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.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Nonprofit Leaders Raise Their Voices
During the past two months, Arizona’s nonprofit leaders raised their voices. Don’t misunderstand me: they were civil, they were respectful, and they were doing nothing more than speaking for their communities. But also make no mistake: they spoke with one voice very loudly.
The subject was individual donations to nonprofits and the proposals circulating in Washington D.C. that would reduce the incentive for individuals to make those donations. More than 80% of all donations to nonprofits are given by individuals. We know that those individuals, while motivated by a passion for the causes we pursue, still consider the tax benefits of making contributions to charitable nonprofits. If Congress were to limit or eliminate those benefits, we can be certain that nonprofits will raise less money.
Who would be hurt most if Congress shatters the incentive to make donations? The people and communities served by nonprofits. That includes these people:
And if we are true leaders, we stand up for those we serve. We stand up for our communities.
That is exactly what 258 nonprofits in Arizona did this fall. At the Alliance, we applaud the vigor with which nonprofits defended their need for resources to meet the large and growing issues facing our communities. When these 258 nonprofits added their names to the national letter urging Congress to protect the charitable giving incentive, they were acting as leaders.
These are leaders who raised their voices. And collectively, they spoke with one voice. They spoke up for the communities they serve. And that is why I say that they raised their voices. They lifted up their voices because of their passion for the people who need our nonprofits to remain strong.
The failure of the super-committee in Congress to finalize a deficit reduction plan last week gave us a moment to pause and reflect on this leadership. And this essay creates just that moment to celebrate the many nonprofits which stood up and participated in our campaign.
But the moment is short. We have not heard the end of this issue in Congress. And we may face similar challenges to the charitable giving incentive for individuals on their state income taxes in Arizona. (Stay tuned for that in January.) Furthermore, other threats loom in state legislatures and city halls – proposals in other states to eliminate tax exemptions for nonprofits or charge high fees that have the same effect. We must be vigilant in case these threats show up in Arizona.
So I ask you to help us celebrate the leaders in our nonprofit community. I ask you to applaud with us the way in which they spoke loudly for the people they serve. But then I ask you to clear your throats and prepare to raise your voices with us again in 2012.
These times require bold leaders who stand up for what they believe.
The subject was individual donations to nonprofits and the proposals circulating in Washington D.C. that would reduce the incentive for individuals to make those donations. More than 80% of all donations to nonprofits are given by individuals. We know that those individuals, while motivated by a passion for the causes we pursue, still consider the tax benefits of making contributions to charitable nonprofits. If Congress were to limit or eliminate those benefits, we can be certain that nonprofits will raise less money.
Who would be hurt most if Congress shatters the incentive to make donations? The people and communities served by nonprofits. That includes these people:
- The hard-working Americans who visited nonprofit housing agencies in the past three years to cope with foreclosure on their homes.
- The families who found themselves without a home and knocking on the door of a homeless shelter for the first time in their lives.
- The children in after-school and summer school programs who need the boost from these nonprofits which support the educational goals of schools after the final school bell rings.
- The individuals coping with behavioral health issues who need a counselor when life throws them a curve ball.
And if we are true leaders, we stand up for those we serve. We stand up for our communities.
That is exactly what 258 nonprofits in Arizona did this fall. At the Alliance, we applaud the vigor with which nonprofits defended their need for resources to meet the large and growing issues facing our communities. When these 258 nonprofits added their names to the national letter urging Congress to protect the charitable giving incentive, they were acting as leaders.
These are leaders who raised their voices. And collectively, they spoke with one voice. They spoke up for the communities they serve. And that is why I say that they raised their voices. They lifted up their voices because of their passion for the people who need our nonprofits to remain strong.
The failure of the super-committee in Congress to finalize a deficit reduction plan last week gave us a moment to pause and reflect on this leadership. And this essay creates just that moment to celebrate the many nonprofits which stood up and participated in our campaign.
But the moment is short. We have not heard the end of this issue in Congress. And we may face similar challenges to the charitable giving incentive for individuals on their state income taxes in Arizona. (Stay tuned for that in January.) Furthermore, other threats loom in state legislatures and city halls – proposals in other states to eliminate tax exemptions for nonprofits or charge high fees that have the same effect. We must be vigilant in case these threats show up in Arizona.
So I ask you to help us celebrate the leaders in our nonprofit community. I ask you to applaud with us the way in which they spoke loudly for the people they serve. But then I ask you to clear your throats and prepare to raise your voices with us again in 2012.
