Ethics

Emily swirled into the boardroom just as the meeting was about to begin and set the front page of the newspaper on the table with a whack.

“Have you seen these pictures of the earthquake in India? I can’t believe how many people are suffering! Thousands killed, and more than half a million left homeless. We’ve got to do something to help. I know we have an agenda for this meeting, but I just want you to know that I’ll be proposing that we make a big grant for emergency relief to get at least some of the victims the shelter they need, and now.”

“Wait a minute, Emily,” said her brother and fellow board member Patrick. “I know this is a huge tragedy, but it seems way outside our usual giving pattern. I feel like we’ve done great things by focusing the Closter Foundation’s funding on trying to solve homelessness right here in Colhasset County. Are we going to put all that progress on hold, just so we can react to something so far away?”

“Of course, not,” said Emily. “I just don’t see how we can say we care about access to housing, and then not respond when we see a housing disaster on this scale. We should at least do something to help.”

“I’ll go you one further,” said their cousin Katrina. “If we just send money for emergency shelters, it’ll be like the old days when we only funded homeless shelters in Colhasset. Let’s use the lessons we’ve learned about prevention and fund a project in India that’s both responding to the immediate need and working for the long haul on emergency preparedness, housing quality standards and low-income access to decent places to live.”

Patrick didn’t look convinced. “If we do anything, Katrina, I guess I’m with you. But I don’t see how our funding an overseas project could be more than a drop in the bucket, while we can see the significant good we’re doing right here at home. I say we stick to our knitting.”

Emily felt stumped. She couldn’t help but see some truth in what both Katrina and Patrick had said.

Mail a Personal Check
LEE WASSERMAN, Director, Rockefeller Family Fund, New York

Who among us has not been moved by the devastation caused by natural disasters at home or abroad? Emily’s reaction is consistent with the noble American instinct of generosity for the grieving and injured in our national and global communities.

But she should distinguish her admirable instinct to do something from her professional role as a trustee of the Closter Foundation.

Like thousands of Americans who are moved when disaster strikes, Emily should respond to her feelings by mailing a personal check to a relief organization in which she has confidence, even if she does not have answers to some basic questions. How exactly would the gift be used? Who would make that decision? How would philanthropies raising money for the victims of the earthquake coordinate their activities? What kind of assessment was being done to ensure that gifts were properly targeted? These unknowns need not consume Emily as she drops her donation in the mailbox.

Back at the office, when thinking about the same issue, Emily and the rest of her family should put on their game face. The Closter Foundation, a proud and long-time supporter of homelessness initiatives, wants to do its part. But how? Certainly, the foundation could and should do more than add its drop of a grant into an unknown charitable sea of giving.

Cousin Katrina’s suggestion could lead to an interesting discussion. Can the foundation take the lessons it has learned locally and apply them globally? Maybe, but not likely.

If after considerable thought the trustees reach a consensus that the foundation can transfer its grantmaking approach to an international setting, then they should consider whether it is time to expand the foundation’s mission. But not many institutions are primed to extend the reach of their grantmaking in such a dramatic way.

Therefore, Patrick’s position should carry the day. If Emily wants to do more than make a personal gift, she should press her family members to join her in making individual contributions. But expecting the Closter Foundation to do likewise would be bad form and set an unfortunate precedent. Trustees must exercise a degree of due diligence that recognizes their responsibility to the foundation and its mission. In the end, Emily and Katrina must separate their motivation to help from the Closter Foundation’s responsibility to do what it does well.

You Can’t Fund Everything
STACEY DAVIS, Executive Director, Fannie Mae Foundation, Washington, DC

The Closter Foundation should not provide a big grant for the emergency relief of India’s earthquake victims.

While Emily’s intentions are good, it is important that the Closter Foundation always remain disciplined and focused on its mission. The foundation cannot fund everything, even though the earthquake is technically a housing disaster.

 Committing huge resources to this effort would severely impact the foundation’s ability to fulfill its mission. Also, supporting any international activities, even if it is housing, would violate the Closter Foundation’s predetermined geographic priorities. To avoid hastily funding a project with needs larger than its resources and clearly outside its strategic focus, the Closter Foundation should have processes in place that will appropriately match the desire to fund a project against the impact the funding will have.

Even if the foundation wanted to respond to the compelling needs of the victims, Katrina makes a good point that more consideration should be given to how their funding will meet the immediate and long-term needs of the victims. Emily and the other board members need to keep in mind that foundations occasionally face extraordinary demands because of a national or international disaster. It is completely understandable if the foundation sets aside some of its overall funding for grants that will support unanticipated funding opportunities. Nonetheless, even if it were to give a grant, the Closter Foundation still needs to examine how its funding will have the greatest impact now and in the future.

Know When to Break the Rules
MISSY CAMPION, President, Charles D. Jacobus Family Foundation, Milwaukee, WI

Our board members establish guidelines to be fair. That way, if an organization wants to receive funding from us, its staff will have a clear picture of whom we will fund, where we will fund and when. We state our deadlines and how to play by the rules. We believe a nonprofit should spend time serving the people it was founded to serve, not serving foundations.

So, would we break the rules to fund an international disaster?

Yes, but very carefully. Our foundation did break the rules after the September 11 tragedy. Though this is not international per se, we would use the same principles if confronted with the same situation in a foreign country.

Our foundation gives only in the Milwaukee area, and we require a site visit if the contribution is more than $7,500. My family is my board. After September 11, I decided to call my most rule-abiding board member to get his reaction to making a contribution. To my delight, he was all for it and even suggested an amount of $15,000—which, because we are a small family foundation, is a lot for us. I phoned the other board members and received their approval.

The issue then was how to give fairly and to whom. Based on our giving history we came up with the following criteria: