April 6, 2009 | Read Time: 1 minute
Last month, Robert Egger, executive director of the D.C. Central Kitchen, joined a chorus of nonprofit leaders that objected to a report by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, a foundation watchdog in Washington.
Today, Mr. Egger writes that he made a “big mistake” by not discussing his concerns with the committee first.
“Simply put, when you know (and respect) the group that issues a report, and you disagree, the very least you can do is to call and meet to talk it through,” he writes on his blog, One Voice for Change. “Ninety-nine percent of the time, you learn that your worst fears are often unfounded. If I had done that — if I had afforded professional courtesy to a colleague —I would have had my worst fears mitigated.”
The report sets standards for how foundations should make grants and be governed. Critics have said the standards, including one that says foundations should direct at least 50 percent of their giving to minorities and other disadvantaged people, would stifle the diversity in philanthropic missions and approaches.
Mr. Egger still doesn’t completely agree with the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy’s approach, but he says he overreacted. “The word ‘mandate’ jumped up (or was tossed out), and a lot of folks ran with it. I joined the pack,” he writes.
Mr. Egger says the experience has taught him a lesson: “Keep and open mind, never hesitate to reach out when dialogue is an option, and learn that seeing smoke does not mean you have to join a chorus yelling ‘fire.’”
Read The Chronicle’s article about the debate over the report.
What do you think of the committee’s report? Has it triggered an important discussion? Click on the comment button below and share your views.
