universities long since figured out that they can conduct advocacy and still maintain their tax-exempt status.)

Not only will this merger give the National Council of Nonprofits a louder voice in legislative decision-making; it will signal clearly to nonprofits around the nation that lobbying in the public interest is indeed part of their mission—so much so that they won’t be able to pursue their mission without such lobbying.

Nonprofit Corporate Governance: The Board’s Role

April 19, 2012
Editor’s Note: This article originally appeared on the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation; it is reposted to the Nonprofiteer by permission of the author Lesley Rosenthal.   Ms. Rosenthal is the general counsel of Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts and the author of Good Counsel: Meeting the Legal Needs of Nonprofits. Bart Friedman, senior partner at Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, contributed to this post.
——————————————-

Governing boards in the for-profit and nonprofit contexts share many legal precepts: the oversight role, the decision-making power, their place in the organizational structure, and their members’ fiduciary duties. But in the nonprofit setting, misconceptions about corporate governance abound. Are board members primarily fundraisers? Cheerleaders? A rubber stamp to legitimize the actions and decisions of the executives? Do they run the organization to the extent staff is unable? Are they window-dressing to spruce up the organization’s letterhead? If they are rich or famous, must they attend board meetings? How do they know whether they are doing a good job, or when it is time to go? Despite the common ancestry and legal underpinnings, nonprofit corporate governance places heightened demands on trustees: a larger mix of stakeholders, a more complex economic model, and a lack of external accountability. This post explores how substituting a charitable purpose for shareholders’ interests affects the board’s role.

In organizations of all kinds, good governance starts with the board of directors. The board’s role and legal obligation is to oversee the administration (management) of the organization and ensure that the organization fulfills its mission. Good board members monitor, guide, and enable good management; they do not do it themselves. The board generally has decision-making powers regarding matters of policy, direction, strategy, and governance of the organization.

The board of a well-governed nonprofit organization, like the board of a well-governed profit-making company, will do all of the following:

  • Formulate key corporate policies and strategic goals, focusing both on near-term and longer-term challenges and opportunities.
  • Authorize major transactions or other actions.
  • Oversee matters critical to the health of the organization— not decisions or approvals about specific matters, which is management’s role—but instead those involving fundamental matters such as the viability of its business model, the integrity of its internal systems and controls, and the accuracy of its financial statements.
  • Evaluate and help manage risk.
  • Steward the resources of the organization for the longer run, not just by carefully reviewing annual budgets and evaluating operations but also by encouraging foresight through several budget cycles, considering investments in light of future evolution, and planning for future capital needs.
  • Mentor senior management, provide resources, advice and introductions to help facilitate operations.

Similar to for-profit corporations, the power to control and oversee the management of the affairs and concerns of a nonprofit corporation is set forth in its corporate charter. Generally speaking, state law permits both kinds of corporations to self-direct significant allocations of power and responsibility, and then requires them to follow their own corporate governance and operational policies. The familiar fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, and – sometimes – obedience, undergird these requirements in both sectors.

In a well-governed organization of either the for-profit or nonprofit kind, the board does not permit executives to run and dominate board meetings, set agendas, or determine what information will be provided to board members. Under the leadership of an active and functioning board chair, there is adequate opportunity at board meetings for members to receive and discuss reports from not only the chief executive, but also, as appropriate, directly from other executives, in-house and outside professionals, and independent consultants if necessary. Time should be reserved for executive sessions, at which management should be excluded so that its performance may be fully and freely discussed.

Mission is what distinguishes nonprofits from their for-profit cousins: Nonprofits have missions instead of owners or shareholders. While the prime directive for board members of for-profit organizations is to ensure the highest possible value for owners, by contrast, nonprofit board members’ prime directive is mission fulfillment.

Board independence and board attention are of paramount importance in good nonprofit governance.  The independence of the board is key because of the non-distribution constraint – nonprofits exist to serve the public interest, not to benefit owners or other private parties.  Business or family relationships between the organization or its executives and a board member or her firm are frowned upon and should be strictly scrutinized under a conflict of interest policy administered by independent directors.  Even absent outright business or family relationships, a common shortcoming of nonprofit boards is that they are too small, too insular, or too deferential to the founder or chief executive.

Another frequent error of nonprofit boards is inviting new members because of their marquee name within a certain field of endeavor (e.g., a famous dancer on the board of a dance organization) or their means and inclination to donate, without due consideration to the person’s ability and availability to fulfill fiduciary duties, providing the critical oversight function. The governing body of a nonprofit must be made up entirely of people in a position to govern it—setting the strategic direction of the organization and overseeing management’s execution of the mission. Wealthy or prominent persons— donors, artists, scientists, public officials, and others—with an interest in the organization’s program but lacking the time, availability, or expertise to provide meaningful oversight may serve the organization in a non-fiduciary capacity, such as an honorary or advisory board, donors’ circle, or professional council.

