Nonprofit Law Blog

Nonprofit Tweets of the Week - June 1, 2012

2012-06-01T07:37:12-07:00

Here are some of my favorite posts of the week in the areas of nonprofit organizations, corporate governance, philanthropy, and social enterprises:

MN Nonprofits: ... Why board members miss the red flags. via Kate Barr - Nonprofit Assistance Fund - http://ow.ly/bdrfH
Nonprofit Issues: Can nonprofit board members be held liable for an organizations payroll tax debt? http://bit.ly/gm3Hcw
Ellis Carter: Board Confidentiality - What Happens in the Board Room Stays in the Board Room: http://bit.ly/KAFHCS
Patrick Sternal: Tax Court denies $19M charitable deduction for failure to meet appraisal requirements: http://bit.ly/KP7KwE | Self prep Form 8283=bad idea
Emily: Are You Headed For An Iceberg? Tips for avoiding common employment law pitfalls via Olive Grove Consulting - http://bit.ly/npo-compensation
Law For Change: Are you in a commercial co-venture? Many legitimate ways to raise cash still require charities to register with the AG. http://law4.ch/Jjil07
Gene: Why Companies Can No Longer Afford to Ignore Their Social Responsibilities | Time Mag - http://buff.ly/KWVN7d
Darian Heyman: Can your tweets be subpoenaed fr Twitter? Social Media Case Law - The Beginning, http://bit.ly/LdDABb via socialmediatoday.
Omidyar Network: How Financial Innovation Can Save the World http://bit.ly/LNb3lH. A must read impact investing article in The Atlantic
Caroline Preston: Is philanthropy print journalism's last hope? http://www.theatlantic.com/b

For more interesting tweets, follow me and Emily on Twitter.

All Bark and No Bite: What it means to govern after the "Three Cups of Tea" scandal

2012-05-31T13:32:37-07:00

When the scandal broke regarding Greg Mortenson and Central Asia Institute (CAI), many assumed “governance” was a rarely uttered word, let alone practiced concept, inside the walls or boardroom of CAI. However, when the Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock (“AG”) released his 31-page Investigative Report of Mortenson and CAI in April after a one-year investigation (“AG Report”), it detailed certain accounts that in many ways resembled an organization striving for good governance right up to the day the scandal hit the front page: by 2011, it had various written agreements with Mortenson regarding reimbursements for items such as travel expenses and royalties from his books; it had just conducted audits in fiscal years 2009 and 2010; and it had a retained an attorney in 2008 to assist with developing comprehensive policies for the organization. Such revelations certainly make the story only that much more perplexing as one must wonder how an organization that appeared to take these governance steps could find itself the subject of a scathing 60 Minutes exposé and widespread criticism, the focus of a yearlong AG investigation and, most recently, the party to a Settlement Agreement and Assurance of Voluntary Compliance with the AG (“Settlement”) that requires significant changes to CAI's organizational and financial controls as well as payments to CAI by its co-founder, Mortenson, for amounts totaling upwards of $1 million because of his alleged wrongdoings.

Part of the answer lies in the fact that good governance requires more than going through the motions. It requires a deeper commitment by directors to walk the walk, especially when the circumstances are complicated and the decisions are difficult. Although the CAI Board regularly discussed the financial benefits to Mortenson, used auditors, and hired outside legal counsel, the AG Report also revealed, among the many problems plaguing CAI, that the Board made little to no effort to enforce its agreements with Mortenson for recouping assets, ignored the problems identified by the auditors, and failed to implement the policies drafted by outside legal counsel. Given such accounts, it is not surprising that the AG Report concluded that the CAI Board failed to fulfill certain key management and oversight responsibilities and that Mortenson also failed in his responsibilities as Executive Director and a member of the Board.

Gene and I had an opportunity to discuss some of the lessons learned from the unfolding of events in our article for The Chronicle of Philanthropy, “'Three Cups of Tea' Scandal Offers Lessons for Charities and Trustees.” The recently released AG Report continues to offer insight on common governance missteps, some of which I’ve highlighted below.

Written Agreements

One troubling theme from the AG Report was the lack of agreements between Mortenson and the organization until recent years despite the long history of personal benefits flowing from CAI to Mortenson. For example, CAI spent approximately $367,000 for production costs, $4.93 million in advertising costs, and another $3.96 million for copies of “Three Cups of Tea” after it was released in 2006 even though Mortenson owned the copyright to the book and CAI had no written agreements with Mortenson regarding royalties or other return benefit to CAI until 2008 when it drafted a board resolution that required Mortenson to pay CAI amounts equal to the royalty income received from the books purchased by CAI. To make matters worse, Mortenson never provided the Board with copies of any contracts relating to “Three Cups of Tea,” the other directors never asked for those contracts, and no steps had been taken by the Board as of April 2011 to demand the payments required by the 2008 board resolution.

