The Money Dilemma Part One
I had a successful day. I helped people and I learned from people. I gave and I took. At the end of this, I'm happy, I feel good. Because I have done good. The ethical part was giving my time and intelligence to helping in the effort to reach out to underserved communities here in Seattle. The smart thing I did was to listen to people who study dilemmas. The way to resolve a dilemma is to acknowledge that all sides believe they are right and that not every side can win satisfaction. Wisdom, but not an easy formula. In fact, not a formula at all but a way of life.
On a more quanitifiable issue, we discussed money. Where does it come from if you're a non-profit and do you mind if it comes from a tainted source, a source whose activities may conflict with your mission, or whose agenda is to co-opt your good reputation in the community to win absolution? No easy solution here, either. From one side you have the view that all money is good and in the current atmosphere non-profits are businesses looking for investors and investors have a right to expect something back for their giving. From another side all money is tainted, but over time through good works those who are tainted by it gain absolution. Anyway, these days we tend to have short memories. Still another side sees that a corporation giving money wants to impress the community and its stockholders that it is doing good, and the non-profit is a vehicle to that end. What's wrong with that? There may be a little bit of extortion at work here: you will support me in my agenda, or I will cut off the funds you so badly need to survive and do your good work.
I will save for another time writing about the perennial issue of working on contingency. Should professional fundraisers (and grantwriters) work on contingency, in other words for a percentage of the take? Most professional organizations say no because #1 it is unfair to the fundraiser who may never see sufficient compensation for his/her labor and #2 the contingency worker may try to lead the employer - the non-profit - into grants they are not prepared to manage. The latter means, for instance, that a grant worth $10 million, offered by the US Department of Labor, is a very attractive target for a fundraiser getting 10%. But...the grant is too large for the organization, which would have to staff up 500%, hire an accounting and HR staff, get new offices, hire a board, and so on, just to manage the grant. It could end up costing more that it's worth, and it may end up being the end for the non-profit. It's happened - more often than you might think. So I stay away from contingency jobs because they're unfair to everybody.
That's not the end of the ethics and money subject. I'll come back to it often. Because my business is the non-profit business, the 6th largest economy in the country, and it's rife with dilemmas.
On a more quanitifiable issue, we discussed money. Where does it come from if you're a non-profit and do you mind if it comes from a tainted source, a source whose activities may conflict with your mission, or whose agenda is to co-opt your good reputation in the community to win absolution? No easy solution here, either. From one side you have the view that all money is good and in the current atmosphere non-profits are businesses looking for investors and investors have a right to expect something back for their giving. From another side all money is tainted, but over time through good works those who are tainted by it gain absolution. Anyway, these days we tend to have short memories. Still another side sees that a corporation giving money wants to impress the community and its stockholders that it is doing good, and the non-profit is a vehicle to that end. What's wrong with that? There may be a little bit of extortion at work here: you will support me in my agenda, or I will cut off the funds you so badly need to survive and do your good work.
I will save for another time writing about the perennial issue of working on contingency. Should professional fundraisers (and grantwriters) work on contingency, in other words for a percentage of the take? Most professional organizations say no because #1 it is unfair to the fundraiser who may never see sufficient compensation for his/her labor and #2 the contingency worker may try to lead the employer - the non-profit - into grants they are not prepared to manage. The latter means, for instance, that a grant worth $10 million, offered by the US Department of Labor, is a very attractive target for a fundraiser getting 10%. But...the grant is too large for the organization, which would have to staff up 500%, hire an accounting and HR staff, get new offices, hire a board, and so on, just to manage the grant. It could end up costing more that it's worth, and it may end up being the end for the non-profit. It's happened - more often than you might think. So I stay away from contingency jobs because they're unfair to everybody.
That's not the end of the ethics and money subject. I'll come back to it often. Because my business is the non-profit business, the 6th largest economy in the country, and it's rife with dilemmas.
posted by Schultz and Company | 4:39 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home