5 ms·

I once was on the board of a charity; on my watch we established a policy giving future boards the right to decline contributions for any reason or none, and th

I once was on the board of a charity; on my watch we established a policy giving future boards the right to decline contributions for any reason or none, and the duty to decline them if they had too many strings attached. It was a good move; a few years later somebody tried to force human resources policy with a gift, and the board was able to say "no" and point to us, their predecessors.

hamandcheese 10y ago
Wouldn't they have been able to say no anyways?
- pc86 10y ago
  Yes but they wouldn't have any political cover other than "we don't want to do that." This allowed them to point backwards in time to say "that prior board won't allow us to accept gifts with ________ condition(s)." Parsing hairs of course, and it's likely 90% of the board or more was the same, but it's enough.
  - throwaway729 10y ago
    > Parsing hairs of course It's always much easier to say: "we already have a policy precedent that doesn't allow this." than to say "we can do anything we want, and we choose not to do this." And there's a substantive difference beyond just perception. With the former, you're ruling in favor of a principled stand regardless of the person/policy behind the particular request at hand. With the latter, you're ruling against a particular person/request.
    - mysterypie 10y ago
      Be careful, because a written policy can cut both ways. It can be used to attack the slightest inconsistency in your decisions. Real life example: A young lady suffered a slip and fall on the freshly waxed floor of a shop. The shop had a written policy against waxing the floors during business hours, but the janitor had done so anyway. The shop's written policy was used as evidence of negligence in court. They would have had a better outcome if they had no policy at all. Once you have the policy, even though you wrote it, you can't declare that you're ignoring the policy or that you're changing it retroactively. Well, you could, but you'd look foolish and lose all credibility.
      - anigbrowl 10y ago
        They would also have had a better outcome if they had invested a little more in training the janitor to follow their policy. If you're going to have a policy, it needs to be substantive rather than merely cosmetic.
      - anigbrowl 10y ago
        They would also have had a better outcome if they had invested a little more in training the janitor to follow their policy. If you're going to have a policy, it needs to be substantive rather than merely cosmetic.
      - rhizome 10y ago
        They would have had a better outcome if they had no policy at all. "Better outcome" meaning they would have been able to shirk responsibility and the woman would have been sent packing with nothing? I weep for the future. Think about what you're arguing for.
        gpawl 10y ago
        If they get punished MORE for having the policy than for not, that incentivizes having NO policy, which leads to more minor injuries without preventing the major injury. Similar to how no one in industry reads patents (opposite of the intended purpose of knowledge-sharing) because they get treble damages if they are found infringing while being aware of the patent.
        derefr 10y ago
        I believe the parent is arguing for act-consequentialism, rather than rule-consequentialism. A similar argument is against the usefulness of case-law in the court system—it often prevents a judge from making the best possible decision for the particulars of the case.
        rhizome 10y ago
        From the Supreme Court confirmation hearings I've paid attention to, it seems that there are reasonable questions on both sides of stare decisis, but I don't think moving to a non-deterministic legal system would be the answer.
    - EGreg 10y ago
      Blaming a third party is always stronger. Because they are not there to be negotiated with, and there is strength in numbers.
  - rhizome 10y ago
    It sounds like a rare case of relinquishment of power.
- johnchristopher 10y ago
  Easier to shift the blame on those who came before. Ancestor /authority bias/précédent. It's a smart move.
- OliverJones 10y ago
  In nonprofit work, it's really risky to so say "no" to a donor. Typically the bigger donors know each other and can gang up on the executive director or the board unless things are really transparent.
rokhayakebe 10y ago
This is what happens when honest and well meaning people start with taking a nice diner, then a nice watch from someone who presents these things as "its nothing, we are just thankful." Then before you know it you are deep in this kind of stuff with no way of getting out.
omginternets 10y ago
>somebody tried to force human resources policy with a gift Out of sheer curiosity, what was the policy?
- HockeyPlayer 10y ago
  Not the GP, but it isn't uncommon for a large donor to have an opinion about a staff hiring decision. They could easily say, "I'll pay that salary if you hire X"
  - OliverJones 10y ago
    Exactly. The donor tried, by partially funding it, to create a position that wasn't consistent with the org's objectives.
ams6110 10y ago
To be tax-deductible to the donor, donations to charities have to be "gifts." If they have conditions that confer value back to the donor they are not gifts. Also gifts cannot be earmarked to be directed a specific beneficiary of the charity. Also, charities have to be aware that they may be generating "unrelated business income" by accepting a donation in trade for something of value, as such income is taxable.
- gozur88 10y ago
  That kind of thing isn't usually above board, though, is it? If I give a charity a million dollars and then make a suggestion, the subtext is clear even though there aren't any official conditions.
  - OliverJones 10y ago
    Give 'em a megabuck and they'll probably put you on the board. Three Ws: work, wallop, wealth.
- OliverJones 10y ago
  Sure, it's the letter of the law that donations have to be gifts. But nonprofit development (=fundraising) work has lots of gray areas. A simple example: gifts may be restricted. Restricting a gift is as simple as writing a $10 check to the Sierra Club and writing "spotted owl conservation" on the memo line. If the Sierra Club doesn't have a spotted owl program, they're supposed to get your permission to apply the gift elsewhere. If your gift were for half a million dollars and restricted that way, you'd be trying to set policy with it. Not all attempts by donors to drive policy are harmful to the org. And, not all such attempts are self-dealing or other fiscal shenanigans. Usually they're far more banal clashes of egos.
  - georgeecollins 10y ago
    I think the crazy way Donald Trump used his charity demonstrates that it is probably pretty easy to abuse charities in the US. I am not trying to make a political point, I'm sure there are liberals who take advantage of charities too. But if Trump wasn't running for President, would anyone have noticed how the funds were being used? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/us-election-donald-trump-foundation-biggest-donation-fountain-republican-party-new-york-a7387701.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election... https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html?utm_term=.b8228e5d8adf https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-fr...
Pigo 10y ago
Susan G Komen is the reason I stopped donating to large charities. Not that anyone would notice the funds I can provide...
- GFischer 10y ago
  I had to look that up specifically, but I've heard about Red Cross stuff, and the UN also has a lot of waste :( https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3nv0vh/eli5why_people_criticize_the_susan_g_komen/ https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3nv0vh/e...
wallace_f 10y ago
Related to this, sometimes explaining to people why charity is not what it sells itself as (altruism) is difficult without significant context. In this context, it's easy to understand, but to someone with a belief that charity is always altruism, it is hard to show them why it is almost never purely about altruism, and sometimes very far from it.