The Settlement makes efforts to help CAI establish agreement terms for future costs and requires CAI to maintain appropriate documentation to engage in certain transactions with Mortenson. For example, for any books purchased in the future by CAI, CAI must keep itemized receipts to account for the cost and calculate the royalties Mortenson receives on each purchase; Mortenson must provide to the Board a copy of any relevant contract for determining the amount of royalties Mortenson receives per book; and Mortenson must make a contribution to CAI equal to the amount of royalty income received for the books purchased by CAI.

Such corrective actions are an important reminder for nonprofits, that with any arrangement, boards should consider when a written agreement would be appropriate and in the organization’s best interests. Founders desiring intellectual property rights for work created that also benefits the organization are not uncommon, but these arrangements must be managed carefully; rarely are these appropriate situations to rely on informal understandings, handshake deals, or another’s good faith. Among the benefits of a well-drafted agreement include setting clear expectations about responsibilities and obligations, establishing rights of the parties, addressing terms for exiting or otherwise terminating an agreement, and providing procedures for resolving conflicts related to the contract. At the same time, even the best written agreements can have little value to an organization that is not willing to enforce it. A board must thoroughly understand any agreement before entering into it and be prepared to take necessary steps to ensure the other party is also holding up his or her end of the bargain. Additionally, boards should take heed of any applicable rules or procedural requirements under state or federal tax law prior to entering into an agreement, such as evaluating fair market value for goods or services, especially when the transactions also involve conflicts of interests with directors and officers.

Experts and Other Professionals

Another disturbing theme from the AG Report was the extent to which the CAI Board obtained but essentially disregarded the assistance of financial and legal experts. For example, the AG Report noted that CAI stopped auditing its finances after the 2003 fiscal year audit revealed material weaknesses in financial and internal controls. When CAI restarted audits for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, the latter audits revealed the same problems from 2003. Additionally, although an attorney developed policies for CAI in 2008 such as an Employee Travel Reimbursement Policy, Code of Ethics Policy, Conflict of Interest Policy, and Personnel Policy Manual, and Board Policy Manual, the AG concluded the policies were not effectively enforced and had been violated not only by Mortenson but also other employees and even nonemployees such as family members of CAI employees. The consequences to CAI for noncompliance were costly, for example, as shown by a later audit that estimated $75,000 in personal expenses were charged by Mortenson to CAI in a single fiscal year in violation of such policies.

Now, pursuant to the Settlement, CAI will use the assistance of outside parties to improve its governance including a new independent auditor retained by CAI to review financial statements and produce an audit report, an independent certified public accountant to review past credit card and travel expenses, and the AG to monitor CAI over the next three years. The Settlement furthermore references specific reformed policies that should help avoid similar issues in the future including those related to use of corporate credit cards and travel reimbursement.

The Settlement’s emphasis on outside parties to evaluate and assist CAI highlights the utility and benefit that can be gained from an objective set of eyes which often come in the form of third-party experts or professionals who bring a wealth of expertise and are more open to seeing and acknowledging problem areas. Nonprofits should remember that checks and balances are critical for proper governance particularly with financial management to prevent issues such as fraud, embezzlement, and misuse of charitable assets. Most states, for example, require larger nonprofits to conduct yearly independent audits and/or establish audit and finance committees for the purpose of strengthening financial oversight. All organizations, regardless of size, should regularly assess what frequency of audits or other review and degree of internal controls are needed for their specific circumstances.

An organization may also benefit from retaining experts or professionals in other areas besides financial. For example, using professional assistance to revise Bylaws and other governing documents, review contracts and update policies, provide skilled-based trainings, or facilitate team building or conflict resolutions can directly impact an organization’s practices, culture, and morale.

Board Oversight

The AG Report also details CAI’s unexpected growth and the serious troubles an organization can face when little attention is placed on acquiring directors with the appropriate skills, experiences, and backgrounds needed to meet the organization’s operational and practical demands under new circumstances.

