Gift Hub

Roland Arnall Makes Good

"Amb. Arnall is an active citizen and philanthropist." To assess how money from subprime lender, Ameriquest, earns political return on investment click here, here, and here. "Pecunia non olet," as Emperor Vespasian said of the urine tax on public toilets. Money has no smell.

The 50% League

The 50% League, Inspiring Greater Giving:

Donors who have given half or more of their income, assets, or business profits.  As of February, 2007, the 79 League members have given a third of a billion dollars to good causes....

The 50% League is an initiative of the Zing Foundation, directed by Anne and Christopher Ellinger, co-authors of the award-winning book We Gave Away a Fortune and founders of More than Money.

File that under moral heroism. Wow, Anne, Christopher and all in the 50% league.  We are in your debt and stunned by your example.   

Epicurean Masters of Wealth & Good Taste

$25,000 a plate meal for "Epicurean Masters of the World" served in Thailand. Some of the proceeds go to charity. The Ruckus Society, perhaps? Or, the Trimalchio Fund for Gout? Petronius made a good living as satirist. Wish I could do the same, but no one ever invites me to play the flute at these gatherings.  Nero  was not all bad. At least he could fiddle.

Larry James at the Crystal Ball

Larry James of Dallas Central Ministries on Donuts and Dancing, on having breakfast in a donut shop with the poor and supper at the Crystal Ball. He came away with a financial commitment from the wealthy. Yet in what language does one recount the Crystal Ball, in a post read by the wealthy and the poor alike?

Trying to describe this event in terms of the wealth, the fundraising strategy and the "over-the-top" affluence turns out to be impossible. This is truly one of those experiences that falls in the category of "have to be there to understand."

I wonder if at the Ball they have a prayer, or say grace?

Robertson Foundation versus Princeton

I received a link to this Robertson versus Princeton website addressed to me from "Nobody" and clearly sent to philanthropy bloggers. It would appear that the battle between the Robertson Foundation and Princeton over donor intent will be fought not only in court but also in the press and on the blogs.

The Robertson gift seems to have been structured (back in 1961 when it was originally given) as what is called a supporting organization, or private foundation under the wing of the university. The purpose, in endowing the Woodrow Wilson School, was to educate students for government service. The board appears to consist of 3 members of the Robertson family, and 4 members appointed by Princeton, giving the school effective control. Now the board appears riven, and the meltdown has ensued over, among other issues, of whether Princeton made good on the donor's mission.

Without opining on the merits of the case, what lessons might donors and heirs learn? Maybe don't use a structure in which you cede control if control is paramount? Maybe don't give a big chunk all at once, rather than doling the funds out gradually, as the nonprofit performs? Or, maybe don't expect to control after you are gone, or trust your heirs to do it; better perhaps to put the money to work more quickly, and handle the processes yourself? Or, maybe, be gracious, let go, and trust the judgment of the organization to which you entrusted the bundle?

Any way you look at it, we seem to be in an era where "ownership," "control," donor intent," "social investment," "accountability," "metrics," and "social return on investment" all point to the tightening of control of philanthropic dollars in the hands of the giver, as opposed to the organization to whom the money is given. Hewing to donor intent seems almost like keeping a bargain or keeping faith. If organizations don't, donors or their heirs may be bitter, and gifts may dry up, not only from that family, but increasingly from donors as a group. On the other hand, if a gift is a kind of partnership with the organization on whom the gift is bestowed, shouldn't the donor cut the organization some slack? And might society too be a party to the gift, and along with accountability to donor intent, might we raise the question of legitimacy? Do gifts come to seem less legitimate as "public spirited acts" deserving of tax favored treatment, and the honor accorded big gifts, if donors and their heirs require control in perpetuity? Do we as a democracy become more like a country ruled by an Aristocracy, or by Pharaohs from their tombs, if a family with its own particular philanthropic, and no doubt political views, can turn a University like Princeton into its minion, or instrumentality?  Do we want one family  calling the shots on how students are selected, trained, and placed in government service by one of America's best schools?  Don't we actually as a nation want a little of checks and balances in the system where donor intent is a key factor, but the recipient organization also has some rights to use independent judgment? And with a supporting organization, with the board under the control of the recipient organization, shouldn't a donor appreciate going in that the school would have the final say? I don't know. I do think the issues require sober discussion, because so much is at stake, from so many angles, for the family, the school, for the precedents set, and for America and the world affected by those in government service. Without knowing all the merits, I would be hesitant as a citizen to say, "Whatever the Robertson family dictates under their mission is darn good thing for America." I hope the national interest or the public interest has a recognized stake and an audible voice in the debate, even if it is one factor among others, to be honorably weighed by the nonprofit's board, and failing agreement there, by the courts.

