Independent Sector Practiced Censorship, Plain and Simple

To the Editor:

While Paul Light was troubled by what he called “allegations that Independent Sector censored Emmett Carson’s opinion piece on the accountability crisis” (Letters, October 16), I and others were very disturbed by the nature of Mr. Light’s defense of Independent Sector and its president, Diana Aviv.

In the first place, Ms. Aviv refused to publish Mr. Carson’s opinion piece, which she had asked him to write for Independent Sector’s Memo to Members, unless he eliminated two references to the Irvine Foundation and four other nonprofit organizations. This did not constitute “allegations” of censorship; this was censorship.

In his article discussing the importance of public trust and accountability, Mr. Carson mentions the press’s allegations about what went on at the Irvine Foundation and the four other nonprofits. He also states that HR 7 wouldn’t have created as much of a stir as it has without the questions raised in the media about the five organizations and others. These are the two references that Ms. Aviv wanted Mr. Carson to remove. These are hardly shattering comments, nor the stuff that produces successful lawsuits. Mr. Carson did not claim that everything in the media reports was true.

It is important to note that James Canales, the new president of the Irvine Foundation, told The Chronicle that neither he nor the foundation threatened legal action against Independent Sector if its publications mentioned the San Jose Mercury News article, a statement he repeated to me a couple of weeks ago. It is therefore not unreasonable to infer that the threat — either a bluff or serious — could have come from Dennis Collins, former president of Irvine and the focus of the newspaper story. Yet Mr. Collins has not provided any public evidence that would contradict the statements made in the Mercury News, and the paper stands by its reporting on the story.

Apparently, Ms. Aviv believed Independent Sector was faced with a potential legal action shortly after she referred to the Mercury News article and the importance of nonprofits adopting high ethical standards in her Memo to Members issued on April 28. She did not endorse the specific findings of the article, yet she felt compelled to issue an apology in her next Memo to Members on July 3. Was it because the Irvine Foundation was a member of Independent Sector and Dennis Collins was a board member of the organization?

Why did Independent Sector’s advisers or lawyers counsel the organization to enter into a secret agreement that muzzles the organization’s mention of the media stories about the Irvine Foundation and the four other nonprofits that have already received extensive public scrutiny? It would appear to be overly cautious and unsound advice. And why did the organization accept this advice, which puts it into such a difficult position? It is, of course, interesting to note that the United Way of America, the Nature Conservancy, and the American Red Cross — other nonprofit groups that Mr. Carson mentioned in his article — are also members of Independent Sector. Would nonmembers have received similar protection?

Mr. Light calls Diana Aviv’s comments on the importance of high ethical and public accountability standards courageous. His measure of courage places the bar much too low. What Ms. Aviv said, and has repeated, is commendable, but her words are not acts of courage. They are, rather, the exercise of responsibility by the head of an organization that is supposed to promote public accountability and high ethical standards. That Independent Sector, and its board, has not exercised this responsibility with vigor in the past is no reason now to celebrate a few comments as courageous. And we have yet to hear from the Independent Sector board.

Emmett Carson is right. In his piece for Independent Sector that was published in The Chronicle, he states: “Instead of sharing the public’s outrage and leading the charge to endorse strong proposals that would prohibit such behavior, our national, regional, and local nonprofit membership organizations appear paralyzed. …Our failure to act has created the dangerous public impression that we either condone the alleged behavior or are incapable of effective self-regulation to prevent it.”

In response to proliferating stories in the media about trustee fees, excessive compensation, and self dealing — most of the information coming from IRS 990-PF forms — Ms. Aviv could only say in her latest Memo to Members that “adopting a single standard on these issues may be a neat way to manage these issues, but a one-size-fits-all approach does not accommodate the diversity of our institutions and their different purposes and needs.” That doesn’t meet even the low standards for courage set by Mr. Light.

The public trust is what keeps the nonprofit sector alive and vigorous. The censorship of Mr. Carson’s article by Independent Sector, which is supposed to promote that trust, has done damage not only to the organization but to the reputation of the sector. Hopefully, it will not happen again.

Pablo Eisenberg
Senior Fellow
Georgetown Public Policy Institute
Washington