CAI today runs a large-scale operation, reporting an impressive $22 million in donations for fiscal year 2009. But it had relatively modest beginnings in 1996, founded with a $1 million donation to build schools in central Asia and experiencing its first notable surge in donations only as far back as 2003. The AG Report states that Mortenson, Executive Director since CAI started, insisted on maintaining substantial control over CAI until his resignation in summer 2011 despite an inability to effectively manage an organization of CAI’s size and complexities given both his lack of management experience (specifically in financial and personnel management by Mortenson’s own admission) and his hectic travel schedule.The AG additionally observed the Board's composition, though compliant with applicable state laws, was stagnant and consisted of the same four individuals, including Mortenson, from 2003 to 2009. After a director resigned in 2009, the CAI Board thereafter stayed at three which included Mortenson and two other board members who felt great admiration for Mortenson, which the AG described as interferring with their ability to exercise independent oversight and management over CAI.

As required by the Settlement, CAI will overhaul the current composition of its governaning body in the coming years. Changes include expanding the Board to at least seven voting members, limiting Mortenson’s involvement on the Board to a nonvoting capactity, upcoming resignations by the other two current directors within one year, and using an independent professional consultant to help search for a new executive director. These changes should remind nonprofits that the working relationship between an executive director and board can have direct effects on the strength or weakness with which they govern. This already nuanced relationship becomes all the more complicated when combined with complications such as an executive director who also serves as a board member, a small board that may be susceptible to groupthink, or misguided understandings about a board’s owed loyalty to a founder.

Boards should also remember that conflicts of interests practically appear in many forms, not just through financial interests. Personal relationships can also seriously hinder or otherwise contaminate a board member’s independent decision-making with respect to evaluating the performance of the Executive Director, one of the board’s most important responsibilities. When a board’s ability to govern effectively is threatened, directors have a responsibility to address and mitigate those problems.

Although not a happy ending for CAI, the Settlement may be the best ending that CAI could have realistically hoped for. CAI now has a rare opportunity for a second bite at the apple: to actually implement, and not just create the appearance of, proper governance in compliance with the law; to restore the public trust it once had; and to ultimately refocus its energy, attention, and resources to the charitable purposes for which CAI was started and supported in the first place.

*It should be noted that the AG Report provides limited guidance in certain respects. First, the AG conclusions are based on Montana state law (CAI is a Delaware corporation with its principal office in Bozeman, MT) and there are differences among states’ laws. Additionally, the AG Report does not attempt to address the federal tax laws regulating 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations which are within the jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Service. Second, certain confidential information which may have supported the AG's conclusions cannot be disclosed in the AG Report. Therefore, one can only speculate at best whether a similar occurrence would result in the same consequences. Finally, the allegations investigated by the AG have ultimately been resolved through the Settlement. Thus, no formal findings have been made by a court of law and CAI and Mortensen make no admissions of liability or wrongdoing. The Settlement instead represents a voluntarily agreement by all parties about the claims which remain in dispute.

Lessons Learned from Invisible Children and Kony 2012

2012-05-29T17:04:31-07:00

Although "Kony 2012" may seem like a phrase of the past, it was only a couple months ago in March that the San Diego-based nonprofit, Invisible Children, took the internet by storm when it released Kony 2012, a 30-minute video documenting Invisible Children’s efforts to stop Joseph Kony, a rebel war leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), and the atrocities occurring in certain parts of Africa at the hands of Kony and the LRA. The unprecedented viral success of Kony 2012 seemed like the social media dream come true that most organizations could only wish for: acquiring almost 40 million views on YouTube within the first week of its release and gaining the support of celebrity backers such as Oprah Winfrey, Ryan Seacrest, and Justin Bieber who subsequently promoted Invisible Children's message and video to their millions of Twitter followers around the world.

However, this dream quickly turned sour when it became apparent that Invisible Children had not only gained a new wave of supporters, but also a new wave of critics who similarly attracted widespread attention to their concerns. Thus, the conversations following the release of Kony 2012 have been just as much about Invisible Children and the criticism surrounding the organization’s governance and management practices as about Joseph Kony. Invisible Children attempted to address the criticism directed at its governance and management practices in a follow up video, Thank you, KONY 2012 Supporters, released one week after Kony 2012. That video, however, could not stop the continued pouring out of criticism and has acquired only around 178,000 views to date, which pales in comparison to the now over 90 million views of Kony 2012 that spurred these concerns.

While perhaps no one could have predicted the magnitude of celebrity and subsequent backlash experienced by Invisible Children resulting from Kony 2012, charity leaders can nevertheless reasonably expect that greater public attention will lead not only to more support but also higher levels of scrutiny. Thus, Kony 2012 serves as a good reminder to all organizations about some key governance principles that can help organizations make sure their houses are truly in order and able to embrace the higher levels of transparency demanded in today’s environment.

