Charity Blogs: Excerpts From Recent Postings

Following are some excerpts from charity blog postings in recent weeks:

“Conservatives are concerned that, under the leadership of liberals like Gates, Buffett, and

Soros, philanthropy will become the snake that bites its own tail.

Rather than forever satisfying themselves with dressing the wounds inflicted by the periodic convulsions of American-style capitalism, or with performing triage on its constant flow of victims, they might simply decide to change the system.

If unchecked, these philanthropists might succeed in introducing democracy to the United States by helping to pass meaningful campaign and lobbying reform. They might shore up support for a public safety net worthy of the richest nation on earth. They might even curtail our further slide into the barbarism of state-sponsored torture.

“It’s our attenuated sense of social responsibility that makes big philanthropy’s interventions appear necessary in the first place. But big philanthropy also has the potential — largely unrealized, I believe — to be a civilizing force can help us evolve toward our full humanity.” — White Courtesy Telephone, by Albert Ruesga, a foundation executive.

“I had the chance to read the New York Times special, once-a-year ‘Giving’ section. …

” And I couldn’t shake the perception that I was reading, in one section, exhibit A in everything that is right and wrong about The New York Times today.

“On the one hand, it is a singular piece of scholarship, unmatched in the field (contrast it with today’s story in Slate, where the editors there seem to have aspired to find the 13 most vapid intellectuals alive and challenged them to try and think of ways to have the least impact possible, given $1-million to give to a hypothetical charity), and devotes hundreds of thousands of carefully selected gravitas-infused words to the nonprofit world, and not a single mention is made of the negative, prejudiced, and hyperbolic stories of charitable fraud and abuse that usually serve as grist for the mainstream journalistic mill.

“On the other hand, given the opportunity not only to summarize a vibrant and complicated community that protects our most vulnerable citizens from poverty and despair, but to educate and inform donors who will, in the next five weeks, give $100-billion to American charities, they decided to dedicate entire articles to such eclectic and effete issues as children working with kittens, celebrity galas, community credit unions, raising guide dogs, and getting bargains at thrift shops.

“The greatest newspaper in the world. And then at the same time, they seem to go out of their way to announce that they’re going to cover not what impacts most people, but what they at the Times seem to think is important, even if the only other people in America who think it’s relevant are four people on the upper east side of Manhattan.” — Trent Stamp’s Take, by the chief executive of Charity Navigator, a watchdog group.

“What is true is that far too many nonprofits still view the planned-giving process as the province of specialists familiar with the intricacies of taxes and complex giving instruments like charitable lead trusts, pooled income funds, etc. … Historically it has been the colleges, universities, and medical centers that benefited.

“No more. The reality of legacy giving is that 95 percent of all planned gifts come in the form of bequests by a simple will … averaging about $35,000. And, more and more these legacy gifts are being given to environmental, human-rights, civil-liberties, animal-welfare, and women’s-rights groups. …

These gifts are coming as a result of the largely inadvertent result of direct-mail and small-gift donor programs.” — The Agitator, written by Tom Belford and Roger Craver, two direct-marketing experts.

“Nonprofits weren’t the ones the forced the government to pass Sarbanes-Oxley reform, yet we now spend the time and money to do our national duty and restore trust after corporate businesses destroyed public trust.

“Don’t get me started. … I’m in a bad mood today. Besides, didn’t we hear this same load of crap back in 2000? Some people said it would be a good idea to elect a businessman with an M.B.A. to the White House? How well did that work out?” — Don’t Tell the Donor, by a fund raiser who doesn’t reveal his or her identity.

“The Red Cross restructuring will not be complete until March 31, 2012. In the intervening six years, how many hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, blizzards, and forest fires will plague the United States and its citizens?

“We would not have any objections if most of changes were implemented within six months, with some minor changes phased in over the appropriate time frame. However, the most fundamental change — reducing the size of a bloated 50 member to 12 to 20 members — is what will take six years. This is utter nonsense.” — The Charity Governance Blog, by Jack Siegel, a Chicago lawyer, after the American Red Cross announced several governance changes.