These times require bold leaders who stand up for what they believe.
Thursday, October 06, 2011
It’s Time to Voter-ize the Nonprofit Community
As autumn leaves fall (well, somewhere they do, not in Phoenix), we get ever closer to one of those benchmark years in the USA: election year. We hold elections across the country at various times, but there is nothing like a presidential election year to highlight our political lives in sharp relief.
For many, the 2012 election appears to be fateful. At the national level, the public mood is surly for many reasons, and people believe that the decisions we make about President and Congress could determine whether the nation truly begins digging out of its economic funk, or whether the walls come tumbling down on the American experiment.
In Arizona, while we do not have an election for our statewide officials, every member of the State Legislature is on the ballot (as they are every two years), they will be running in new districts drawn by our Independent Redistricting Commission, and we could be facing ballot initiatives that address important public policy and election reforms.
So, in a year like 2012, every American should be informed and engaged. It is every American citizen’s right to vote. More than that, it is their responsibility. And more than that, their country needs them to be engaged more than ever.
That brings us to our nonprofit community. For too many years, most nonprofits have not seized the opportunity presented by elections to shape the communities they serve. For some, they heed incorrect advice that they are not allowed to have ANYTHING to do with elections. For others who know better, they are fearful of the possible ramifications of donors withdrawing support or board members getting in the way of any electoral activity. And for most, it could just be an issue of time.
But sitting on the sidelines is a sure way to guarantee that the work of our nonprofit community – which by definition, is designed to serve the most important issues and needs in our neighborhoods, towns, cities, states, nation and even world – can continue to have the impact we desire. Public policy made by our elected officials has huge ramifications on our ability to serve our missions. And if we do not ensure that those elected officials are representative of the interests of our communities, then we are unlikely to benefit from public policy that is truly in the public interest.
And that is exactly what has been happening in Arizona for too long. Today’s state legislature does not reflect the goals of the citizens of Arizona. I’m not making that up. Look at The Arizona We Want, published by The Center for the Future of Arizona. This extremely thorough, accurate study tells us what the PEOPLE of Arizona want to see in their state. And what they want is not reflected in the laws and policies being considered and adopted by our state legislature. And the people know that: The Arizona We Want poll tells us that only 10 percent believe elected officials in this state represent their best interests. Nine out of 10 people in Arizona believe our elected officials are out of touch.
So how do we change that? We change the people in elected office. How do we do that? Three steps:
1.We register to vote and help everyone we know register to vote.
2.We educate ourselves about the candidates running for office in BOTH the primary and general elections in 2012.
3.We vote and get everyone we know to follow all three of these steps as well.
Sounds simple, doesn’t it? That’s because it is. Being an engaged citizen can be very involved or very simple. At the most basic and simple level is voting.
So, what does this have to do with nonprofits? We are some of the most connected organizations around. We are full of staff, board members, volunteers, clients and community stakeholders who believe in what we do. If you put the numbers together of all of those stakeholders, we probably have much more than a majority of the PEOPLE of Arizona on our side.
So, if we turned those PEOPLE into VOTERS, we would have real power. If we could use our connections to 1) register, 2) inform, and 3) activate voters, we could be the most powerful political force in Arizona. But our power will not be partisan or narrowly based. Because we are so diverse and we are so comprehensive in the work we do, we could be the true force for public good that Arizona so badly needs.
That was the theme on Wednesday October 5, 2011 at this Disability Empowerment Center (good name, huh?), when more than 150 nonprofit leaders came together to learn how to “Reclaim Our Community’s Power.” They heard from keynote speaker Lindsey Hodel of Nonprofit VOTE, a national group leading the charge to involve nonprofits in voter engagement, about how we CAN exercise our collective muscle to change Arizona. And they heard Tim Schmaltz of Protecting Arizona’s Family Coalition call them to action: the time is now!
But wait: are we allowed to do this? Yes we are! The resource book taken home by those 150 participants on Wednesday made very clear: voter registration and voter engagement is our right to exercise as nonprofits. We cannot endorse or oppose candidates or use our resources for the benefit of a candidate. But we can do anything we want, legally, to help people vote. If you want to know more about that, contact me at patrickm@arizonanonprofits.org – I can send you all the details.
So, our mandate is clear. As Lindsey Hodel told us, it’s time to “voter-ize” Arizona’s nonprofit community.