Third-Party Charity Ratings

Current and potential charity stakeholders and the media are increasingly looking to third party resources for assessing the quality and trustworthiness of an organization. Charity ratings sources such as the Better Business Bureau (BBB) and Charity Navigator grade charities and indicate where they think there may be problems. Regardless of whether an organization agrees with a particular rating, they can and often do impact the public perception of an organization. Sometimes, an individual’s first impression about an organization is through a third party’s evaluation whether through a rating or a peer review.

In the case of Invisible Children, many expressed their surprise upon reading the organization’s BBB Wise Giving Report which states in part: “This Charity did not provide requested information. As a result, the Better Business Bureau cannot determine if it meets standards.” Additionally, such concerns were amplified by the Charity Navigator’s 3/4 stars overall rating which included a troubling 2/4 stars for “Accountability & Transparency.” The attention to and question surrounding Invisible Children’s Charity Navigator rating was so prevalent that Charity Navigator issued a response that explained some of the reasons for its rating such as falling below Charity Navigator’s benchmark of having at least 5 independent directors who are a clear majority of the Board. The low "Accountability & Transparency" score from Charity Navigator in addition to the BBB statement and other criticisms may have sent a signal to many Kony 2012 viewers that Invisible Children’s messages were not to be fully trusted and that the organization may not be the best situated for solving the problem.

While no system or standard is by any means perfect and many are terribly flawed, they should not be ignored by an organization’s leaders. Organizations should not only be attentive to the ratings and peer reviews disseminated about the organization but should also address the merit of a critical rating or review and what can be done to address those issues for the betterment of the organization. Failing to appreciate the value placed by members of the public on certain third party information may result in negative consequences such as giving reason for supporters to lose faith in the organization and critics to go on the attack.

Mission Consistency

A 501(c)(3) organization must be organized and operated to further a charitable, educational, or other exempt purpose or mission. The mission may evolve over time, as many do, but such changes should be thoughtful, conscientious, and strategic. This includes taking care in communicating an important change to its stakeholders and updating its many pieces of online and offline materials for consistency. Inconsistencies could otherwise signify administrative gaps or sloppiness to outsiders or even worse, a lack of honesty and integrity. Additionally, an organization should be attentive to a donor’s intent and charitable trust laws that may otherwise prevent the use of previously acquired charitable assets to advance a new, unrelated mission.

Invisible Children, for example, might have avoided some of the criticism about its mission and programmatic work (as described further below) by better addressing discrepancies in its publicly available information before their critics called attention to it. Invisible Children’s mission is described on its website (as of May 29, 2012) as follows:

In its eight-year history, Invisible Children's mission has never wavered: we exist to stop LRA violence and support the war-affected communities in East and Central Africa. We also exist to empower young people to “do more than just watch,” to take steps towards ending injustice. These are the three ways we achieve this mission; each is essential:

1. Make the world aware of the LRA. This includes making documentary films and touring them around the world so that they are seen for free by millions of people.

2. Channel energy from viewers of IC films into large-scale advocacy campaigns to stop the LRA and protect civilians.

3. Operate programs on the ground in LRA-affected areas that focus on protecting communities, supporting LRA victims and post-conflict reconstruction.

The mission described above, however, could reasonably paint a different picture for a reader than the one established by Invisible Children’s FY 2010 Form 990 which describes the organization mission as “us[ing] film, creativity and social action to end the use of child soldiers in Joseph Kony’s rebel war and to restore LRA-affected communities in Central Africa to peace and prosperity” (Part III, Line 1), especially when read with the organization’s description of its most significant activities which are to “[r]aise awareness and educating the U.S. about the atrocities, exploitation and abuse of invisible children throughout the world.” Looking further back through the organization’s Form 990 filings, Invisible Children, like many organizations, appears to have made efforts to refine its mission. For example, the FY 2009 Form 990 makes no mention of Joseph Kony specifically under its mission or most significant activities, and its FY 2008 Form 990 describes its mission only as “[m]edia based awareness & advocacy programs in the US.” Thus, absent updated materials and/or clear communication about these changes, confusion about the organization’s mission as it is described today may have been more severe for earlier supporters of the organization.

While organizations must remember the Form 990 has become a major source of publicly available information for both supporters and critics in recent years, they must also not forget the breadth of various information being providing to the public in the form of an organizational website to donor mailings to other solicitation materials. These communications should provide clarity to the person who will read all of them as well as to the person who may read only one form of communication. Clarity and consistency about mission may help in not only mitigating unwanted scrutiny from critics and regulators (e.g., IRS, Attorney General), but also in attracting a strong base of supporters who will stay with the organization as it evolves.

