Foundation Group Unfairly Attacked

To the Editor:

Pablo Eisenberg’s opinion article, “Grant Makers Need Leadership” (January 6), shows once again why a “scorched earth” strategy is no substitute for facts, reason, and a little research. It offends those who are knowledgeable about the realities of the situation on the ground and utterly misinforms those who don’t have any firsthand knowledge.

Let me address some of the biggest inaccuracies in the article. The Council on Foundations is what it is — an association of member foundations and corporate grant makers. It has a dual purpose of both advancing philanthropy and providing services to its dues-paying members. Members represent different types of grant-making organizations that have vastly different structures, asset sizes, and ideologies. By definition, the council will be, and must be, a consensus-driven organization. This does not mean that the council cannot and should not be flexible and responsive to the changing philanthropic landscape, as its new strategic framework illustrates.

The council is not the meeting ground for grant makers and grant seekers. That is the mission of Independent Sector, which the council helped create and to which the council and many of its members belong.

The council is the “big tent” for grant makers and, therefore, cannot have the narrower focus of such organizations as the National Committee for Responsible Philanthropy, the National Network of Grantmakers, etc. Mr. Eisenberg blames the council for the explosion of affinity groups when they actually represent the very cross-cutting thinking (both in ideas and across different types of foundations) that he later advocates.

While recognizing that the philanthropic landscape has dramatically changed, Mr. Eisenberg laments the disappearance of the old council. He would have the council again be the central source for the training of program officers that is done by a range of good organizations, including regional associations of grant makers and academic centers on philanthropy. He would have a single viewpoint dominate rather than a discussion of various points of view.

His assertion that the council has not been a forum for discussing issues of diversity, general operating support versus project support, the value of lobbying and public policy, and the pros and cons of trustee fees is simply, and utterly, not true.

Moreover, Mr. Eisenberg’s “Rip Van Winkle” view of the council today ignores the considerable progress that has been made by its community, corporate, family, and private foundation members to develop and implement ever-stronger ethical standards of accountability for their peers. In addition, the council has instituted a major, ongoing effort, “Building Strong and Ethical Foundations: Doing It Right,” to inform and educate its members on best practices in this area.

Mr. Eisenberg does the greatest disservice in his disparaging comments about the council’s board and staff. The board consists of some of the most thoughtful leaders in philanthropy today. They are independent thinkers who bring different perspectives about philanthropy yet share a commitment that the various types of philanthropy are stronger together than apart. The staff is dedicated and has faithfully done all that has been asked of them.

Is everything perfect at the council, with a diverse and growing membership of 2,000 foundation members representing the majority of all foundation assets, a board of 34, and a staff of 96? Of course not. There is a difference, however, in recognizing the need for a responsible diet and exercise plan and the desire for a total makeover involving radical plastic surgery in an effort to become someone else.

About the only thing that Mr. Eisenberg got right in the article is that the selection of a new chief executive officer does represent the start of a new chapter — not a different book — in the life of the council.

The council’s board has spent the better part of a year assessing the new philanthropic landscape and its role in it. The result is a strategic framework that envisions a council that champions the role of philanthropy in a democratic society, is proactive in the legislative arena, has more narrowly focused programs, and works strategically with key partners in providing services to members.

I am confident that a new leader of the council will be found to bring energy and creativity to this vision of the council just as prior leaders have done.

Emmett D. Carson
Chair
Council on Foundations
Washington
Chief Executive Officer
The Minneapolis Foundation

To the Editor:

I am glad to see Pablo Eisenberg draw attention to the leadership challenge of the Council on Foundations.

While the council does serve foundations first and foremost, Mr. Eisenberg reminds us that foundations serve the public through grant making to nonprofit organizations. Mr. Eisenberg’s agenda appears to be a good place to start in examining more critically the role of the council and, in turn, the priorities, the accountability, and the practices of the nation’s diverse foundations.

In the past four decades, foundations have truly “taken hold” as a major force in philanthropy. It is time to analyze and deliberate on the achievement of their full potential.

Lynn Stearney
Development Director
Western Environmental Law Center
Eugene, Ore.