And the motivation to do this could not have been expressed any better than the quote shared by Phil Pangrazio of Arizona Bridge to Independent Living: “Vote as if your life depended upon it, because it does.”
For many, the 2012 election appears to be fateful. At the national level, the public mood is surly for many reasons, and people believe that the decisions we make about President and Congress could determine whether the nation truly begins digging out of its economic funk, or whether the walls come tumbling down on the American experiment.
In Arizona, while we do not have an election for our statewide officials, every member of the State Legislature is on the ballot (as they are every two years), they will be running in new districts drawn by our Independent Redistricting Commission, and we could be facing ballot initiatives that address important public policy and election reforms.
So, in a year like 2012, every American should be informed and engaged. It is every American citizen’s right to vote. More than that, it is their responsibility. And more than that, their country needs them to be engaged more than ever.
That brings us to our nonprofit community. For too many years, most nonprofits have not seized the opportunity presented by elections to shape the communities they serve. For some, they heed incorrect advice that they are not allowed to have ANYTHING to do with elections. For others who know better, they are fearful of the possible ramifications of donors withdrawing support or board members getting in the way of any electoral activity. And for most, it could just be an issue of time.
But sitting on the sidelines is a sure way to guarantee that the work of our nonprofit community – which by definition, is designed to serve the most important issues and needs in our neighborhoods, towns, cities, states, nation and even world – can continue to have the impact we desire. Public policy made by our elected officials has huge ramifications on our ability to serve our missions. And if we do not ensure that those elected officials are representative of the interests of our communities, then we are unlikely to benefit from public policy that is truly in the public interest.
And that is exactly what has been happening in Arizona for too long. Today’s state legislature does not reflect the goals of the citizens of Arizona. I’m not making that up. Look at The Arizona We Want, published by The Center for the Future of Arizona. This extremely thorough, accurate study tells us what the PEOPLE of Arizona want to see in their state. And what they want is not reflected in the laws and policies being considered and adopted by our state legislature. And the people know that: The Arizona We Want poll tells us that only 10 percent believe elected officials in this state represent their best interests. Nine out of 10 people in Arizona believe our elected officials are out of touch.
So how do we change that? We change the people in elected office. How do we do that? Three steps:
1.We register to vote and help everyone we know register to vote.
2.We educate ourselves about the candidates running for office in BOTH the primary and general elections in 2012.
3.We vote and get everyone we know to follow all three of these steps as well.
Sounds simple, doesn’t it? That’s because it is. Being an engaged citizen can be very involved or very simple. At the most basic and simple level is voting.
So, what does this have to do with nonprofits? We are some of the most connected organizations around. We are full of staff, board members, volunteers, clients and community stakeholders who believe in what we do. If you put the numbers together of all of those stakeholders, we probably have much more than a majority of the PEOPLE of Arizona on our side.
So, if we turned those PEOPLE into VOTERS, we would have real power. If we could use our connections to 1) register, 2) inform, and 3) activate voters, we could be the most powerful political force in Arizona. But our power will not be partisan or narrowly based. Because we are so diverse and we are so comprehensive in the work we do, we could be the true force for public good that Arizona so badly needs.
That was the theme on Wednesday October 5, 2011 at this Disability Empowerment Center (good name, huh?), when more than 150 nonprofit leaders came together to learn how to “Reclaim Our Community’s Power.” They heard from keynote speaker Lindsey Hodel of Nonprofit VOTE, a national group leading the charge to involve nonprofits in voter engagement, about how we CAN exercise our collective muscle to change Arizona. And they heard Tim Schmaltz of Protecting Arizona’s Family Coalition call them to action: the time is now!
But wait: are we allowed to do this? Yes we are! The resource book taken home by those 150 participants on Wednesday made very clear: voter registration and voter engagement is our right to exercise as nonprofits. We cannot endorse or oppose candidates or use our resources for the benefit of a candidate. But we can do anything we want, legally, to help people vote. If you want to know more about that, contact me at patrickm@arizonanonprofits.org – I can send you all the details.
So, our mandate is clear. As Lindsey Hodel told us, it’s time to “voter-ize” Arizona’s nonprofit community.
And the motivation to do this could not have been expressed any better than the quote shared by Phil Pangrazio of Arizona Bridge to Independent Living: “Vote as if your life depended upon it, because it does.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