Programmatic Activities

It is not uncommon for organizations with common missions to engage in vastly different activities due to any number of factors including their philosophies, strengths, and budget limitations. Programmatic activities can therefore often make the difference when recruiting contributors who want to see their monies used in a specific way (e.g., direct services, research, advocacy). Sometimes, there are also underlying assumptions by supporters about what an organizations which can cause deep rifts when those assumptions are not corrected even when the supporter and organization share passion about a common mission.

While many of the newer supporters of Invisible Children probably associate the organization most strongly with the domestic awareness and advocacy efforts in the U.S. related to Joseph Kony and Kony 2012, it became apparent that many supporters also strongly associate Invisible Children with direct services overseas. As a result, many critical articles about Invisible Children highlighted its FY 2010 Form 990 financial data and annual report showing only 37% of its expenses were directed at funding programs in Central Africa while the remaining programmatic expenses (roughly 43% of expenses) was spent on media and film creation and awareness programs and products - line items that would include costs for campaigns like Kony 2012. Any frustrations or anguish about the discrepancies between actual finances and certain donor expectations may have increased when turning to other publicly available information such as the organizational profile on Guidestar which does not currently list the U.S. domestic activities as one of Invisible Children’s programs (see “Programs & Help”).

Evaluating an organization’s programmatic choices and effectiveness can be a nuanced analysis that organizations and the public alike are constantly learning how to understand and measure better. Even without judging the merits of whether a particular course of programmatic work is the most effective way to advance a certain charitable mission, an organization’s main programmatic activity should not be a surprise to supporters or anyone considering support of an organization. As with mission, the public has a variety of information from which to learn about an organization’s activities. Communications should accordingly be as clear and consistent as possible regardless of which source the donor looks to. How an organization carries out its mission can be just as important to a supporter as the mission itself and miscommunication about an organization’s day-to-day work can result in broken relationships such as pulled support or distrust that is challenging, if not sometimes impossible, to repair.

Ultimately, Invisible Children bore certain consequences that many organizations would likely have been subject to had they also reached the same level of public attention overnight. Given the amount of information easily available to audiences today, organizations should be prepared to be examined on a micro level and implement practices that will exemplify good governance when the curtain is pulled back.

For more information about some of the tax and governance issues raised by Invisible Children and Kony 2012, please listen to our discussion about "Kony Complexities" with Tony Martignetti on Nonprofit Radio.

Nonprofit Tweets of the Week - May 25, 2012

2012-05-25T05:00:00-07:00

Here are some of my favorite posts of the week in the areas of nonprofit organizations, corporate governance, philanthropy, and social enterprises:

Adin Miller: Amen! Lucy Bernholz hits a home-run w/ this great post: http://bit.ly/KYowKm calling for evolutionary transformation of philanthropic institutions
Emily: New study finds that 41% of U.S. nonprofits w/ $1M+ annual budgets report $0 expenses on fundraising. - Nonprofit Quarterly - http://bit.ly/KEEqqP
Philantopic: Questions Raised by Report That Nonprofits Claim Zero Fundraising Expenses - http://owl.li/b5c6Z
Patrick Sternal: Yikes!:Tax Payers Cannot Deduct $23k Contribution to Church That Failed to Give Proper Acknowledgment - http://bit.ly/LencmK (TaxProf Blog)
Stephanie Strom: Nonprofits getting abused -- again. NYTimes: Public Money Finds Back Door to Private Schools - http://nyti.ms/Lg3nLO
D5 Coalition: D5 releases its second State of the Work report: a roadmap to greater diversity equity & inclusion in philanthropy - http://bit.ly/Jwd4bp
Debra Beck: Great post by Sarah Mackey - Questions Nonprofit Board Members Should Ask - http://bit.ly/K51fH8
Stanford Law: Money, politics and Citizens United’s fate -- Lyle Denniston SCOTUS blog http://bit.ly/KDKuRb
Law For Change: JOBS Act: Law Firm and Lawyer Resources - http://law4.ch/Kwo5Tq
Stanford Social Innovation Review: New Net Impact study: Employers who give workers ways to make a positive impact will find it pays off: http://ow.ly/b8cgt - Liz Maw
Jereme Bivins: 8 Rules For Creating A Passionate Work Culture - http://bit.ly/MDmK3H

For more interesting tweets, follow me and Emily on Twitter.

