Concern About a Proposal to Limit the Size of Foundations, and Reader Comments on Items That Have Appeared in The Chronicle

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

To the Editor:

We share the views of our colleagues — Landon Lane, Tim Walter, and Daniel Schley — who responded to Emmett Carson’s opinion article in the May 26 issue (“An Easy Way to Curb Foundation Abuses”).

Most interesting to us, however, is the disclaimer with Mr. Carson’s article that says the “views expressed in this article are his own and not necessarily those of either of the organizations he heads.”

We would appreciate knowing whether the Council on Foundations’ Board of Directors stands behind Mr. Carson’s opinions, particularly his recommendation to policymakers that they require at least $1-million in assets before a donor is permitted to establish a private foundation.

Determining and setting a threshold for a foundation’s existence has been a topic of discussion for some time now. Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General in New York, is on record stating that, in the State of New York, foundations with less than $20 million in assets should not exist. Some of our colleagues have supported that figure, and others have lowered the recommended threshold to $10-million. Mr. Carson lowers the threshold yet again — to $1-million. Other than lighten the load on the government regulators, what would such suggestions accomplish and at what cost?

We think not much would be accomplished and we believe there would be very significant costs and consequences for encouraging philanthropy and building charitable endowments in the United States.

If Mr. Carson speaks as the chief executive officer of the Minneapolis Foundation, he appears to be supporting a government policy that would favor community foundations over private foundations. Not only is this a conflict of interest, but it is shortsighted. Would he suggest that community foundations not be established with less than $1-million in assets? We think not, because many community foundations start small and grow, just as — coincidentally — do some small private foundations.

If he speaks as chairman of the board of the Council on Foundations, he appears to be advocating a position that devalues and delegitimizes those council members (and nonmembers, many of whom belong to other associations of grant makers) with under $1-million in assets. We are curious to know if the full board of the Council on Foundations or its executive committee reviewed the article and approved it. If so, did the board consider the consequences to these small, emerging foundations?

If he is speaking as an individual, we wonder what data he has to support his recommendation. Does the Council on Foundations share Mr. Carson’s view that “the most significant problems occur” in these small foundations? If so, where is the research to document support for that conclusion?

Mr. Carson also says that “many of those institutions are undoubtedly well run,” but his proposal would prohibit their existence. If many are well run, then why prohibit them?

Is his — and the council’s — agenda to throw Senator Grassley and others a bone meant to distract them from their agenda and create the feeling they have curbed abuses in foundations? In our view, in addition to bringing some factual data to back up his assertion, it is also time for Mr. Carson and the Council on Foundations’ board to own up to who is really speaking here.

Emmett Carson’s proposal sends a clear message that less-wealthy donors need not apply for membership in the field of private foundations. As such, his proposal belies arrogance and communicates disdain for all citizens who might want to organize a small foundation to benefit their community.

John Mullaney
Executive Director
Nord Family Foundation
Amherst, Ohio

Dean Schooler
President
Schooler Family Foundation
Boulder, Colo.

To the Editor:

The June 23 issue contained a long rebuttal from the chair of the board of the Barnes Foundation to my March 31 opinion piece, which argued that the court decision allowing the Barnes to move to Philadelphia set a precedent that undermines the stability of our nonprofit sector (“A Dangerous Precedent for Unpopular Groups”).

I am awed by the length of the letter but disappointed in its substance. The letter continues to ignore the all-important agreement between Dr. Barnes and the foundation, the agreement that clearly states what he wanted the foundation to do. Nor does it explain the last 20 or so years of contentious governance of the foundation marked by little interest in promoting Dr. Barnes’s vision and much attention to how the assets of the foundation might be turned to more popular pursuits.

I stand by what I said in my March 31 article.

Marie C. Malaro
Professor Emeritus of Museum Studies
George Washington University
Washington

To the Editor:

I was disgusted at The Chronicle for Philanthropy’s overly rosy description of the activities of Focus on the Family (“New Charity Chief Executive Keeps Focus on ‘Family,’” May 26). Are you not aware of how hurtful their work is to gay and lesbian families? This organization spreads the lie that homosexuality is a disease to be cured, not an inherent part of a person — like skin color or eye color — to be embraced. I never would have expected coverage like this in media that should be more sensitive to the diverse landscape of the nonprofit world.

Martha Truby
Madison, Wis.

To the Editor:

I am writing to express my displeasure after reading Dispatches by Brad Wolverton in your May 12 issue (“Poking Fun at Ugly Cars to Attract Donations”).

It seems odd for a publication filled with stories about wonderful charitable organizations devoted to environmental causes to feature a story about someone whose car cannot pass an emissions test “but he drives it anyway”, and has a habit of abandoning cars on the side of the highway when they stop functioning.

I failed to see how this article was relevant to your readership and hope you will exercise better judgment when considering such stories in the future.

Simon Dagenais
Research Director
CAM Research Institute
Irvine, Calif.

To the Editor:

Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center (“What It Takes to Reduce Gun Deaths,” June 23) is trying to misinform the public in his response to my letter to the editor (“Focus on What Works to Prevent Gun Deaths,” May 26).

Mr. Sugarmann claims both the National Rifle Association and I have a “hostility to unbiased research.” Nonsense. As I noted, “While we do not oppose conscientious research on the subject, much that has been done to date has clearly been politically motivated.”

In fact, I pointed out the Tennessee Law Review article “Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda?,” in which distinguished scholars found gross misrepresentations in firearms-related studies conducted by members of the American public-health community.

Mr. Sugarmann’s letter also claims that declines in gun ownership rather than educational programs like the Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program have contributed to a decrease in unintentional gun deaths. Actually the number of American gun owners and the private stock of firearms are both at an all-time high. At the same time, the FBI reports the nation’s total violent crime rates declined every year from 1991 to 1993. In the FBI’s preliminary crime statistics for 2004, violent crime continued to decrease and murder and nonnegligent manslaughter were down 3.6 percent from figures in 2003.

According to the National Center for Health Statistics, among children in the Eddie Eagle age group (ages 4 to 9), fatal firearm accidents have been reduced more than two-thirds since 1990. Eddie Eagle was initiated in 1988 and has reached more than 18 million children.

Steven C. Andersen
Executive Director
The National Rifle Association Foundation
Fairfax, Va.