Governance is more complex in charitable nonprofits for a number of reasons. Public charities (501(c)(3) organizations) are intended to serve a public purpose, and the board must bear in mind that broad interest.  Depending on its mission, history, and geographic reach, a nonprofit may also have specific stakeholders or different groups of stakeholders, some or all of whom may be represented by categories of board members under the organization’s by-laws. The interests of the organization’s ultimate clients, who may be indigent or otherwise disadvantaged, are another important consideration. The organization’s management and workforce may be paid less than their for-profit peers for similar work – if at all – further complicating the board’s oversight duties. In addition, nonprofit trustees may feel role-strain – or worse – because of real or perceived obligations to interact with, attract – or even be – charitable donors. These additional factors make nonprofit board decision-making arguably a much more complex process than the straightforward mandate of maximizing return.

Moreover, nonprofits’ economic models may be more complex than for-profits’ models, including a dynamic blend of earned revenue (ticket sales for a symphony, fee-for-service billings by a hospital, tuition payments to a university) and contributed income (annual fundraisers, “Friends of” membership groups, end-of-year solicitations, capital campaigns). Wealthier nonprofits with endowments can also count on a stream of revenues from investments. In harsh economic climates, however, there is a high correlation between reduced contributions and weaker investment returns. Compounding the difficulty, hard times on the revenue side often coincide with heightened demand for organizations’ services, particularly social services, increasing expenses and creating cash crunches, trouble balancing budgets, or even persistent deficits. Savvy nonprofits have added “third streams” of revenue to supplement and diversify traditional two sources. Entrepreneurial initiatives may include leveraging real estate or other assets, monetizing treasure troves of intellectual property know-how, or engaging in joint ventures with fellow nonprofits or even commercial entities. In envisioning and evaluating such enterprises, board and management must observe regulatory requirements and consider tax implications.  In lean years and in growth years, the board must be deeply engaged in overseeing the organization’s investments, its other sources of revenue and expense, and the planning of new initiatives.

What happens when board members fail?  In theory, the mechanism in a for-profit corporation for correcting errant board members is straightforward:  if the investors don’t like what the directors are doing, they vote them out of office. But in the absence of investors, nonprofit boards must be self-correcting. No one has ever made a tender offer because a nonprofit was inefficient. Moreover, governmental agencies regulating the sector tend to be small and under-resourced, making it highly unlikely that any but the most obvious misconduct will be detected and corrected from the outside. Unless board members are doing something illegal or are term-limited out of office, they may serve in perpetuity, giving them ultimate power over the organization. In this regard, nonprofit trusteeship is a unique and privileged role.

By a number of measures, nonprofit and for-profit board governance are similar: the board’s oversight role, its decision-making power, its structural place within the organization, and its members’ legal duties. The similarities end, however, where shareholder interest in maximizing returns gives way to mission fulfillment, a multiplicity of stakeholders, more complex business models, and self-accountability rather than external accountability.

Dear Nonprofiteer, If I want higher wages will you tell me what to do?*

April 17, 2012

Dear Nonprofiteer:

I work at a major environmental NGO.   I am well compensated, but I can’t help but think my colleagues and others in the sector (I did not always used to be so well compensated) would benefit from Unionization.

What unions exist for non-profit employees? How could we make more?

Signed, In Solidarity

Dear Solidarity:

It does you credit that you remain concerned about the poorly-paid even after you’ve left their number.  But the question you raise can only be answered with a frustrating, “It depends.”

Individual circumstances dictate whether any particular nonprofit would benefit from a union.  Certainly nonprofit employees are a resource for unions looking to grow—our institutions are rooted in the community and therefore unlikely to pick up and move to Dixie (or China) when the union comes to call.  But whether unions are a resource for nonprofit employees looking to grow is a separate question.

If the morale at an agency is poor, and a significant component of that morale is poor wages, hours, benefits and working conditions, then talking union only makes sense.  But if morale is poor because the Executive Director is a dingbat, then unionizing is pretty much beside the point.  And if morale at an agency is high, then there’s unlikely to be much support for the idea of bringing in a third party to mediate between the working and the worked-for—particularly as the organizing process can be so disruptive and embittering.  That’s not a rap on the unions: you’re going to have disruption in any context requiring the taking of sides, whether the subject is program expansion or relocation or mission creep—or union representation.