Nonprofit Tweets of the Week - May 18, 2012

2012-05-18T06:55:26-07:00

Here are some of my favorite posts of the week in the areas of nonprofit organizations, corporate governance, philanthropy, and social enterprises:

Emily: California's $15.7 billion deficit: Brown Proposes Drastic Cuts to Calif. Social Programs, Education via Nonprofit Quarterly - http://bit.ly/J8HaAr
Sustainable Law Group: New NY nonprofit rules limit executive compensation & impose new reporting requirements - timesunion.com/l
Foundation Center DC: Nice summary of yesterday's House hearing on NPOs: http://ow.ly/aYCoy
Nonprofit Times: The Top 10 Nonprofit Risks - http://bit.ly/JAoy9U [Ed. Short and simple and so important to consider.]
Gene: Make sure your Form 990 can withstand scrutiny - "Many Nonprofits Misreporting Solicited Donations" - http://j.mp/ITELWP
Gayle Gifford: My advice to biz people joining nonprofit boards - http://bit.ly/J2bola
Debra Beck: New post: 10 ways presidents really lead #nonprofit boards - http://bit.ly/Kk9gFw
Omidyar Network: 'ReCoding Good: Part 5'. Rob Reich & Lucy Bernholz explore use of private resources for public good - http://bit.ly/L1rR84 (Stanford Social Innovation Review)
Rob Reich: Inside story on Citizens United at the Supreme Court: John Roberts' fingerprints everywhere. New Yorker - http://nyr.kr/McwNMS
Nonprofit Quarterly: Rich Cohen's recommendations for a new regime of transparency & disclosure in the nonprofit & philanthropic sectors - http://owl.li/aQW3F

And some bonus tweets from the CEB presentation: California's New Social Purpose Corporate Entities presented by Todd Johnson, Susan MacCormac & David Levitt:

Social & environmental shareholder resolutions filed under SEC 14a-8 up 50% in last 10 years; 400 in 2010 & 2011.
Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) indicators are coming sooner or later; be prepared.
Pass-throughs LLCs owned by nonprofits - unrelated business activities still get attributed to nonprofit (not ideal).
LLC, while very flexible for socent purposes, not ideal for institutional investors.Possible to create a charitable trust in flexible purpose & benefit corporations. Be careful in drafting.
Choice of State is very important for benefit corporations - great variations (CA may have 3rd party suit risks).
Uncertainty re: risks of director liability with new governance standards. Expect higher D&O insurance costs for benefit corporations.

For more interesting tweets, follow me and Emily on Twitter.

Nonprofit Tweets of the Week - May 11, 2012

2012-05-11T04:30:00-07:00

Here are some of my favorite posts of the week in the areas of nonprofit organizations, corporate governance, philanthropy, and social enterprises:

Philanthropy: Congressional Hearing to Examine Nonprofit Tax Issues: Rep. Charles Boustany, who says he wants the IRS to be mo... http://bit.ly/LT1qXJ
Nonprofit Quarterly: Has your nonprofit assessed its level of risk recently? Here’s how to get started. http://owl.li/aOfjF
Debra Beck: 10 ways to: Transform nonprofit board meetings - http://bit.ly/KDF0dm
LawForChange: The NCN reviews the top 10 policy issues nonprofits faced in 2011. http://law4.ch/J2JJ48 [National Council of Nonprofits]
AFJ Bolder Advocacy: Today AFJ officially launches Bolder Advocacy -- giving nonprofits confidence in their policy work: http://bolderadvocacy.org/
Emily: Citizens Dis-United: Justices May Take Another Look at Campaign Finance Case via ABA Journal - http://bit.ly/Iz6f3O
Emily: Informative materials from NASCO on state laws re: fundraising via social media, commercial fundraisers & more: http://bit.ly/JdNv9s
Gene: Fiscal sponsorship: 6 Ways To Do It Right - http://www.fiscalsponsorship.com/ by Greg Colvin & 6 Ways To Do It Wrong - http://bitly.com/apBfUP
Nonprofit Finance Fund: What's the right way for a nonprofit to use a line of credit? Informative article by our Barbara Libove in New York Nonprofit Press - http://bit.ly/Kmwlpu
Patrick Sternal: Episcopal Church is rightful owner of properties, court rules http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/la | Consistent with 2009 Cal Sup Ct church property case

For more interesting tweets, follow me and Emily on Twitter.

