To Cope With Recent Tragedies I Have Taken Stock and Even Learned That I Am Grateful For Community Organizations In Part to Cope and Hope

I have not been posting, here, on Seeking Grant Money Today, or on its Twitter account for the past two weeks because my computer (which is five years old) went on the fritz and then simply did no more. 

I am neurotic and as such, I am a religious 'backer-upper' of my hard drive.  It's one up-side to being neurotic.  So, really, aside from the inconvenience of not having a computer of my own for a two week period, I didn't suffer anything bad.  I did not loose entire drives, lists of documents, or photos, my music library, years of e-mails, etc. as some people do when their computers cease functioning.

We now know much more important, invaluable, and real loss happened.  During the past two weeks, of course, the Sandy Creek Elementary Massacre in Newtown, Connecticut occurred on Friday, December 14.  That kind of horror puts everything into perspective, doesn't it?  There are no words to describe it or how one feels about it, are there?  There is no sense to make of it, beyond Newtown Police and the FBI's due diligence to provide evidence and testimony to the legal and public records.  Conducting an investigation is a pretty functional way to "make sense" of what happened for our society and a good one.  But, what about on an individual human level?  How do we make sense of it if we feel?  On the seventh day of Hanukkah, this year, and a mere eleven days before Christmas, Adam Lanza brutally murdered twenty very young students, six adult school staff members, and his mother.

Immediately, it did not matter that my laptop went kaput, days before.  It did not matter that I was overwhelmed about what gifts I had left to get still.  Nothing about whatever was bothering me before learning of the massacre had any of the gravitas it had, after learning of it.  My stress - the self importance of it (while normal and even understandable) was put into a new light.  It was an opportunity to be a bit self aware, and then from that self awareness it was an opportunity to better see my actual situation (which is blessed), and it was an opportunity to learn.  Before, I did not see that I was getting worked up about things that were both doable and manageable.  After, I admittedly saw my self importance amid what was neither truly difficult nor that big a deal (after all, I'd get a new computer, I'd get the gifts purchased and to their recipients, etc.).  After I saw things differently, like I'm sure you did, I instead immediately and intuitively put sadness, and of course compassion into place for especially the victims, their friends and family, the school staff, the Newtown community, and the first responders of/to the Sandy Creek Elementary Massacre.  But, too, I felt it for everyone in the world who loves a child or a school staff member anywhere... in Connecticut, in the United States, and in the world.

Especially at this time of year, but really at any time of year (such as a week after the Sandy Creek Elementary Massacre the four people who were shot and killed and three police officers who were wounded on a rural Pennsylvania road; or the the Oregon shooting a mere three days before the massacre on December 11, 2012; or the Aurora Colorado shooting that happened almost exactly five months before the massacre; etc.) we stop after these random acts of violence against a non-expecting general public and feel sadness and compassion for those lost and their loved ones and we can't believe it.  We can't understand it.  We can't make sense out of it.  But, usually afterward, we also learn of the heroes.  Some of the everyday people present during these acts of violence do extraordinary things amid horrific occurrences to protect and save those in harm's way.  As the stories of their actions and quick thinking trickle out after these tragedies we see the humanity, the hope, the strength that is indeed present certainly in the wake of such events (like the first responders who run into an elementary that holds innocent children and staff but, too, houses an incredibly over-armed shooter, to ensure that those in danger are taken out of the building and out of harm's way) but also we learn of the strength of some who snap to action for others during these horrors.

It is especially the stories that come out, after the tragedy, of the strength that is present during the violence that both puts hope into perspective and shines a light on given humanity, such as, in just one shining story of selflessness, Antonio Charro of Clackamas, Oregon who during the shooting rampage in the Oregon mall stepped out into the area the shooter had just shot up to take the side of Cindy Yuille of Portland, Oregon - a nurse who herself had just been shot, and was non-responsive lying on the floor.  He did this even as pops were still being heard from the shooter's weapon and while survivors ran past him encouraging him to get up, as they did, to get himself out of there.  He did not leave.  He said he could not leave her alone.  Sadly, Ms. Yuille passed away of her injuries.  This haunts Mr. Charro as he said in interviews, after; but her selfless service to her community as a nurse, and his humanity, his bravery, and his strength all still stand.  

We all make sense of the world around us and how we experience it through a lens partly made up of what we know, what we've experienced, our beliefs, our values, and what we dream of or hope for.  When I hear of the unassuming and selfless heroes that do what they can to protect or assist those in danger during or after these horrors, I find that I eventually think of how their action to help reminds me of the power, hope, and even the better in the world that (even if in a less remarkable way) nonprofit organizations - ones that truly exist and operate to do good in our world - instill in our communities and the futures we who know of their successes envision.

I do not wish, here, to belittle anyone or anything that is perhaps more remarkable, but rather to share my train of thought after learning about the horror of any crime against the unassuming or innocent, but especially how I thought in the days after the Sandy Creek Elementary Massacre, in particular.  I think my perspective is a way that I used not to try to make sense, but rather to see the world while knowing that such horrific evil exists and occurs.  Using my frame of reference of the world (as I experience it) this thought of nonprofits being (usually but of course not always) a force for good helped me to cope - to feel something like 'O.K.' (as best I can) about a world in which such shattering wrongness happens.  It's not that nonprofit's intention to good balances any of these tragedies.  Rather, remembering the victims and the wonderful people they were as recounted after by their loved ones, remembering the selfless heroism of the first responders, remembering the heroes during the violence and their deeds, and yes, even remembering that most nonprofits operate with a genuine interest to do good helps some semblance of hope and humanity come back into my view, after hearing about horrific ordeals.  Nothing removes the pain.  Nothing makes it all better.  But, the hope, strength, will of some to help, and their actions is truly heartening.  "Heartening".  That's a good word for how, at least in part, I've coped.  I've found a way to take heart.

In taking heart, I have located hope and even the joy of this season and of the coming new year, even while I feel sadness and compassion.

In this spirit, to you, I extend a wish: Belated Happy Hanukkah, Belated Happy Winter Solstice, Merry Christmas, Happy Kawanzaa, Blessed Ramadan, and best wishes in the new year.

No Nikola Tesla Museum Exists in the U.S., Yet - But A New Nonprofit Is Hoping You'll Help Change That

I am a Nikola Tesla fan.  Always have been since I learned about his ground breaking electrical inventions and his life. 

So, I was pleased when I read this weekend the article Nikola Tesla museum campaign earns $500,000 online in two days in the The Guardian U.K (U.S. Edition, article by Adam Gabbett, August 17, 2012).  I had no idea any of this was afoot and so, I thought I'd 'pay it forward' and help the effort by posting this post.

