Gift Hub

Strategic Giving in Vanity Fair

Very interesting discussion at Hudson of Peter Frumkin's Strategic Giving.  What, I found myself asking as I read the transcript, are the disciplines, or practices, or "life worlds" that would ideally be convened around a topic like strategic giving? Bill Schambra, himself a PhD, I believe in political science, assembled a great panel with expertise in business, foundation work, political theory, social sciences, and other disciplines you might call "hard," or "knowledge based." "Techne" figured high in the covernsation, but "sophysyne," or wisdom, virtue, temperence, self-control, balance? I missed on Bill's panel the voice of poetry, particularly satire, comedy or carnival.  It is as if philanthropy has become a serious and somewhat dismal matter of means and ends responsive to donor intention and theoris of social change and the donor's sense of community needs. Even when its "expressive" dimension is mentioned, the terminology is owlish and suitably impassive.  If I had a big foundation, I would fund a Think Tank populated by "expressive" crazies, like Blake,  Dickens, Artaud, or maybe Joe Bageant.  Ideas, as conservative say, matter, but not ideas thought in the head alone.  I wish Amy Kass, the literary one in the Hudson bunch, had been present to conclude the proceedings with a quotation from say, Hard Times.

Good Is A New Magazine

Too sexy for my shirt, too sexy for my Daddy's money, too sexy for my goodness. Giving is in. Sacrifice is out. Philanthropy and social ventures are the new black. We are not soft rich kids; we are hard like Daddy was. So, let's party like there is no tomorrow. America has a long way to go, I think, before we get Aristocracy right.

Rick Cohen Leaving NCRP

Rick Cohen is leavng National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.  You can keep up  with him via his blog.  Press release here.

Slate 60 Conference to Gather Decade's Top Philanthropists at Clinton Presidential Library

This Slate event should create a big media buzz around philanthropy:

President Clinton, Ted Turner, William H. Gates Sr. To Speak at Conference on Innovative Philanthropy

(NEW YORK, Aug. 14, 2006)—Slate Magazine today announced an event that will convene America's most generous charitable donors.

The Slate 60 Conference on Innovative Philanthropy will take place at the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Ark., on Nov. 12 and 13, 2006. It is co-sponsored by Slate Magazine, the Clinton Foundation and the University of Arkansas Clinton School of Public Service.

President Clinton will attend the conference and give a keynote address. Other confirmed participants include CNN founder and philanthropist Ted Turner, whose challenge led to the creation of the Slate 60, and William H. Gates Sr., co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

In 1996, Ted Turner suggested that, just as there's the Forbes magazine list of the 400 wealthiest Americans, there should be a list of the Americans who give the most to charity each year. Slate (www.slate.com) quickly took up the challenge, publishing a list of the 60 Americans who give the most to charity each year and analyzing their contributions. Since 2001, the Slate 60 list has been compiled by The Chronicle of Philanthropy and published each year by Slate.

The conference at the Clinton Library marks the 10^th anniversary of the Slate 60. In addition to President Clinton, Mr. Turner, and Mr. Gates, several other noted philanthropists will speak at the conference.

The League of Scarybirds

Kerry Santo's latest social (misad)venture:

The League of Scarybirds is an online community of writers, artists and individuals who create digital comic/graphic novels, original artwork and merchandise for The League as a way of creating revenue for Modo Fac Central and to create a new breed of social entrepreneur and to start a positive uprising in a dark and sinister manner.

White Courtesy Telephone Now Open

Now we can discuss philanthropy!  Glauco (Albert) Ruesga is online. Just ring the white courtesy telephone and ask your most pressing philanthropic questions. My questions basically revolve around etiquette. Is it ok to wear penny loafers to the Crystal Charity Ball in Dallas? I mean, if I am parking cars?   

Open Agenda Org

An open grassroots approach to giving, apparently by one person ("who in this case is Brian") doing his giving in open conversation with others on the net. A refreshing change from traditional givers who seek "safe places." Perhaps the open agenda sponsor will learn the lessons of his predecessors and seek a lower profile and safer and more sequestered places, or perhaps traditional donors might be more willing to give in public so others can learn from their efforts.

Michael Joyce and the War of Ideas

William Schambra's tribute to Michael Joyce who died on February 24th, age 63. Who would not wish for such an eloquent eulogy? Those of us whose ideas are losing in this "war" can only admire the clarity and passion and effectiveness with which Joyce pursued his world-changing vision. 

The Ethos of Public Foundations

Philanthropybeat on foundation transparency.  We who do not work inside foundations must be grateful to PB and other insiders who are willing, even with a pseud, to give us a peek into the thought processes of the foundation world.  When the curtain is pulled back would we be appalled by what we see, or merely bored? I wonder.  Are foundations raucus places where ideas collide with ideals in the ferment where rich and poor meet to hash out a common destiny in a democracy? Or are they mostly piles of money tended by those dererential to same? Do any big foundations have blogs where a person who matters talks to the public about how he or she is serving the public interest and solicits feedback? Or are foundations, PB,  the kind of place where you blog at your own risk? (Those who wish to answer are welcome to use assumed names if that makes it easier for you to speak freely.)

Where did all the Giving Blogs Go?

Where are they, all the giving blogs? was once the question. Now we have a more interesting question: Why do those who start blogs on philanthropy either say next to nothing (as if posts were reviewed by an immediate superior or run by an internal censor) or  fall silent? "What should we talk about?" asks Lucy Berholz, and then falls silent. Philanthropybeat "is an online journal that covers the institutional philanthropy and private foundations," but has no posts as far as I can tell. I wish Lenore Ealy could get a team of conservative thinkers, like Bill Schambra and Amy Kass to blog with her. At a recent conference, Amy told me, about a particular point, "You are completely wrong." And she was right. How can we get that conversational spirit, of heated disgreement, with respect for truth, going in our staid field as we await the talking points from Headquarters? I mean, if you can't blog in your own name without permission get a pseud and speak in parables. Over at Wealth Bondage they always have an opening for a well-bred Professional. If you want to make a Fool of yourself with impunity, I am sure Candidia can put you to work blogging for hire as a public service.  You would think that blogs being "voluntary action in a public space" would be a natural fit with those interested in promoting civil society and citizen engagement. Instead, mostly silence. I should probably take the hint myself and write about, say, spaniels.