This week, the free and independent United States of America marks the 236th anniversary of that perilous moment when a band of patriots, devoted to a belief in the inherent right of people to govern themselves, announced they would no longer recognize the authority of the British crown.
My annual Independence Day tradition is to re-read the words of the Declaration of Independence. We often hear during this season the inspiring words penned by Thomas Jefferson about “all men are created equal.” But how often do we read the closing words of the Declaration of Independence?
“We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states…And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.”
A couple of phrases jump out at me when I read this: “appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world…” and “we mutually pledge to each other…”
In a time when the divine right of kings was accepted as the natural order of things, these bold men and women answered to a higher calling – yes, higher than a king – to stand up for the idea of citizenship inherent in human beings. And they did so in comradeship with one another (“we pledge to each other”). The composite meaning of these two ideas – asking for the wisdom of God to guide them, while recognizing that they were all in this together – is a powerful lesson for us as citizens today. We are the inheritors of this bold gift. How do we live these values today?
In my view, this composite forms the very meaning of citizenship and civic engagement: answering a higher calling in comradeship with your fellow citizens. Both ideas are important. This is not just about private faith: belief that a higher being will grant you salvation, or protect you, or whatever you may believe about the nature of spirituality inside you. That idea has a place in our private lives, but the calling described by Jefferson was not private. He moved the calling into the public realm. We “pledge to each other” our lives, our fortunes and our honor to live the values of citizenship and defend them. The public commitment made by these courageous could is the true legacy of that moment of independence.
One reason I am so passionate about the role of the nonprofit community in our lives is that I believe we form nonprofits to realize the full potential of citizenship. Nonprofits are infused with the values in those words of the Declaration: we “appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world” to guide our work, which we can only carry out in concert with our brothers and sisters. And when government, even in its democratic form, fails to live up to these values, we associate with one another through nonprofits to bring that government back to its founding values.
This idea of a nonprofit places the civic role of our organizations front and center in service to our missions. Over the years, nonprofits have taken on many and diverse roles as services providers and servants to community needs. And these roles are important, for they allow people to organize themselves to serve their neighbors. But sometimes an emphasis on the service function shifts our attention away from the essential idea of a nonprofit as a vehicle for citizenship and civic engagement. We are not private entities, concerned only with a narrow population. We are part of the civic fabric that was first woven by those courageous founders 236 years ago.
In our daily, modern lives it is easy to take for granted what these patriots did for us. And it is easy to lose sight of the fact that, as nonprofit leaders, we inherit the mantle of faith in the inherent right of citizenship that those patriots handed to us.
Are you thinking about your role as a nonprofit leader in this way? Are you thinking every day about your organization’s fundamental role as a vehicle for civic engagement? If not, you are letting down the Founders.
In this election year, I hope that we the nonprofit community fully realizes our potential as engines of civic engagement and champions of citizenship. Let us “mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor” to fulfill the fondest hopes of the Founders of our great nation who fought for us and believed in us those many generations ago.
Monday, July 02, 2012
Monday, February 06, 2012
How Do You Engage Your Stakeholders?
Two national nonprofits with strong brands and large bases of support learned much about the interconnections of their supporters recently as a robust public dialogue surrounded Susan G. Komen for the Cure and Planned Parenthood.
The controversy kicked up this month between Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood has spurred much discussion of how a nonprofit should handle a communications crisis. Commentators debate whether Komen should have engineered their policy change with more thought to potential negative feedback, and whether their responses to the backlash should have been handled differently. But as the dust settles on this war of words between those who stuck by Komen and those who stuck by Planned Parenthood, a more intriguing long-term question arises: What does this episode suggest about the relationship between donors and volunteers and the nonprofits they support?
At one level, this question seems like a simple one: donors who disagreed with Komen’s original decision to discontinue funding to Planned Parenthood were outraged, unleashing a rapid social media campaign urging people to discontinue their donations to Komen, and concurrently spurring a $3 million boost in donations to Planned Parenthood. They were exercising their right to move their philanthropic dollars from one nonprofit to another. So why should there be any debate about their roles as donors?
Two concerns arise: First, this was not a simple matter of philanthropists shifting their contribution strategy. This issue ensnared Komen in a political arena, creating a divide among Komen supporters between those who are pro-life and those who are pro-choice. This may have been the first time the general public was aware that the effort to find a cure for breast cancer had any connection to the ongoing political turmoil surrounding abortion.
Is this a possible trend for nonprofits? Is it possible that other nonprofits will have their issues politicized because they are working with or funding other nonprofits which have some stake in a controversial issue in the public arena? And does this threaten to undermine the essential mission of organizations, like Komen, which are not involved in an advocacy campaign opposed to abortion but an advocacy and service campaign to eliminate breast cancer?
Whichever side you may be taking in this debate among Komen donors, do you believe that your past commitment (via your donation or your service as a volunteer) to battle breast cancer will be served by canceling your support? Won’t the mission you supported suffer as a result?
The second dimension of this donor/nonprofit relationship question pertains to the essential nature of being a donor or volunteer. Some people who posted messages through social media or called into radio and TV programs as the controversy swirled suggested that, as individuals who had participated in a Komen Race for the Cure and raised funds, they had a “right” to tell Komen what it could or could not do with its funds. Therefore, they were outraged that Komen would take this action without consulting them. Some of these comments almost seemed to suggest that individuals saw their role akin to that of a voter in relation to government.