Tesla was a Serbian born in the Austrian Empire in 1856, who in June 1884, by virtue of his extraordinary engineering talents, came to America to to work for Thomas Edison.  Tesla invented the alternating electrical current and in 1894 demonstrated short range wireless electric communication: each were firsts.  Tesla wanted to provide the world with free wireless electricity (and in 1900 was going about doing it, beginning to build the Wardenclyffe Tower to transmit it worldwide), much to his former boss and contemporary's frustration. Thomas Edison, of course became an industrialist/tycoon through the sale of his electric devices.

As students, today, learn American industrial history, Thomas Edison is an inevitable topic while Tesla is usually simply not mentioned if not actually avoided, relegated because of his obscurity to something like a mystic or cult phenomenon - which is ludicrous.  By virtue of Edison's economic success and Tesla's eventual failing health and poverty at the end of his life, Nikola Tesla's discoveries were lost to most.   The historic and scientific canons of thought (and therefore history) did not consider him as important in the story as the light bulb baron.  Yet, Tesla's discoveries and contributions to the industrialized world and even our lives, today, cannot be denied.  This man and his contributions should not just be properly lauded - a museum is just the kind of public outreach tool that would rightly clarify prior misconceptions (and erroneous assumptions about a man whose only apparent misdeed is failing to become an industrial tycoon) and instead properly get his inventions and contributions known to people, and eventually taught in the classroom.  A museum would do the trick.  Yet, no Nikola Tesla museum exists in the United States.

Where would this museum most properly be located?  Where Nikola Tesla, himself, worked - his own laboratory, that he bought in 1901 in upstate New York, which still stands today - and is now up for sale for $1.6 million.  The State of New York has promised a matching grant of $850,000 to purchase the land, to the 501(c)(3) nonprofit working, now, to build the museum, Tesla Science Center at Wardenclyffe (New York) if the other $850,000 can be raised from the public (eh hem, you and I).  Hence, The Guardian's article about the museum campaign - which is more than on track.  The Tesla Science Center at Wardenclyffe, the nonprofit working to create the museum, is raising more than hoped by this time.  It's getting a boost by none other than Internet cultural phenom, The Oatmeal .  His fundraising is being done through Indiegogo of which he is giving the museum 100% of the contributions he receives.  Donors can also give to purchase the land (and eventually to build the museum) through the museum's PayPal page (via either credit or bank cards or a PayPal account), or this same museum web page provides the mailing address if donors would rather postal mail checks, money orders, etc. to the museum itself, to contribute. 

If you have a spare $5 (which doesn't come cheaply, today - I know) and believe in educating the public about those who have contributed to human scientific achievements and to our quality of life, today - or if you just like scientist geeky types - then please give.  It would be good to know that the $5 that could admittedly buy you a treat like a latte with all of the fancy trimmings instead went to insure that people, today and tomorrow, learn factually about a critically important grandfather of modern day science and electricity.  If you do give, I thank you.  I hope to visit that museum!

U.S. Nonprofits Challenging the Federal Charity Rules to Remain In Good Standing & Rhode Island Provides the Homeless With the First State Bill of Rights

There were some big nonprofit moves covered in the news this week.  One nonprofit agency innovated and voted in new rights for the often unseen homeless American.  Yet some American places of worship and marijuana dispensaries are overtly (even provocatively) challenging the Internal Revenue Service and State Attorney Generals (who oversee nonprofit/charity organizations' behavior and reporting at the state level).  See...

In Historic Move, R.I. Nears Homeless Bill of Rights by Rick Cohen published June 22, 2012 Says, "The Rhode Island State Assembly has just passed the first Homeless Bill of Rights in the U.S."

" The purpose of the law is that, “(N)o person should suffer unnecessarily or be subject to unfair discrimination based on his or her homeless status. It is the intent of this [law]…to ameliorate the adverse effects visited upon individuals and our communities when the state’s residents lack a home.""

To read the rest of this article, click here.
 
As churches get political, IRS stays quiet by Nanette Burns published June 21, 2012 states that a La Mesa, California pastor will "... urge his flock to vote for or against particular candidates.

"He knows such pulpit pleading could endanger his church's tax-exempt status by violating IRS rules for a 501(c)(3) charitable organization. A charity can take a position on policy issues but cannot act "on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office." To cross that line puts the $7 million mega-church's tax break at risk.

"Even so, Garlow not only intends to break the rules, he also plans to spend the next four months recruiting other pastors to do the same as part of Pulpit Freedom Sunday. On that day each year since 2008, ministers intentionally try to provoke the IRS. ..."

"... The situation is fraught with peril for the IRS, which needs to be seen as apolitical. When it cracks down on political activities proscribed by the 501(c)(3) regulations, it is inevitably branded as partisan."

" "It will get worse unless the IRS takes action, and they seem reluctant," said Nicholas Cafardi, dean emeritus and professor of law at Duquesne University and the longtime lawyer for the Catholic diocese of Pittsburgh.""

To read the rest of this article, click here.


Dispensing Profit by Jose Mozingo published June 17, 2012 also questions the use of the nonprofit organization identification but this time the identification is being claimed by California pot dispensaries.

"...The discoveries and many others like them across California are starkly at odds with the image presented by medical marijuana providers, who label themselves as "compassionate caregivers" and say they work on slim margins, give away cannabis to the poor and comply with the law.

"But many medical marijuana dispensaries have been making huge sums of money even as they claim to be nonprofit, according to court and law enforcement records, industry insiders, police and federal agents. The Times found a cash-infused retail world unlike the one pitched to voters who passed the Compassionate Use Act for "seriously ill Californians" in 1996.

"Few would suggest that everyone in the industry is making huge profits; many dispensaries do struggle to stay afloat. Nor do the court cases capture the relief truly ill patients ascribe to high-quality marijuana they might have difficulty getting if these shops did not exist.

"One reason for the vast disparities within the medical marijuana trade is that the regulations governing it are hazy."

To read the rest of this article, click here.

'Three Cups of Tea' Author and Nonprofit Founder Determined To Have Mismanaged Org After Year Long Investigation

This week, headlines have risen declaring that Greg Mortenson was found to have mis-manged his nonprofit organization, after a year long investigation, and must repay it $1 million.

The investigation into Mortenson's Montana based charity, was conducted by Montana State Attorney General Steve Bullock's office, the government entity that oversees nonprofits in the State of Montana.

Greg Mortenson is the author of Three Cups of Tea, a book that three years ago was flying off of bookshelves in the U.S. and elsewhere because, it seemed, every book club member or avid reader had to find out what the buzz was about.  It remained on the New York Times nonfiction best seller list for four years.  Mortenson, in it, alleges an experience becoming a humanitarian in Afghanistan and Pakistan ultimately building schools for girls in both countries.  He founded a charity to help provide those schools.  CBS later investigated the allegations in Mortenson's book and found much of it to be untrue.