hamandcheese 10y ago

Wouldn't they have been able to say no anyways?

pc86 10y ago
Yes but they wouldn't have any political cover other than "we don't want to do that." This allowed them to point backwards in time to say "that prior board won't allow us to accept gifts with ________ condition(s)." Parsing hairs of course, and it's likely 90% of the board or more was the same, but it's enough.
- throwaway729 10y ago
  > Parsing hairs of course It's always much easier to say: "we already have a policy precedent that doesn't allow this." than to say "we can do anything we want, and we choose not to do this." And there's a substantive difference beyond just perception. With the former, you're ruling in favor of a principled stand regardless of the person/policy behind the particular request at hand. With the latter, you're ruling against a particular person/request.
  - mysterypie 10y ago
    Be careful, because a written policy can cut both ways. It can be used to attack the slightest inconsistency in your decisions. Real life example: A young lady suffered a slip and fall on the freshly waxed floor of a shop. The shop had a written policy against waxing the floors during business hours, but the janitor had done so anyway. The shop's written policy was used as evidence of negligence in court. They would have had a better outcome if they had no policy at all. Once you have the policy, even though you wrote it, you can't declare that you're ignoring the policy or that you're changing it retroactively. Well, you could, but you'd look foolish and lose all credibility.
    - anigbrowl 10y ago
      They would also have had a better outcome if they had invested a little more in training the janitor to follow their policy. If you're going to have a policy, it needs to be substantive rather than merely cosmetic.
    - anigbrowl 10y ago
      They would also have had a better outcome if they had invested a little more in training the janitor to follow their policy. If you're going to have a policy, it needs to be substantive rather than merely cosmetic.
    - rhizome 10y ago
      They would have had a better outcome if they had no policy at all. "Better outcome" meaning they would have been able to shirk responsibility and the woman would have been sent packing with nothing? I weep for the future. Think about what you're arguing for.
      - gpawl 10y ago
        If they get punished MORE for having the policy than for not, that incentivizes having NO policy, which leads to more minor injuries without preventing the major injury. Similar to how no one in industry reads patents (opposite of the intended purpose of knowledge-sharing) because they get treble damages if they are found infringing while being aware of the patent.
      - derefr 10y ago
        I believe the parent is arguing for act-consequentialism, rather than rule-consequentialism. A similar argument is against the usefulness of case-law in the court system—it often prevents a judge from making the best possible decision for the particulars of the case.
        rhizome 10y ago
        From the Supreme Court confirmation hearings I've paid attention to, it seems that there are reasonable questions on both sides of stare decisis, but I don't think moving to a non-deterministic legal system would be the answer.
  - EGreg 10y ago
    Blaming a third party is always stronger. Because they are not there to be negotiated with, and there is strength in numbers.
- rhizome 10y ago
  It sounds like a rare case of relinquishment of power.
johnchristopher 10y ago
Easier to shift the blame on those who came before. Ancestor /authority bias/précédent. It's a smart move.
OliverJones 10y ago
In nonprofit work, it's really risky to so say "no" to a donor. Typically the bigger donors know each other and can gang up on the executive director or the board unless things are really transparent.

