The Board of Trustees is a Trustee for the Public Good
By being accountable to the Trustees, the Executive Director and Staff are accountable to the public interest, thereby justifying the tax advantages enjoyed by Foundations.
On a realistic note, Executive Directors and Staff are likely not too well paid and may identify with rank and file citizens, or the general public, or the public interest in that sense. Trustees are likely to be wealthy, connected, conservative, and not always very sympathetic to the plight of the ordinary citizens, or the public, or the public interest of which they are Trustees. This creates certain tensions between the Executive Director and Staff on the one hand and Trustees on the other. This tension is best resolved by, well, you know and I know how it is best resolved. The Golden Rule goes: Them what has the gold rules. "Fit in or F off." Orosz probes the tension like a man gently touching a contusion. He recalls for example, giving a balanced account of a proposed grant saying that on the one hand it was supported by a famous conservative, on the other hand it was also supported by Ted Kennedy. To which a Trustee of the Public Interest, or ordinary citizens, responded: "I am against it, then! I will not vote for anything that has the support of Ted Kennedy." I guess my naive question is how can Trustees represent the public interest when they are not voted into their role, are not representative of the public, do not answer to the public, and may even disdain it? Or, are they better understood at the Custodians or Stewards of the Founder's (often another Curmudgeon's) intent? Or, are they really just one of many ways in which interlocking elites keep the public interest subordinate to their own? Depends, I am sure. As Orosz says, "Seen one foundation and you have seen one foundation."
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341ccc8253ef0120a69292ec970b
The Board of Trustees is a Trustee for the Public Good
By being accountable to the Trustees, the Executive Director and Staff are accountable to the public interest, thereby justifying the tax advantages enjoyed by Foundations.
On a realistic note, Executive Directors and Staff are likely not too well paid and may identify with rank and file citizens, or the general public, or the public interest in that sense. Trustees are likely to be wealthy, connected, conservative, and not always very sympathetic to the plight of the ordinary citizens, or the public, or the public interest of which they are Trustees. This creates certain tensions between the Executive Director and Staff on the one hand and Trustees on the other. This tension is best resolved by, well, you know and I know how it is best resolved. The Golden Rule goes: Them what has the gold rules. "Fit in or F off." Orosz probes the tension like a man gently touching a contusion. He recalls for example, giving a balanced account of a proposed grant saying that on the one hand it was supported by a famous conservative, on the other hand it was also supported by Ted Kennedy. To which a Trustee of the Public Interest, or ordinary citizens, responded: "I am against it, then! I will not vote for anything that has the support of Ted Kennedy." I guess my naive question is how can Trustees represent the public interest when they are not voted into their role, are not representative of the public, do not answer to the public, and may even disdain it? Or, are they better understood at the Custodians or Stewards of the Founder's (often another Curmudgeon's) intent? Or, are they really just one of many ways in which interlocking elites keep the public interest subordinate to their own? Depends, I am sure. As Orosz says, "Seen one foundation and you have seen one foundation."
About
Blogging Philanthropy from A Dumpster
The Happy Tutor, Dungeon Master to the Stars in Wealth Bondage