To quote the Montana State Attorney General's Office's investigations report, "...Mortenson’s control of the Central Asia Institute (the nonprofit he founded) went largely unchallenged by its board of directors, which consisted of himself and two people loyal to him,..." and "When an employee would question his practices, Mortenson either resisted or ignored the person, the report found."

Readers of this blog know that my first goal is to provide the reader with nonprofit best practices (the latest in professional nonprofit thinking and practices for all operations of nonprofit administration that are proven time and time again) in order to save the reader (a presumed nonprofit supporter) time, money, and all other resources (i.e. the nonprofit's reputation, its volunteers, its potential to recruit new donors, volunteers, and community partners and keep them, etc.).  Operating an organization adhering to professional nonprofit best practices is a good way to save any nonprofit its resources, reputation, and even its official charitable status with the governments overseeing it.

So, I appreciate cautionary tales from the real world of the nonprofit sector because they demonstrate that what I discuss herein is often unknown, ignored, or worse by some nonprofit's leadership - and there is sometimes real fallout from that.  Almost always, though, amid poor nonprofit operations it is the nonprofit's intended beneficiaries (i.e. the girls of Afghanistan and Pakistan who have no resources, themselves - in this instance) that are harmed the most.  This is the reason that operating through best practices is so critical.  Often it is the least powerful with the least resources that are harmed by poorly run nonprofit organizations.

To see what led to and what the fallout of the the Three Cups of Tea scandal is, see:


CBS' "60 Minutes" report on the Three Cups of Tea allegations proven untrue

Questions Over Greg Mortenson's Stories

Three Cups of Tea Author Defends Book

AP News Break: 'Three Cups' Author Mismanaged  Group

'Three Cups of Tea' Author To Pay $1 Million To U.S. Charity

And a terrible tragedy that is allegedly the result of the allegations that the book's story was at least in part fiction:

Three Cups of Tea co-author, Relin commits suicide

Recently There Are Concerns By and About the IRS and Its Oversight of Political Organizations In This Election Year

With American politics (sadly) as polarizing as ever, the 2012 election is heating up amid new concerns from the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that political organizations wanting 501(c)(4) charity status from the IRS truly fit that type of organization's legal/operations description (in contrast to 527 entities which are political organizations, or, for your information, say, the more common 501(c)(3) charitable organization that provides services or items pertaining to a cause or issue)).

I do not typically write about 501(c)(4)'s but the times being what they are I thought it was not just pertinent current event discussion, but a good example of how the IRS attempts to oversee nonprofit organizations (of each and all kinds).  The IRS' concern is not to insert government's hand, (as you will read, below, has been suggested) but rather to conduct its tasked oversight (as has been required by law, over all charities) to be certain that the American people are receiving welfare from the organizations that Americans (through the IRS) have given charitable status (which allows them to legally collect tax free contributions).  If these organizations seeking charitable status are not providing welfare to the community, that is fine, but they then will be categorized as the appropriate entity and not allowed to raise tax free dollars.  This is not new.  This has been the rule and law for tens and tens of years.

Many political organizations wishing to acquire or retain their 501(c)(4) charitable status also collect donations without reporting from whom or where the donations came and how much those donations were.  The IRS is not saying whether it is investigating any organizations for this reason.  501(c)(4)'s are being tight lipped, too.  Conversely, watchdogs are crying 'foul' over the IRS's historic reservation to get too critical of 501(c)(4)'s and the requirement that these specific organizations be providing welfare to the community at large (or even just be able to describe what charitable welfare activity, service, or product they provide).  Watchdogs claim that the right these political organizations have to raise tax free dollars without having to provide any true charitable service is not just unfair, but leading to a lack of real welfare programs in a wake of many dollars being raised tax free.  The IRS historically has not been interested in getting involved in overseeing political organizations too terribly much as it is a tricky rope to walk (being the federal government - both the entity politics shapes, but too, the organization responsible for overseeing filing, organizational reporting, accounting, etc.).

Below, the following articles demonstrate what is going on, right now, amid these issues, concerns, and responsibilities:

IRS Getting Sleeves Dirty With 501(c)(4)'s

A Democracy Deficit At Americans Elect? (an example of an organization recently changing to the 501(c)(4) status and the fallout)

Politics, Money and Taxes (a look back at how this issue was shaping up, already, in 2011 for three specific organizations)


IRS May Make Political Groups Pay Dearly for Keeping Donors Secret -- And Out Them


Strategies for Creating and Operating 501(c)(3)'s, 501(c)(4)'s, and PACs

Susan G, Komen Organization's Experience Is the Devil In the Details (for Us and Not Just Komen)

Politics aside, for the sake of our discussion about nonprofit best practices and the 'why' in 'why do nonprofits choose to practice them' is helpful, so we are taking a cursory look at the recent Susan G. Komen happenstance and where that now leaves the agency what they can do to fix their public image.  The mission statement, as Shakespeare might have written (sorry, William, for my liberties here) , is "the thing".  When a nonprofit that has not taken any political stands before is perceived as having done so by the public (and that public is either for or not in agreement about that particular political stance) harm has indeed been done to the organization's brand (and its ability to raise all kinds of support).  In looking at Komen's situation we begin to understanding how nonprofits best operate effectively, efficiently, professionally ensuring their own longevity and thereby ensuring that their mission's goals get delivered to the beneficiaries of the organization's work.

If I were to go into Susan G. Komen's offices, after their harm to their own brand, I would advise them of the following (based on what is commonly known as per only what has been generally reported by the media)...

Mission drift, at a minimum, occurred.  When an organization's leadership, in any of its decision making for the organization, over-reaches or altogether forgoes the agency's mission and the goals of that mission - mission drift is most likely happening.  The number one way to get an organization back on track is for any one (or more) of the nonprofit's leaders to simply recognize and acknowledge the mission drift has happened.  This is the first step to getting the ship righted.

What Susan G. Komen did (politics aside) when they decided to pull previously awarded funding from a nonprofit that (whether one agrees with it being a controversial organization or not) is indeed a flash point, in political discussions, and Komen only pulled funding from that organization (and that news broke publicly) then Komen's leadership put the entire Komen organization name, mission, reputation, and goals out to walk a very fine line.

In their 2010 tax filing to the IRS (for fiscal year 2010), as required, Komen reported their mission statement as: "Nancy G. Brinker promised her sister that she would do everything in her power to end breast cancer forever. That promise is now Susan G. Komen for the Cure®, the global leader of the breast cancer movement, having invested more than $1.9 billion since inception in 1982. As the world’s largest grassroots network of breast cancer survivors and activists, we’re working together to save lives, empower people, ensure quality care for all and energize science to find the cures. Thanks to events like the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure® and the Susan G. Komen 3-Day for the Cure®, and generous contributions from our partners, sponsors and fellow supporters, we have become the largest source of nonprofit funds dedicated to the fight against breast cancer in the world."  [As an aside, I might also advise Komen, if I were to meet with their leaders that their mission statement needs to be tightened up (less words - more meaning on point)].