The issue is certainly not that there aren’t enough unions organizing in the sector, though they may not be organizing enough.  The Service Employees International Union, the American Federation of Teachers, the Association of Federal, State, County and Municipal Employees and even the Teamsters have taken their turns organizing nonprofits, often following jobs government agencies have chosen to outsource.  (See the Nonprofiteer’s earlier discussion of the “progress” from government employees [unionized] to nonprofit employees [non-union, at least at first] to faith-based employees [presumably too holy to strike].)  So we don’t need to “make more” unions; we need to encourage more nonprofits to adopt either significant improvements to compensation, benefits and work rules or a relationship with a union designed to provide those significant improvements.

If you can get from a nonprofit Board of Directors the improvement in wages and working conditions you want, there’s no need to go union.  But those Boards of Directors are apt to be resistant to your demands, because they regard it as their fiduciary duty to direct money to programs rather than to the salaries of the people who run those programs.  (If this strikes you as a distinction without a difference, you’re completely correct—but you’re also obviously unfamiliar with the rhetoric of charities and their funders.)  Or they might resist your demands just because they’re lazy and don’t want to raise money.

In either case of resistance, having a union organizer in your back pocket (or at least on speed dial) may be what’s necessary to get the Board’s genuine attention.  Just as the prospect of being hanged concentrates a man’s mind wonderfully, so the prospect of being unionized concentrates the minds of charity Boards.

(A rigorous research paper on the subject reported that nonprofit organizing drives succeed more often than those at for-profits.  But does that mean that nonprofit employees’ sense of social justice makes them/us more receptive to unions, or just that unions don’t bother to organize at nonprofits til they can see it’s going to be a slam-dunk?)

The Nonprofiteer always snorts when she hears employers talk about how it would be a shame to insert a stranger between them and their employees, who are just like family.  Especially at nonprofits, if a workplace is like a family, it’s generally like the family in Long Day’s Journey Into Night.  But small and medium-sized nonprofits do have a uniquely porous relationship between management and labor, as well as between management and governance; and a union, or even a failed organizing drive, will disrupt that once and for all.

Thus, unions make the most sense at the largest nonprofits (the hospitals and universities), which are practically indistinguishable from for-profits.  At smaller agencies they may make sense, but only if employees are already up in arms, and only if there’s blood left in the turnip.

Oh, and only if fresh employees will be hard to find.  It’s illegal to fire someone for union organizing but you can be made uncomfortable enough to quit, and that may be a higher price than you’re willing to pay to make sure your fellows can send their children to college.  Or perhaps not.

Solidarity forever!

———————

See Talkin’ Union

Dear Nonprofiteer, Whose money is too filthy to take, and why?

April 6, 2012

Dear Nonprofiteer:

I’d be interested in your take on the Tucker Max/Planned Parenthood issue. That whole issue, which I’m sure you’ve touched on before, of NPOs making tough decisions about accepting donations is one that constantly comes up.

Signed, Hoping to Keep Clean Hands and Full Coffers

Dear Hoping:

So Tucker Max (a blogger the Nonprofiteer had never heard of until this letter) tries to give half a million dollars to Planned Parenthood, which has just lost funding from the Komen Foundation and is at risk of losing Federal funding, and PP turns the money down.

Under ordinary circumstances the Nonprofiteer would say, “WTF? So he’s a sexist piece of dog excrement! So he’s trying to whitewash his reputation! Why shouldn’t we help impoverish sexists by accepting their contributions? Why shouldn’t they pay restitution for their crimes and sins?”

But these aren’t ordinary circumstances, because the donor describes himself as follows:

My name is Tucker Max, and I am an asshole. I get excessively drunk at inappropriate times, disregard social norms, indulge every whim, ignore the consequences of my actions . . . sleep with more women than is safe or reasonable, and just generally act like a raging dickhead.

Years of public education about what Planned Parenthood actually does would go right down the drain if it permitted itself to be publicly tied to an advocate of reckless, consequence-free sex. The Republicans have clearly hit a responsive chord when they strive to outdo each other in demonizing PP, and that chord is that the very existence of Planned Parenthood represents an utter breakdown of sexual morals. Never mind that this isn’t true: Tucker Max actually DOES represent an utter breakdown of sexual morals, and Planned Parenthood can’t afford to be associated with him.

In general, though, the Nonprofiteer remains in favor of taking money from bad people: it’s not possible to eradicate them, and they ought to be good for something. If she still shudders (as she does) at entering the David H. Koch Theatre at Lincoln Center, she consoles herself that it represents millions of dollars the self-same Koch no longer has available to give to the Tea Party.

It’s fine if donating makes an evil donor look good. Just be sure that accepting doesn’t make you look bad.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 103 other followers