Nonprofit Tweets of the Week - May 4, 2012

2012-05-04T05:00:00-07:00

Here are some of my favorite posts of the week in the areas of nonprofit organizations, corporate governance, philanthropy, and social enterprises:

Foundation Center: Developing a Contract or Written Agreement for Your Nonprofit Collaboration - http://bit.ly/J9P0nw
Jim Fruchterman: Clara Miller's fabulous article: The Looking Glass World of Nonprofit Money. http://bit.ly/IFOYHb Still fresh and true after 7 years!
Gene: New valuable resource! "Recurring Accounting Issues Noted and Related Best Practices for Nonprofits" - http://bit.ly/K53qta - Burr Pilger Mayer
Chronicle of Philanthropy: Dispelling 4 myths about endowments - http://ow.ly/aEuni
Gene: Real Estate Acquisition and Development for Nonprofit Organizations - http://www.orgspaces.org/wp from Coblentz
Emily: International Trademark Association presentations and discussion notes on understanding U.S. trademark law and proper use of trademarks - http://bit.ly/JLwU25
C. Garber Siegrist: Whoa! IRS study find $170mill diverted from 285 nonprofits in '09 http://bit.ly/JwwPup
Debra Beck: 10 ways to launch a successful nonprofit board term - http://bit.ly/IzO3dN
Nonprofit Quarterly: Who "owns" your nonprofit? Specifying moral ownership is an essential aspect of nonprofit board governance - http://owl.li/aBp1W
Nonprofit Law News: Proposed Regulations provide helpful new examples of “program-related investments [PRI] - http://bit.ly/IZ0jBS
Centre Social Impact: Social Impact Bonds & Government Contracting: http://ow.ly/aGOsO
Law for Change: What is #crowdfunding? If you want to issue stock online, it is what Congress and the SEC say it is. http://law4.ch/JwgNmG
Living Cities: Philanthropy & the Digital Public Dialogue. Great piece by Jeff Stanger in Stanford Social Innovation Review - http://bit.ly/IhrT0J
California Association of Nonprofits: Exciting day! Check our new site at CalNonprofits.org and the Vote With Your Mission campaign.

For more interesting tweets, follow me and Emily on Twitter.

Council on Foundations 2012 Annual Conference

2012-05-03T04:55:00-07:00

The Council on Foundations 2012 Annual Conference was held in Los Angeles on April 28 - May 2. Once again I was a virtual attendee through the valuable blogs and tweets of others. Here are some my favorites:

Recap

Sixteen Lessons this Next Gen-er Walked Away with from my Time in Los Angeles (RE: Philanthropy) - Michele Frix

Sessions

A “Paradigm Shift” for Corporate Philanthropy (RE: Philanthropy) - Rick Cohen - “'How does business provide that leadership' to solve social problems…and 'how does corporate philanthropy help provide that leadership?'”

Foundations Urged to Do Better at Influencing the Public (The Chronicle of Philanthropy) - Maria di Mento - "One sign of how little foundations interact with the public, he said: Just 50 of the roughly 7,600 foundations in the United States participate in Glasspockets, a Foundation Center project designed to make it easy for anybody to find out what foundations do with their money."

Paving the Way for Philanthropic and Public Policy Partnerships (RE: Philanthropy) - Rick Cohen - "Reed proposed that private foundations partner and establish endowments with community foundations, entrusting them with the advocacy and lobbying agendas that private foundations might not be able to pursue on their own."

Are You Being Left Behind as Technology Ushers In a Whole New Approach to Philanthropy? (Beth's Blog) - Larry Eason and Shelley Wenk - “With or without the knowledge or approval of organizational leaders, social behavior is beginning to happen” and that “Everyone in the organization – not just one department – is engaged in these conversations.”

Tweets

@CaseFoundation: "Foundations have to be a little more fearless. We have this extraordinary privilege to experiment." - @mrsmithDC
@knightfdn: "Don't caught up in the technology, get caught up in how you enter the conversation. - @mrsmithDC
@p2173: “@pewinternet: The New Environment for Foundations: Slides are up for @lrainie's talk from #cdicof/#cofla http://pewrsr.ch/ID0BiM”
@knightfdn: If you missed out on #cdicof #COFLA session on #philanthropy & the digital dialogue, get caught up! http://bit.ly/IE5Mkp via @jeffcdi
@NCRP: New guide to corporate #philanthropy. Here's what we think http://bit.ly/IqmMtc #COFLA @Alliancemag
@aapip: Just released: "Emerging Opportunities: Giving/Participation by Silicon Valley Asian Am Cmties" http://ow.ly/azn65
@QuixoteTilts: Emmett Carson: Marriage equality=civil rights issue of our generation. Whatever the justification, discrimination is discrimination.