The meat or on point portion of that huge mission statement is actually the short phrase: "... we’re working together to save lives, empower people, ensure quality care for all and energize science to find the cures."  Nowhere in the entire (long) mission statement but especially not in the crux of it (this phrase I've highlighted, here) does it say anything about funding or not funding based on whether a potential Komen grant recipient organization is under investigation (which has been repeatedly stated in ensuing media reports as the reason that Komen initially pulled the grant that they promised Planned Parenthood).  In fact, the mission only says (we'll look at verbs) "empower people", "ensure quality care for all", and "energize since to find the cures".  Again, I'd advise Komen that they need to clarify, better specify, and hone down this mission statement - but it is what it is.

Though this specific instance is now reversed, Komen said that the board had create a new policy and this new policy (not funding organizations under investigation) is what ruled Planned Parenthood's promised grant out (and while Planned Parenthood will receive its promised grant, now, it is right now not clear if Planned Parenthood will receive any other Komen grants in the future - but Komen is the grant donor and it has the right to develop whatever policies (again, politics aside) that is in line with Komen's mission and it's goals that they deem necessary to best carry out that mission).

Policies must also (like any and all decision making that an organization's leadership makes) be in line with the organization's mission, its goals, and the current needs of the organization's beneficiaries (of course, in Komen's case, women with breast cancer).  After looking at their mission (above) I am not sure how not funding potential Komen recipient organizations under investigation fulfills the Komen mission statement, but for the sake of the lesson, here, let's just give Komen the benefit of the doubt and say that yes, that policy is in line with Komen's mission (again, politics aside for this discussion).

Here's the thing: if any nonprofit's leadership makes decisions (popular or not) that are not clearly in line with (or are not explained in the media within the context of) the nonprofit's mission statement then current and potential new donors, community partners, volunteers, and other kinds of supporters will not be clear about what the intention and goals of the organization are, anymore (because evidently the organization's leadership is not).

This gets back to my point, above, about Komen making a policy decision that only needs to appear political to the public (whether meaning to or not and whether indifferent to, for, or against Planned Parenthood's breast exams program (specifically what the Komen grant will fund - which is in direct line with Komen's mission statement)) - Komen has entered a heretofore uncharted area.  This is where and how Komen has done damage to its own brand.

You see, like when you donate to any nonprofit, anyone who volunteers with, donates to, or any other separate nonprofit that partners with Komen (or has in the past) will now at least stop and think before they do so again.  They may decide to give again, volunteer again, and continue to partner with Komen on community projects - but the point is that they will stop and consider whether they should.  Some will not.  That kind of loss, called attrition, is difficult at best (especially in this economy) even for enormous nonprofit operations that, in at least 2010 (the most recent year we have on record for them), operated at nearly $345 million.   This is why I say that damage has been done.  Komen will feel some loss of support across its volunteer program, its donations receipts, and among which community partners stay or go.  It has some public relations, marketing, and outreach work to do, now, to clarify where it stands on its mission statement.

Mission statements aren't just 'annoying blah, blah, blah' only good for internal marketing posters tacked up over every kitchenette in the nonprofit's office, for the volunteers and staff to read.  They are actually clear statements that (should) explain what the organization does, for whom or what, why, how (and even where, and when) for everyone working for and with the nonprofit, and everyone in the community volunteering with, donating to, and partnering with that nonprofit.  When a mission statement has really been worked on to become a powerful ally in the organization's ability to serve the beneficiaries, it is the organization's strongest point in any and all of its support-raising work.  You see, the reason that anyone supports but then supports again any one nonprofit is because they not only believe in the cause and the organization's effort to champion the cause - they believe in the organization's efforts and their potential to continue to be effective at doing the work of their mission statement.  If for any reason the public begins to question an organization's motivations (or more rightly the motivations of the leadership of that organization) it puts into question the confidence the supporter had in the organization's commitment to its mission's goal.  People begin to wonder 'well, if I donate to them, are they doing with my dollar what they say they exist to do - or are they motivated by something else that is who knows what?'   In the end, a mission statement is a bond between an organization and its beneficiaries but also between an organization and the community in which it does its work and raises all of its support.  That bond is invaluable to all three entities: the organization, its beneficiaries, and the community at large.  Once, though, that bond is questioned beneficiaries can lose as the organization may get less support (thereby affecting those needing the help the most).

That is the greatest shame, here.  The women who have breast cancer and those who love them have actually lost at least a bit because of Komen's controversy and its public fall out.  This is something that will have to be fixed.

Update 3/28/12: See the article Komen's Brand Equity Plummets According to Harris Poll: What Other Changes Are Afoot?

A Look At Susan G. Komen's Experience After the Backlash Causes Them to Reconsider Pulling Their Grants for Planned Parenthood

This is an excellent lesson in the anatomy of a nonprofit's public relations and marketing nightmare after its leadership makes decisions based on anything other than the organization's mission statement and current programmatic and organizational goals.  How can a nonprofit avoid this?  Educate your board in current, professional, nonprofit, best practices; conduct regular strategic planning based on real programs' outcomes and current beneficiaries unmet needs related to your mission; remove stalwart or 'overly dominant' leadership and replace them with proactively recruited talent and successes as needed; and require that all organizational decisions be made based on the mission and current organizational goals.

The fall out of Susan G. Komen's 2012 decision to make a political stand (on whether or not it would support Planned Parenthood's breast exam program) has indeed caused waves (it is after this snafu less support by the public; its reputation among all former, current, and potential new supporters is damaged; and its internal changes are both signs of good change but signs, too, of upheaval) and the news items describing these repercussions ("waves") are listed, here, with the most recent news about it at the top through to the older, listed at the bottom:

Komen, Planned Parenthood say lessons learned from funding dust-up

How Planned Parenthood Is "Like the Mafia"... Or Not

Ex-Komen official blasts 'Bullyhood'

Ex-Komen VP Karen Handel is Writing A Memoir Called Planned Bullyhood


Planned Parenthood Puts Donations from Komen Skirmish To Use

Komen founder to step down as chief executive

Chief Fundraiser Leaves Susan G. Komen

 Fewer People Registering for Susan G. Komen Races

Komen's Brand Equity Plummets According to Harris Poll: What Other Changes Are Afoot?

Calls Grow For Leader of Komen To Step Down

Insight: Komen charity under microscope for funding, science

Komen  exec quits over Planned Parenthood flap

Komen Caught Pink Handed But What Else Don't We Know?

