October 19, 2014 | Read Time: 4 minutes
To the Editor:
It is one thing to publish opinions to allow the airing of views. It’s another thing entirely to publish a vituperative, minimally researched piece such as Mr. Eisenberg’s diatribe about the Council on Foundations (“Will the Council on Foundations Be a Change Agent or Just a Trade Group?” September 25) and his perceptions about how the organization should operate and how its leadership should be structured.
For the record, I have been engaged in private philanthropy for more than 30 years, and I have known Ms. Spruill for nearly two decades. Neither she nor anyone deserves such a lousy piece of journalism.
It is said that when you know how one foundation works, you know one foundation. Each entity has a unique culture, methodology, and structure—and programmatic focus. The Council on Foundations has, like other foundation affinity groups, always been challenged by the differences rather than the simplistic commonality—giving away money—that masks a far more complex process.
It is easy to criticize the council or any other entity if visible change is not happening fast enough, or not to the author’s liking. At the same time, it is impossible to accept that philanthropy is an intellectual and innovation desert—although I am sure it suits Mr. Eisenberg to say so. It’s so grandly critical and so grandly absurd.
There are nearly 90,000 private foundations and roughly 3,000 with assets of more than $25-million. Unlike universities and other endowed entities, they, of course, pay an excise tax on their assets in good years and bad and must spend 5 percent more of their assets in good years and bad. They employ hundreds of people and support the employment of thousands more. Whatever flaws lie in philanthropy, they are surely not the fault of either the council or Ms. Spruill.
Mr. Eisenberg spoke to just 45 people, or maybe he did. We have no names to support his pronouncements. How meaningful is that? It does not seem particularly helpful to blame one person for sweeping condemnations (ill-supported by facts) of perceived flaws in formal philanthropy. Likewise, it’s easy to say that an assortment of criticisms exists, especially if none of the detractors appear to be on record. How convenient. How like gossip and innuendo.
Likewise, in his specifics, he is nearly unreasonable. It is tempting to tease out every issue he got wrong, but I will name just one. It would be inappropriate for the council to comment on the Bremer Foundation’s governance decisions when no wrongdoing has been confirmed, nor, in fact, does there appear to be any violation of donor intent, especially in a foundation that reportedly gave away more than $30-million on assets of $130-million in 2013.
Surely it is not the role of the council to make declarations about individual foundation operations—especially in the absence of legal action. It is more the role of The Chronicle or observers such as Mr. Eisenberg to offer supported, well-researched reasons why they believe the Bremer Foundation’s trustees (or those of any other foundation) are not acting in the public interest, even if they are not in violation of the law. And as an aside about transparency, it is equally inappropriate to criticize the council’s staff for referring Mr. Eisenberg to the 2013 IRS 990 forms that have been duly vetted and will be filed anew for 2014.
Any unaudited numbers are no more useful to us than they would be in any business or in any of the many taxpayer-subsidized jobs that have made up the bulk of Mr. Eisenberg’s long and venerable career. It’s not about a lack of transparency. It’s about accuracy and completion.
And in the interest of transparency, one might note that Mr. Eisenberg quoted only one person by name, Ms. Spruill, the head of the council. Everyone else cited in the article, like Mr. Eisenberg himself, is hiding behind sweeping generalizations, odd juxtapositions, and inaccuracies. Not much room for a dialogue there or for a useful set of recommendations from respected and credible named commentators. And more than a great disservice to Ms. Spruill and the leadership of the organization as they move to position the council for its next five years and beyond.
Angel Braestrup
Executive Director
The Curtis & Edith Munson Foundation
Editor’s note: Ms. Braestrup’s opinions do not necessarily represent the views of the board or staff of the foundation.