Nonprofit Tweets of the Week - April 27, 2012

2012-04-27T04:30:00-07:00

Here are some of my favorite posts of the week in the areas of nonprofit organizations, corporate governance, philanthropy, and social enterprises:

Emily: Common Cause releases IRS complaint alleging ALEC [American Legislative Exchange Council] is not a 501(c)(3) & under reporting lobbying; ALEC responds - http://flpbd.it/gLM6K
Gene: Need to understand the 2011 Form 990 & Schedules - Here's an annotated version from PWC - http://bit.ly/IcLfo3
Gene: Nonprofit doesn't report compensation of executive if paid by third party - Hmm ... http://ow.ly/aqJOh ht GOOD (Special Olympics & Coke)
Nonprofit Issues: New story posted - Is Driver Asked to Take Kids Home from Nonprofit Event a “Volunteer”? http://bit.ly/7OMEbt
Debra Beck: First of nonprofit governance series posted: 10 ways to better board recruitment strategies - http://bit.ly/ItyQry
Emily: Nonprofit Law Prof Blog: IRS Study - Correlation Between Nonprofit Governance and Tax-Exempt Compliance - http://flpbd.it/KO7tk
Alice Korngold: What will it take to build a more effective nonprofit sector? http://bit.ly/5w6A3U Fast Company
Independent Sector: Want to see what a completed Charting Impact report looks like? Check out Independent Sector's report here: http://bit.ly/IFooxJ [Ed. BBB Wise Giving Alliance, GuideStar USA, and Independent Sector developed Charting Impact as a common presentation that allows staff, boards, stakeholders, donors, volunteers, and others to work with and learn from each other; it complements planning, evaluation, and assessment that organizations already undertake.]
Gene: Technology: we have sacrificed conversation for mere connection; changes not only what we do, but who we are - http://j.mp/I3hzt6 ht Lucy Marcus
Emily: Nonprofit Social Media Policy Workbook by Idealware - informative & good conversation starter for your org. Free download: http://bit.ly/KgEQD6
Hub Bay Area: Ben Rattray, founder of Change & former Hub Bay Area member joins Jon Stewart on Daily Show. Awesome to see this - http://bit.ly/K6BkLu
Bainbridge Graduate Institute: Here's an article on social purpose corporations in WA State, from our friends at Geek Wire - http://ow.ly/auwIY [Ed. The law authorizing this new corporate form will be in effect on June 7, 2012.]
Nonprofit Quarterly: What derailed the Kony 2012 actions of April 20th runs deeper than any single explanation http://owl.li/axbNj

For more interesting tweets, follow me and Emily on Twitter.

Nonprofit Tweets of the Week - April 20, 2012

2012-04-20T05:00:00-07:00

Big news in the social enterprise space: San Francisco Supervisors unanimously voted to give city contract preferences to benefit corporations. This is on its way to becoming the first such law in the country. President of the Board of Supervisors David Chiu was responsible for introducing the legislation hailed by many social entrepreneurs but opposed by the California Association of Nonprofits (CAN). CEO of CAN and former Nonprofit Executive of the Year Jan Masaoka explained, “We’re not against the existence of these corporations. We’re against them getting nonprofit-like preferences, without nonprofit-like restrictions and oversight."

Here are some of my favorite posts of the week in the areas of nonprofit organizations, corporate governance, philanthropy, and social enterprises:

Emily: Benefit Corporations getting love from San Francisco! http://bit.ly/IRxJVj // Draft of ordinance (Apr. 11) http://bit.ly/IRA8iF
Emily: Washington Passes Social Purpose Corporations Bill to Permit Corps to Seek Social, Environmental-Oriented Goals http://bit.ly/ISKPAd
Patrick Sternal: IRS EO Director Lois Lerner: Data consistent with premise that "...good governance and tax compliance go hand in hand." http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/georgetown_04192011.pdf
Lois Fu: IRS EO Director Lois Lerner reports ... nonprofits who have full board review of Form 990 more likely to be compliant with IRS regs
Cecily Jackson: Treasury proposed regulations governing private foundation PRIs - including for-profit recipients http://1.usa.gov/I6oK1v
Nonprofit Quarterly: Is it time for the nonprofit sector to bury the hatchet with donor-advised funds? http://owl.li/anYnQ
Kivi Leroux Miller: New Post: Ten AFP Conference Insights from a Newbie http://ow.ly/1iQbRK
BoardSource: What should all board members know? - http://ow.ly/adDIx
Lucy Marcus: Greg Mortenson’s lessons for non-profit boards - Reuters Opinion http://reut.rs/HG9kD9 [Ed. Here's our take published in The Chronicle of Philanthropy - http://bit.ly/e3oCP7.]
Rick Hasen: “Five Myths About Super PACs”: Must-read Trevor Potter in Washington Post. http://goo.gl/fb/8jyPx [Ed. Potter is the attorney featured on The Colbert Report, explaining Super PACs to Stephen Colbert.]
Gene: California Senate Bill 1341 - failure to file AG registration; notice; revocation; $800 min tax - http://1.usa.gov/HXy6wE

For more interesting tweets, follow me and Emily on Twitter.