Susan G. Komen Foundation revises policy that barred Planned Parenthood funding


A Cancer Survivor On Susan G. Komen

Amid Komen flap a frantic 24 hours for agencies in Twin Cities

Komen reversal on Planned Parenthood doesn't end controversy


Democrats laud, GOP laments Susan G. Komen reversal

Komen: Collateral Damage Assessments Made On the Fly

Three Contemporary Articles Discussing Findings Proving the Widening U.S. Class Disparity

 "Poll Finds Class Tension On Steep Rise, Especially Among Young Adults" by Ruth McCambridge

"The Rise and Consequences of Inequality in the United States" by Alan B. Krueger Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers January 12, 2012  

As the introduction to his paper explains:
"...The topic I will address today is inequality.  As you may know, I am a labor economist.  Labor economics is the study of work and pay  It occurred to me that the field of labor economics can also be described as an attempt to understand inequalities related tot he job market.

"...My theme in this talk is that the rise in inequality in the United States over the last three decades has reached the point that inequality in incomes is causing an unhealthy division in opportunities, and is a threat to our economic growth."

"Report Finds King's "Dream" Looks Bleak Unless New Alliances Converge" by Ruth McCambridge

Specific to the nonprofit sector - this article discusses a recent study's findings indicating what the nonprofit sector could do to more closely approximate the goals of Dr. King's Dream.

Added January 25, 2012:

Prominent Conservatives Join Liberals in Expressing Income Gap Concerns


George Soros On the Coming U.S. Class War

The Southern Oregon Historical Society Has Raised Some Eyebrows... What Could They Have Done Differently?

Nonprofits sometimes offer us interesting news, like,  Indian Artifacts A Tough Sell for SOHS published December 4, 2011 by the Southern Oregon region's Mail Tribune and written by Damian Mann which details another example of a nonprofit's leadership making a decision to raise money through a method that has others in the museum's community at large, concerned.


According to the article,on November 28, the Medford, Oregon based Southern Oregon Historical Society (SOHS) auctioned off in San Francisco, a block of items comprised of Lakota Sioux artifacts.  The items were donated to the museum in 1957 by a Grants Pass, Oregon resident, Benjamin Bones, according to the paper.  As these are historical artifacts (one item, a Cheyenne war shirt, perhaps one of the oldest still in existence) and as the body that auctioned the item off is a museum, there are concerns, for example, as noted in in the paper, by the Cultural Resource Manager, of the Sioux nation.

Bear with me, here, in getting down the museum's point of view of the situation (as it has been quoted and reported in the above newspaper article).  It is germane to our discussion of this situation.  

To quote the newspaper, "The estimated value of the collection, which the historical society hopes will sell as one unit, is from $300,000 to $500,000.
"SOHS and other museums throughout the world undertake a lengthy process before selling or donating items that aren't appropriate to their mission but take up space and resources to manage.

"SOHS rarely de-accessioned artifacts from its collection until two years ago, when financial pressures increased and the society began weeding out items that don't have any connection with the history of Southern Oregon. Since May 2009, artifact sales have totaled $155,176."  and, "Pat Harper, SOHS interim director, said a report was commissioned in August to make sure that the sale of the shirt wouldn't violate the Native American Grave Repatriation Act.

""Items such as shirts are not covered by cultural patrimony," she said. "We wanted to be absolutely certain that we weren't defying the law."

"She said attempts to sell the artifacts to a nonprofit have met without success over the past two years.

"Harper said the historical society couldn't provide the proper preservation techniques for the shirt, which also doesn't fit with the mission of preserving artifacts related to Oregon, and particularly Southern Oregon.

She said part of the historical society's mission is to generate sufficient money to preserve the artifacts that relate to this region." and "Tina Reuwsaat, associate curator of collections for the historical society, said an attempt was made to contact Cheyenne and Sioux tribal members through American Indians at Southern Oregon University.

""We never got any responses," she said.

"Reuwsaat said the attempts to contact the Cheyenne and Sioux were more related to discovering additional information about the shirt's provenance rather than to sell it.

"If money were no object, it would be a different story," she said. "We wish we could have given it away. But that wouldn't be responsible to our mission."" and ""It's sad what's happening," said Steve Vance, tribal historic preservation officer with the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe. "If I could stop it, I would."" and "Vance, who learned of the shirt only recently, said other institutions such as the Smithsonian have obtained American Indian artifacts over the years, and tribal officials have sought their return without success."

Interestingly, this is not the first time that this particular museum has come under fire for looking to its historic holdings to raise its funds.  In the New York Times February 13, 2010 article, Southern Oregon Historical Society looks to the Past for a Future by William Yardley the Southern Oregon Historical Society "which controls five of the most prominent historic properties in [sic Jacksonville, Oregon] a town that is itself a historic district, has proposed selling some of the sites as a way to prevent the organization’s own economic collapse".  To further quote the Times piece, "Against the growing resistance, Allison Weiss, the executive director of the historical society, said the society has had to rethink some of its plans. But she expressed little patience for complaints about them.

“What are people’s priorities?” Ms. Weiss said. “They’re carrying on that this would be a catastrophe, yet nobody’s coming forward to fund these projects.”" and "Ms. Weiss, who joined the historical society last summer, said she did not view selling the properties as a betrayal of the society’s mission. She said the society’s priority should be its collection, not preserving buildings or staging historic re-enactments in them, as has sometimes been done. Besides, she said, there is no money to do so.

"“I’m so not of that old school,” Ms. Weiss said. “What is the value of it if it’s just sitting there and no one can go into it?”"

Nonprofits and foundations, alike, provide us grant writers with excellent information that helps us develop better (and more time saving and cost effective) grant proposals, through their annual tax filings, which are public record.  For our discussion, the museum (and its fundraising arm, the museum's foundation) may be assessed by what it says about itself in its own tax filings with the federal government.  The most recent year we have to look at is for fiscal activity occurring during 2009.  Again, please bear with me and read over the following.

Looking at the museum's Foundation's federal tax filing (the IRS form 990) for 2010, on Guidestar, it appears to have paid out a little over $66,000 in grants.  Remember, what they reported on (in the 2010 filing) is 2009 finances.  The grants as listed on the return, were paid to the museum.  According to the document, a little over $55,000 in assets ("publicly traded securities") were sold to generate a majority of the grants' funds.

If we look, next, at the museum's federal tax filing (also, the IRS form 990) for 2010 on Guidestar, (keeping in mind that the 2010 filing reports on 2009's finances) its operating budget was a little over $500,000.  The value of the museum's real estate "investments" decreased.  SOHS raised a little over $50,000 in dues, a little over $200,000 in government grants, programs raised a little over $190,000, and all else raised was a bit over $120,000. "Fundraising Activities" were reported as: Mail solicitations, Solicitation of non-government grants, Phone solicitations, In-person solicitations, and Special fundraising events (and of the fundraising events, they reported a net earning of a little over $47,000).  The museum was reportedly over 99% publicly supported (the remaining 1% being investment income).