rokhayakebe 10y ago

This is what happens when honest and well meaning people start with taking a nice diner, then a nice watch from someone who presents these things as "its nothing, we are just thankful." Then before you know it you are deep in this kind of stuff with no way of getting out.

omginternets 10y ago

>somebody tried to force human resources policy with a gift Out of sheer curiosity, what was the policy?

HockeyPlayer 10y ago
Not the GP, but it isn't uncommon for a large donor to have an opinion about a staff hiring decision. They could easily say, "I'll pay that salary if you hire X"
- OliverJones 10y ago
  Exactly. The donor tried, by partially funding it, to create a position that wasn't consistent with the org's objectives.

ams6110 10y ago

To be tax-deductible to the donor, donations to charities have to be "gifts." If they have conditions that confer value back to the donor they are not gifts. Also gifts cannot be earmarked to be directed a specific beneficiary of the charity. Also, charities have to be aware that they may be generating "unrelated business income" by accepting a donation in trade for something of value, as such income is taxable.

gozur88 10y ago
That kind of thing isn't usually above board, though, is it? If I give a charity a million dollars and then make a suggestion, the subtext is clear even though there aren't any official conditions.
- OliverJones 10y ago
  Give 'em a megabuck and they'll probably put you on the board. Three Ws: work, wallop, wealth.
OliverJones 10y ago
Sure, it's the letter of the law that donations have to be gifts. But nonprofit development (=fundraising) work has lots of gray areas. A simple example: gifts may be restricted. Restricting a gift is as simple as writing a $10 check to the Sierra Club and writing "spotted owl conservation" on the memo line. If the Sierra Club doesn't have a spotted owl program, they're supposed to get your permission to apply the gift elsewhere. If your gift were for half a million dollars and restricted that way, you'd be trying to set policy with it. Not all attempts by donors to drive policy are harmful to the org. And, not all such attempts are self-dealing or other fiscal shenanigans. Usually they're far more banal clashes of egos.
- georgeecollins 10y ago
  I think the crazy way Donald Trump used his charity demonstrates that it is probably pretty easy to abuse charities in the US. I am not trying to make a political point, I'm sure there are liberals who take advantage of charities too. But if Trump wasn't running for President, would anyone have noticed how the funds were being used? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/us-election-donald-trump-foundation-biggest-donation-fountain-republican-party-new-york-a7387701.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election... https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html?utm_term=.b8228e5d8adf https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-fr...

Pigo 10y ago

Susan G Komen is the reason I stopped donating to large charities. Not that anyone would notice the funds I can provide...

GFischer 10y ago
I had to look that up specifically, but I've heard about Red Cross stuff, and the UN also has a lot of waste :( https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3nv0vh/eli5why_people_criticize_the_susan_g_komen/ https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3nv0vh/e...

wallace_f 10y ago

Related to this, sometimes explaining to people why charity is not what it sells itself as (altruism) is difficult without significant context. In this context, it's easy to understand, but to someone with a belief that charity is always altruism, it is hard to show them why it is almost never purely about altruism, and sometimes very far from it.