But, in fact, donors and volunteers are not “nonprofit voters.” Nonprofits are not public institutions; they are private organizations. Their own bylaws define the relationship between the organization and the stakeholders of the organization – board, staff, members (if they have them), volunteers, clients, community, etc.
Now, nobody doubts that donors and volunteers should be considered pretty important people to any nonprofit, especially in an organization like Komen, which creates a very high level of engagement for thousands of its supporters. But if the organization’s bylaws do not give those stakeholders a role in governance, then these individuals have no “rights” to direct Komen’s funding strategy.
Therefore, those volunteers and donors entrust Komen with decision making about the best way to serve its mission. And if Komen, which grants tens of millions of dollars each year to other nonprofits nationwide, decides that the $700,000 to Planned Parenthood could be better spent with other nonprofits, why should donors question that decision? If that decision is made with the same commitment to addressing the ravages of breast cancer, do the donors and volunteers know better?
These are not easy questions. Any nonprofit, which provides a benefit to the community, and involves that community significantly through contributions, service and other forms of engagement, cannot be cavalier about the trust they hold with that community. How far does this relationship go in suggesting that donors and volunteers should be more thoroughly consulted when making decisions like Komen did this month?
Our work in the nonprofit community is largely built upon trust: it begins when the IRS entrusts us with a charitable mission by granting 501(c)3 status, and continues when we promise to fulfill our mission, putting that mission above all other considerations. Those who support us and whom we serve deserve to know that we handle that trust with care. Even when political issues seep into our arena, we must maintain the same commitment to public trust. Whether or not Komen mishandled that trust is the real issue we should be debating as we reflect upon this episode in our community.
The controversy kicked up this month between Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood has spurred much discussion of how a nonprofit should handle a communications crisis. Commentators debate whether Komen should have engineered their policy change with more thought to potential negative feedback, and whether their responses to the backlash should have been handled differently. But as the dust settles on this war of words between those who stuck by Komen and those who stuck by Planned Parenthood, a more intriguing long-term question arises: What does this episode suggest about the relationship between donors and volunteers and the nonprofits they support?
At one level, this question seems like a simple one: donors who disagreed with Komen’s original decision to discontinue funding to Planned Parenthood were outraged, unleashing a rapid social media campaign urging people to discontinue their donations to Komen, and concurrently spurring a $3 million boost in donations to Planned Parenthood. They were exercising their right to move their philanthropic dollars from one nonprofit to another. So why should there be any debate about their roles as donors?
Two concerns arise: First, this was not a simple matter of philanthropists shifting their contribution strategy. This issue ensnared Komen in a political arena, creating a divide among Komen supporters between those who are pro-life and those who are pro-choice. This may have been the first time the general public was aware that the effort to find a cure for breast cancer had any connection to the ongoing political turmoil surrounding abortion.
Is this a possible trend for nonprofits? Is it possible that other nonprofits will have their issues politicized because they are working with or funding other nonprofits which have some stake in a controversial issue in the public arena? And does this threaten to undermine the essential mission of organizations, like Komen, which are not involved in an advocacy campaign opposed to abortion but an advocacy and service campaign to eliminate breast cancer?
Whichever side you may be taking in this debate among Komen donors, do you believe that your past commitment (via your donation or your service as a volunteer) to battle breast cancer will be served by canceling your support? Won’t the mission you supported suffer as a result?
The second dimension of this donor/nonprofit relationship question pertains to the essential nature of being a donor or volunteer. Some people who posted messages through social media or called into radio and TV programs as the controversy swirled suggested that, as individuals who had participated in a Komen Race for the Cure and raised funds, they had a “right” to tell Komen what it could or could not do with its funds. Therefore, they were outraged that Komen would take this action without consulting them. Some of these comments almost seemed to suggest that individuals saw their role akin to that of a voter in relation to government.
But, in fact, donors and volunteers are not “nonprofit voters.” Nonprofits are not public institutions; they are private organizations. Their own bylaws define the relationship between the organization and the stakeholders of the organization – board, staff, members (if they have them), volunteers, clients, community, etc.
Now, nobody doubts that donors and volunteers should be considered pretty important people to any nonprofit, especially in an organization like Komen, which creates a very high level of engagement for thousands of its supporters. But if the organization’s bylaws do not give those stakeholders a role in governance, then these individuals have no “rights” to direct Komen’s funding strategy.
Therefore, those volunteers and donors entrust Komen with decision making about the best way to serve its mission. And if Komen, which grants tens of millions of dollars each year to other nonprofits nationwide, decides that the $700,000 to Planned Parenthood could be better spent with other nonprofits, why should donors question that decision? If that decision is made with the same commitment to addressing the ravages of breast cancer, do the donors and volunteers know better?
These are not easy questions. Any nonprofit, which provides a benefit to the community, and involves that community significantly through contributions, service and other forms of engagement, cannot be cavalier about the trust they hold with that community. How far does this relationship go in suggesting that donors and volunteers should be more thoroughly consulted when making decisions like Komen did this month?
Our work in the nonprofit community is largely built upon trust: it begins when the IRS entrusts us with a charitable mission by granting 501(c)3 status, and continues when we promise to fulfill our mission, putting that mission above all other considerations. Those who support us and whom we serve deserve to know that we handle that trust with care. Even when political issues seep into our arena, we must maintain the same commitment to public trust. Whether or not Komen mishandled that trust is the real issue we should be debating as we reflect upon this episode in our community.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