On the same SOHS 2010 tax form (reporting on 2009), interestingly:

__ In 2009 ten historical items were donated to the museum.  These were valued at $71,344 and it is telling that "the Method of Determining Revenues" is listed as "Actual Sales".

__ On the tax form's Schedule L, "Transactions With Interested Persons", a loan, noted as "Operating Funds", in the amount of $600,000 was lent to one of the then two Directors.

__ With regard to operations, on Schedule O "Supplemental Information" and under "Ceased Conducting or Significant Changes to Services" they state, "As a cost-saving measure, some of the facilities were closed to the public for a portion of the year.

__ Under "Significant Changes to Organizational Documents" they stated, "Revised bylaws were adopted...".  Under "Footnote for Art, Treasures, Etc." - they state, "Historical artifact collection primarily donated and not valued so not included on balance sheet.  Excess artifacts or artifacts not relating to organization's primary purpose have been sold and are reflected as a revenue item."

__ and under "Description of Organization's Collections And How Furthers Exempt Purpose" - the SOHS says, "Artifact collection is maintained as primary purpose of organization.  Historical items of local significance are preserved, available for research and publicly displayed."

We will use the above information to inform the following discussion about Southern Oregon Historical Society's fundraising, operations decisions, public relations, and more.

Let's use this news story as a subject of analysis:

As stated in this blog repeatedly, a nonprofit operates most effectively and successfully (in all of its operations - from programs to fundraising) when its leadership makes decisions based on the mission statement (including current organizational goals (which should also come partly from the mission and partly by the nonprofit's constituents' current but as yet unmet needs)).  The organization is defined by its mission statement.  It reports it to the governments that oversee it, and it defines itself (in part) in the public through it.  Leadership, then, must look to the organization's mission in all of its major organizational operations decisions.  If leaders do not - they are perhaps experiencing mission drift; or not familiar with contemporary, professional, nonprofit best practices, or worse.  Best practices are those because they have worked effectively, efficiently, and successfully for so many nonprofits, across the U.S., of different causes, sizes, and regions.  They also ensure a nonprofit's reputation is not potentially diminished (or worse).

For any nonprofit to operate, it must pay its bills.  In order for an organization to do that, it must fundraise all year long, every week of every month, and it helps if the organization diversifies and increases the number of the kinds of fundraising methods that it uses to do so.  Diversification of fundraising methods insures that money is coming in, the donors (and potential new donors) are being engaged in different ways that they may, as individuals enjoy, when another fundraiser isn't appealing to them (i.e. monthly donation remittance envelopes included in newsletters, for example may be easier and more convenient to some; while others may look forward and enjoy attending an organization's annual golf tournament).  If cash is not coming into a nonprofit regularly and in large enough amounts to cover an organization's operating expenses, then it must increase donations coming in, lessen its expenses, and strategize to make monthly income consistent with the organization's projected needs.

If I were to consult with the SOHS, after discovering the previously listed information about the organization, above, I would share the following concerns and suggestions:

__ The 2010 New York news piece about the potential sale of historic buildings is an example of the organization looking to is collection holdings for something to sell to raise funds.  In 2009, according to the museum's own tax return, it sold over $70,000 in artifacts it received as a donation, and the current news story about the November 2011 San Francisco auction where an auction block of Sioux artifacts clearly demonstrates this nonprofit needs to review its organizational operating budget, perhaps work with a consultant or perhaps send its board members and executive director to professional nonprofit affiliations providing trainings - but they need to learn about what nonprofit fundraising is, what works today, how it is properly done (in a way that does not potentially harm the organization's reputation, let alone its potential to develop and retain community support such as donors, volunteers, and community partners); and then SOHS needs to create a development or fundraising plan based on what was learned, the board must ratify it, and the organization needs to implement it.

__ The manner in which the then executive director reacted to community concern for the potential 2009 sale of the SOHS' historic buildings in Jacksonville, as reported in the NY Times piece, is a missed opportunity.  The organization could have cultivated community concern for the museum's own historic holdings and used it as a powerful method to raise donations, volunteers, and goodwill.  If a nonprofit tries to operate, within its community, outside of the concerns and interests of the public - it is seriously jeopardizing its public image and perhaps doing even worse harm than that.  The nonprofit that understands that without a strong relationship with its community, it stumbles, is the organization that succeeds.  In the same vein, the current interim director is quoted in the Mail Tribune article as stating that a report was commissioned in August to make sure that the sale of the shirt wouldn't violate the Native American Graves Repatriation Act, and that "We wanted to be absolutely certain that we weren't defying the law."  Yet, not defying the law does not mean that a nonprofit has not crossed a professional ethics line, or a line with the public and its trust, or worse, harmed its credibility as a nonprofit.  Still today, it seems, that the Southern Oregon Historical Society is missing an opportunity to: develop potential community partners (i.e. the Sioux nation and its cultural resources staff), to demonstrate its credibility (not trying to reach the Sioux nation by speaking to a small way out of the way, Southern Oregon, college (Southern Oregon University) to determine if the Sioux (which are based in South Dakota) would be interested in buying the historic Sioux artifacts - but instead actually looking up the Sioux nation's website (just Google "Sicangu Lakota" and call the Tribe, itself)); to demonstrate its potential to exist today and tomorrow (successful fundraising shows potential donors that yes, the organization can maintain its costs and will be here tomorrow); a commitment to the organization's integrity by working within the organization to consistently raise enough funds in a way other than selling the very historical items that make a museum - its holdings - and by having a fundraising plan in place that also proactively states what to do if the organization finds itself needing more cash or in a down economy; and more.

__ The current interim director is reportedly paraphrased in the Mail Tribune piece, "Harper said part of the historical society's mission is to generate sufficient money to preserve the artifacts that relate to this region."  Yet, on SOHS' website they state on their "Our Story" web page, "Our mission is to make history come alive by collecting, preserving, and sharing the stories and artifacts of our common heritage..  Nowhere in the mission statement of the museum does it say any such thing.  Now, the mission of the museum's foundation may say something about generating funds for the museum but the museum's mission statement does not.  You may think I am splitting hairs, but it comes down to this: how does any one nonprofit differ itself from another (think of all of the nonprofits that work on the same issue - yet do so working on different aspects of it (i.e. cancer research, cancer patient support, cancer treatment services, etc.))?  Each nonprofit, even ones working on the same exact cause or issue (i.e. cancer) must provide a real, needed, but as yet unmet service, program...ultimately an outcome to the community.  To make my point, here, even clearer: why would I (or you) donate any historic artifacts that my family has in its possession to the SOHS, right now?  I would not feel confident that the museum knows how to raise the amount of money that it needs to operate, outside of selling its own artifacts at auction.  It reportedly sells the very things that its own mission states are its reason for existing.  The SOHS, according to its own mission, appears to right now operate against its very stated reason for existing.  As a potential new donor, volunteer, or community partner, I might look at this organization's track record and ask what it is exactly that the organization's leadership uses to make operations decisions?  The current interim director (according to the article) isn't even correct about the museum's mission.