Link here to articles on the case from The Daily Princetonian. A quick Google search did not yet reveal opinion pieces by Martin Wooster or William Schambra, but I would expect them to weigh in soon on behalf of the Robertson family's donor rights and the outrages perpetrated by liberal elites.

Starbucks: Corporate Philanthropy and Employee Loyalty

Starbucks Gets Wobbly, by Mischa Gauss, In These Times.

When Joe Tessone and his fellow Starbucks baristas walked into a pep rally with management at their store in Chicago's Logan Square neighborhood in August, the bosses were ready. A trio of higher-ups passed around copies of the preamble to the constitution of the Industrial Workers of the World and warned the hourlies against the radicalism of the old anarchist-socialist One Big Union. The managers told the "partners"--the company's sobriquet for a workforce that baristas say is entirely part-time--that the CEO and chairman carry the same benefits package as the baristas. That argument didn't hold much water for Tessone. "It's the illusion of equality," he says. "Do they struggle to pay rent at the end of the month? Do they struggle to buy groceries at the end of the week?" Sick of waiting for modest demands to be met, the baristas weren't buying the packaged spiel. Instead, they announced they were joining the IWW, intent on returning some meaning to the National Labor Relation Act's call for "mutual aid or protection." The nation's 71-year-old foundational labor document applies to all workers, not only those who can arduously prove a majority of their colleagues want a union.

Maybe,  if Starbucks gives more the charity, the baristas will calm down.  Top management has to decide how best to allocate profit: top management salaries and benefits, dividends to shareholders, barista's salaries and benefits, public relations,  advertising, and corporate philanthropy, to name a few line items. If employees and customers find philanthropy appealing, it might be a great investment, cash on cash, particularly if baristas are  willing to accept lower salaries to work for a caring company.  Balancing all this to produce the best bottom line results, within the context of great and growning brand equity,  is why top management makes the big bucks, I guess.  Justice? Well, what is justice when it comes to salaries? And does anyone have proof that it pays? Cut the baristas salaries, and give the savings to charity, that would my suggestion.  Low level employees are fungible assets. Brand equity as a caring company is priceless.

Fraternity and Philanthropy

The post, by Judith Meskill at Social Software Weblog,  about a Napa Valley charity wine auction, is from 2004. Still, human nature remains unchanged. "Fraternity, Philanthropy" and Equality. Could be revolutionary, but basically it is about a creating and maintaining a status hierarchy, right? I guess, the art of giving is harnessing every possible motive to a decent act and outcome. Be the change you seek and hold your numbered bidding paddle high.

Mitt Romney Does Philanthropy

Presidential politics, a candidate's foundation, a think tank, and public policy on health care: a nice little case study from Philanthropybeat. You could teach this stuff in a school run by Mephistopheles.

The Metatron and Easter Sunday

At a philanthropic event here in Dallas recently I had a chance to meet an exceptional man, named Reginald M. Harvey.  In the hall he stopped to tell me a story about Lizzie  and Miss Tread, figures from his boyhood in the Midwest.  I won't spoil the story for you by giving away the plot, but I can say it changed my view of philanthropy, and made me ashamed at some of my own stock responses to givers and giving.  "Money tainted by sin..." should we accept it? Should we honor those who give it? Whatever your stock response, I am certain this story will give you pause as it did me. Thank you, Reginald, for letting me publish this. In pdf. 11 double-spaced pages. 

Download the_metatron_and_easter_sunday_v21.pdf )

David Harris-Gershon as Social Investment?

Lot #:1312300 Buy My Future Income As a Writer

David is a newly published writer, a father of two, and a high school teacher. To fund his MFA he is taking bids against 20% of his future earnings. The minimum bid is $100,000. So far he has had no takers, but that may mean you can get a bargain. What factors might a wise philanthropist, or businessperson, use in making such a social investment?

• The literary value of David's potential output
• The present value of David's potential income
• The likelihood that David will live up to the contract
• The legality of the whole arrangement (like indentured labor or wage slavery?)
• The tax status of the investment
• The possibility of life insurance to collateralize the debt
• The possibility that David himself will end in penury, if he writes well enough
• Other?

The way my mind works, I imagine some financier diversifying the investment in a pool with thousands of writers, painters, dancers, musicians, in their early years. The pool might then be marketed to social entrepreneurial types as a way to do well by doing good.  It would only take one Stephen King to pay for thousands who go broke trying to write something of intrinsic value. Sadly, I also visualize a muscular guy in an ill-fitting suit showing up on David's doorstep to suggest he get a job as a hack writer in a think tank, ad agency, PR firm, or some other well paying gig.  "We  are looking for 15% return on  investment, David. Of course we have you insured, should anything happen to you, God forbid."