__ Looking at how much was loaned, in 2009 to one of the directors, and looking, too, at how much the Sioux collection netted, potentially, at auction last month - it is interesting that the amounts are similar (i.e. $600,000 lent, and approximately between $300,000 - $500,000 raised at auction).  Perhaps the SOHS should not have lent $600,000 in 2009?  This is another example of why a nonprofit's leadership should look to its mission when considering any major organizational decision (such as 'whether we should lend large amounts of money or not).  Lending money is nowhere in either the museum's or the foundation's mission.  I know that in the real world it is legal to do so, and not unusual, but look at the ultimate outcome for the organization (today in 2011) when the leaders made a decision outside of the mission - it led to them apparently being down, in amounts needed to operate, about the very same amount that they loaned in 2009.

__ Every nonprofit's track record is its potential to succeed.  Each time this organization has stated why it sells its historic holdings to raise money, it is interesting that the related comments (even as quoted from their 2010 tax return for 2009 finances) sounds like its in contrast with their mission.  Why would a nonprofit that exists to show the public historic artifacts then turn to the very kernel of its reason for existing and use them as the means to continue funding the organization?  Why even go anywhere near there?  What a public relations, potential to raise funds, and credibility nightmare!  It's already difficult enough to raise funds for any nonprofit.  Why take an organization down a path that potentially (in any way at all) can cause people to question the organization?  According to their 2010 IRS return, in 2009 they were holding special events, to raise funds, writing grant requests, soliciting in person and on the phone...why then, wouldn't the organization increase the number of special events it holds (i.e. host a new annual gala) , implement a bequests program, increase grant writing goals and successes, become a United Way Umbrella agency, become a part of the State Employee Giving program and other corporations' giving programs, implement a major donors program, etc.?

__ The current interim director, according to the article, sees the Sioux collection as not relevant to Southern Oregon.  I am not sure that the Sioux artifacts are not pertinent to Southern Oregon (as stated in the SOHS' mission) because the man who contributed the historic collection lived in Southern Oregon, and according to the recent newspaper piece, the museum and the Sioux Nation, itself, are not sure of the collection's significance, provenance, or how the man who donated it to SOHS came to own it.  So, then, how can the museum be so certain that the Sioux artifacts are not pertinent to the museum's own region's history (which is, according to the mission, what the museum exists to provide the public with)?  Too, not being able to provide a historic item with the necessary preservation methods required to keep it is not in direct contrast to the mission and in fact, could be a project that the Sioux Tribe might have collaborated with SOHS to do.  As I repeatedly state in this blog, grant donors, in particular (and especially in this economy) prefer to fund projects and programs in which two or more separate nonprofits collaborate.

I know that the SOHS has not broken the law, that their lending money, that selling holdings that they do not see as relevant to their mission is a common practice by museums, that sometimes decisions need to be made that the leadership would rather not do, and so on.  My point in writing this post is not to criticize the SOHS, here, but rather to use their record as an example to my readers for educational purposes.  While none of these practices that they have done are illegal, or contrary to common practices in their professional field, and so on - it cannot be disputed that they have also developed, at least in the press over the past few years, concerns among the organization's own community and beyond.  This is enough for any organization to stop, take a look at itself, and seriously assess what they have been doing that led to the tough public record, and where the organization can improve and go. 

A Real World Example Demonstrating Why Nonprofits' Mission Statements Are More Important Than The Almighty Dollar

I write, in this blog, about professional nonprofit best practices a lot.  Best practices are not anything written in stone or some pact that was galvanized by every professional nonprofit volunteer or employee swearing allegiance; but rather, best practices are simply either adhered to and practiced regularly - or not.  Usually whether best practices are conducted depends on what experience the nonprofit volunteer or employee has and what they know about how things are done and why they're done that way.

So, for this reason, I find great value in noting and following real world current events to both track what the community (at large) thinks or how it reacts to the situation (many times no one writes to the Editor when a paper mentions a local nonprofit's bookkeeper bilked the organization out of money).  On Thursday, though, I spotted a news item that I think is, at a minimum, informative and more than that, probably a good example of when and how a nonprofit can run into conflicts of interest when weighing the organization's very reason for existing and operating (its mission statement) against a donor's wishes.

On November 9, 2011 The New York Times published Parks Chief Blocked Plan For Grand Canyon Bottle Ban written by Felicity Barringer and it was carried, at least nationally, by news wire services.  Though you may not, I happen to value this nation's amazing and unmatched great outdoors.  My point in writing about this story, though, is not about the environmental issue (of which I am going to write my federal representatives about).  This story is interesting because last year, as the article states, " Weary of plastic litter, Grand Canyon National Park officials were in the final stages of imposing a ban on the sale of disposable water bottles in the Grand Canyon..." but the top federal parks official, Jon Jarvis decided against the ban because a major donor did not like it.  To quote The Times piece,"...Coca-Cola, which distributes water under the Dasani brand and has donated more than $13 million to the parks, had registered its concerns about the bottle ban through the foundation, and...the project was being tabled. His account was confirmed by park, foundation and company officials..."

If we look at Jarvis' decision objectively, we need to refer to the National Park Service's mission statement (as stated on their website),"...to promote and regulate the use of the...national parks...which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.".  Jarvis seems to have made a decision about Parks operations outside the scope of the National Park Service's mission statement.  This is not unheard of, by any means.  Sometimes nonprofit leadership makes decisions that are motivated by reasons outside of the organization's mission statement without any controversy.


The controversy, in Jarvis' decision, is that he did what one of the National Park Service's donors wanted which is in sharp contrast to the agency's own mission: it's reason for existing.  In fact, Jarvis was willing to ignore a good majority of the Park Service's purpose as stated it is clearly stated in the mission statement.  This is not my opinion, but rather, his action is in direct contrast to the purpose of the Park Service and this is discernible by the actual facts.  


Even still, perhaps you are saying to me, "well...we are in a recession and the Park Service could use all of the donors and donations it can retain".  This is true and this is not a small point. Coke and its subsidiaries are probably very generous partners with the Park Service as a donor. Jarvis may (I could not find any comment from him on this point) have decided to do what Coke wished irregardless of the Park Service's mission purpose because its own budget has been cut by Congress.  In fact, this may be the very crux of the situation.  These are tough times.  Yet, always, even in poor economic times, a nonprofit's leadership must decide what the organization stands for, what it will tolerate (with regard to the organization's own best interest and future ability to do its work) and what it can not abide.  Jarvis decided in this down economy to do what one of his big donors wanted.  So, perhaps now you are saying to me, "well...doesn't this kind of thing happen all of the time when a major donor helps a nonprofit build a new building, for instance, and wants naming rights for one of the new building's wings?".  This is also true.  Yes, this occurs. Usually, though, naming rights is an actual fundraising method used to help raise the funds for the new building (before the building is built and years in advance, while the fundraising for the new building to be is being planned out).


If we look at this situation considering nonprofit operations, from a purely professional practical point of view, the Park Service's leadership's decision to do what one of its major donors wanted despite the clearly described purpose of the Service, stated in its own mission statement, which contrasts with the purpose; this is not a good decision and not within best practices.  This can apply to any nonprofit in any similar situation and nonprofit leadership actually sometimes have to say to a donor (even a major donor), 'thank you but we have to return the check' (see my post, Is There Really A Grant That Our Organization May Not Take?).  Here's why:


__ No organization operates without referring to its mission statement.  Without the mission, the organization is a ship directionless in the night.  There is no guiding principle or reason the organization operates or even exists.  (This is why mission statements are of value).  When an organization does strategic planning, considered what new programs or services to implement, or weighs what its beneficiaries need and can receive from the nonprofit - only the mission statement clearly defines the organization and so this definition clarifies for the organization's leadership what should and should not be considered worth doing.  If a nonprofit, though, only refers to its mission statement in a cursory or even inconsistent manner then its leadership is likely not making decision based on the best interest of the organization's beneficiaries or the organization's own welfare (as stated, for instance, in the Sarbanes Oxley Act which all American nonprofit boards are required by law to uphold).  The best interest of the organization and its beneficiaries, as the law describes it, come before the interests of others (including donors).  How would the law know what the organization's best interest is?  The nonprofit, in order to be an official charity, per the IRS, files its mission statement (and must update it with the IRS if and when the mission statement is updated or changed in any way).  This is how clear the law is about the importance of the mission statement.


__ What should other donors or contributors of any kind (such as volunteers or community partners) think about the nonprofit that puts its beneficiaries second to the interests of one of the organization's major donors?  Why would you or I give to the Park Service, right now, if we agree with the organization's mission statement and see the purpose of the Parks exactly the same as it is stated in the Park Service's own mission statement?  We wouldn't right now and would, instead, divert that donation to another charity that will use the money in a manner that I am more comfortable - one in which I (a contributor) understands the organization is supposed to operate by looking at other potential recipient organizations' operations and weighing how consistent each other potential recipient organization's leadership make decisions or conduct operations with each organization's mission.  Donors are truly investors who want to see their money result in real positive outcomes as the donor understands the organization's goals to be (one way donors or anyone among the general public, outside the organization, does this is by looking at an organization's mission and its recent track record).


__ How much money does anyone or any corporation have to give in order to have sway over what the nonprofit does or does not do and why is that amount worth that kind of power over the organization's welfare and its beneficiaries' welfare?  Any nonprofit that is willing to do what a donor wants beyond the scope of the organization's mission, values, or purpose needs to seriously evaluate its own leadership and perhaps train those leaders in modern professional best practices, or even let them go.  Making decisions that do not proactively induce the organization's purpose or goals may be (and often actually is) an indication that someone at the top is either unaware of what professional best practices are and why, or does not care and is a dangerous liability to the organization's public image and future potential to raise any kind of support.  Is any donation worth this?


__ As of the date and time of my writing this post (10:30am PST 11/11/11) the Times states in its article that a law suit is now going to be brought forward, given Jarvis' decision.  How much money is it going to cost the Park Service to fight this court case, regain the general public's trust (who are the beneficiaries of the Park Service), regain donors' confidences that the agency operates according to its mission rather than the wishes of major donors, and fix this image issue through marketing and  public relations?  A lot.  How much money is the Park Service, then, spending to avoid its own purpose all because Coke gives so many thousands of dollars a year?  I bet more than whatever it is Coke donates.


I use this situation as an example to demonstrate why professional nonprofit best practices are just that - best practices.  They are not something someone somewhere comes up with and then beats over the head of others.  They are practices that many different nonprofits (of all sizes and ages) try (in different regions of the U.S. and world) and happen to be what work.  They are the most effective because they are repeatedly successful practices for any other nonprofit that adopts and conducts them.  The proof is in the outcome.  Let's watch what happens next in this current event.

December 15, 2011 Update: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/grand-canyon-plans-plastic-water-184217546.html

What the U.S. Losing Its Credit Rating Means, An Example of How (In Part) Our Nation Got Here, and What Is the U.S.'s Next Step

We all know this is terribly important for all of us nonprofit sector volunteers, clients, members, donors, staff, and consultants to understand - what has just happened to our nation's economic standing:

Wall Street Closes Worst Week Since '08

United States Loses Prized AAA Credit Rating From S&P

Explanation of the lowering of the U.S.'s credit rating by Standard and Poors (or "S&P"), United States of America Long-Term Rating Lowered To 'AA+' Due To Political Risks, Rising Debt Burden; Outlook Negative

Standard & Poors explanation of what credit ratings are and how they work: Standard & Poors Guide to Credit Rating Essentials


What to do if your bank fails, by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) When A Bank Fails - Facts for Depositors, Creditors, and Borrowers

An example of how, in part, our nation arrived in this situation (note: "WaMu" is an acronyms for the former bank, Washington Mutual, which Chase bank acquired):

Part One  Reckless Strategies Doomed WaMu


Part Two WaMu Hometown Bank Turned Predatory


and the incredible fall out of WaMu's business practices?


WaMu Execs Won't Face Criminal Charges, Justice Department Says


(sidebar: yes, this call by the Justice Department bothers me - I will be contacting my federal representation to let them know so)


and going forward...


AP Source: G7 To Discuss Central Bank Action


G7 Major Powers to Confer On Major Markets Crisis: Source

President Obama's Nonprofit Press Conference and the New Nonprofit Tax Form 990

Just to keep you up to date on the nonprofit sector, here are a few news pieces that we wanted to share with you.

President Obama spoke, yesterday, to the press, at the White House, about the nonprofit sector, federal funding, and what the private sector can do to assist the nonprofit sector, today. To read more, click on http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31671340/ns/us_news-giving/

For more about the Obama administration's work for the nonprofit sector see http://sic.conversationsnetwork.org/shows/detail4151.html
and listen to the podcast discussion.

Also, Blue Avocado wrote an excellent piece on new software being released to assist nonprofits with reporting correctly on the new IRS tax form 990 (annual tax return). Remember, all nonprofits - of all sizes (small, too) must report, now. See their piece at
http://www.blueavocado.org/content/new-990-software-release-july-20-it-enough

We hope that you'll find these pieces relevant and helpful!