THE CHARITABLE TAX DEDUCTION

On March 11, Prof Linda Sugin of Fordham University wrote a provocative op-ed in The New York Times, "Your Name on a Building and a Tax Break Too, Re--thinking Taxes and David Geffen's Gift for Avery Fisher Hall."  The thrust of her piece is that a donor’s name on a building should be treated as a major return benefit to that donor and therefore the gift's deductibility should be reduced by the "value" conferred, in this instance $15 million, the amount the Philharmonic paid the Fisher family to surrender the name.

As a career nonprofit fundraiser, I salute Professor Sugin's attempt to encourage even more philanthropy and tax justice, and I reject her well-intended proposal to do that through changes to the charitable tax code. She theorizes that future philanthropists would give more if current ones were incentivized to forego or foreshorten a naming opportunity in appreciation for their gift - or in exchange for it, as Sugin has it. 

For most nonprofits, creative presentation of untaxed "intangible" benefits for bigger gifts--with recognition being the most powerful--represent success or failure. In practice, many institutions are already encouraging short-term naming opportunities, for just the reasons Sugin gives. Would they be helped with new laws? Be careful what you wish for. First, limits on naming terms won't work with some (desperately needed) prospects, and second, why stop there? Once the IRS is allowed to start valuing intangibles, look out. That is my main point. Clear and just as it may seem, there is no little fix and it won't stay put. As federal codes and then each state attempt to place a taxable value on a wide range of ever-creative intangible recognition benefits, all representing different circumstances, the process risks introducing serious confusions and complexities, and, I'd predict, vigorously renewed attempts to eliminate the charitable deduction altogether. Confusion and complexity depress giving in a charitable heartbeat. 

-- Marilyn Bancel

The O

MARILYN BANCEL REJOINS ORAM

MARILYN BANCEL has rejoined The Oram Group as partner and director of our San Francisco-based West Coast office, following two and a half years as in-house development director at CuriOdyssey Museum, a former Oram client. 

She has long been active with the Association of Fundraising Professionals Golden Gate Chapter, for which she has served as board member and officer and as chair of various programs and events, serving in 2000 and 2009 as co-chair of National Philanthropy Day. Marilyn is a recipient of the chapter’s Hank Rosso Outstanding Fundraising Executive Award (2002). In addition to consulting, Marilyn has been Adjunct Professor at the University of San Francisco where she has taught Capital Campaigns and Major Gifts in the College of Professional Studies, Institute of Nonprofit Management. She is author of the long-popular workbook, Preparing Your Capital Campaign (Jossey Bass/Wiley 2000).

Marilyn’s current client focus includes all facets of the work needed to position an organization to conduct major gift fund-raising and campaigns — feasibility and planning studies, organizational analysis, board development, prospect engagement, and strategic or institutional planning. In addition to CuriOdyssey other clients have included San Francisco Girls Chorus, World Arts West, Boys and Girls Clubs of San Francisco, California Academy of Sciences, Glide Foundation, Headlands Center for the Arts, Human Rights Campaign, Peninsula Interfaith Action, National Foster Youth Action Network, Bar Association of San Francisco, Raphael House, Synergy School, Spirit Rock Meditation Center, University of California Press Foundation, Population Action International, United Religions Initiative, and many others.    

Prior to joining Oram, Marilyn worked for fifteen years as an institutional fund-raiser—as director of development for The Exploratorium, a museum of science, art and technology - and an Oram client served  by Oram partner  Hank Goldstein. She was also director of development for The Oakland Symphony; and as founder and executive director of East Bay Performance, Inc., publisher of the bi-weekly journal Bay Arts Review. Before entering the non-profit field, she lived for three years in Turkey where she operated an 80-person cottage craft and clothing export business.

"New Donor Generation Stimulates U.S. Giving"

... Sayeth the The New York Times today, November 7th.

This meaningless headline tops a two-column story asserting that "charitable giving is back in a big way." But is it? Yes it has improved since the recession. Those years hit the sector hard and there has been a modest recovery. And for that we should be grateful because no profits, especially those in the human services field, need every cent they can generate, particularly operating funds.

I don't  know what "new donor generation" they're talking about. Zuckerberg's $25 million gift to the CDC to "fight" Ebola is certainly significant especially because the US charitable response to Ebola has been dismal; the big relief agencies have been mum. Only Doctors Without Borders has been a consistent voice.

As a percentage of GDP giving remains locked at around plus or minus 2%; that hasn't changed for as  long as records have been kept. And the slowest part of the charitable sector to recover has been individual giving, described  by the Times as "the biggest drag." Many people think that foundations and corporations are hugely account for most of the $335 billion donated last year. But in fact the greatest percentage of giving is from living individuals. Internet giving is marginal; social media's impact on giving has been modest at best.

We are certainly  in a better place than we were a few years ago. Between now and year end charity will generate around 30-40% of its total annual giving revenue. We will know within a few months whether US charitable giving is inching up or really rebounding.

Why I Won't Visit The World Trade Center "Memorial"

From SoHo World Trade Center 9-11-14

On September 11, 2014, walking home from dinner I turned right  onto Wooster St. in the heart of SoHo. The new World Trade Center marked the sad occasion with the vaporous blue twin beams.

Ground Zero is about a mile away as the crow flies. SoHo is arguably one of  the world's largest unroofed high end, retail malls. Befuddled tourists, street vendors purveying everything from junk and knockoffs, to really fancy stuff, and of course we locals crowd the narrow streets by day. But at night Wooster Street stretching north-south from Canal to Houston, is quiet. Parking spaces abound.

Friends come to visit, shop and sometimes, flop. Like everyone else from out  of town, WTC is almost always number  one on their bucket list. But not for me. Staying away is for me not about avoiding the reminder that for six months after 9-11, we were still  picking soot from the cats' fur and still finding dust patches in neglected corners. Or that on the evening  of 9-11 everything south of Houston was a military encampment because no one knew what might come next.

What my boycott is about is the commercialization of WTC, especially the Memorial Museum that in the name of 9-11 hawks key fobs, coffee mugs,  emblazoned hoodies, phony cop and firefighter gear and other mindless tchotchkes. Tasteless, crude and not a symbol of tragedy but an ensign of the politicization, political wrangling- and so sadly the divided survivor lobby. After 13 years the raw wound gives way to a maybe well intended  but hopelessly inept attempt to memorialize.

No one consulted me professionally. But had they I would have counseled against anything but the simplest, commercial free representation possible. Maybe a museum; maybe not. But making a grand souvenir stand out of 3,000 dead is sacrilegious. 

And I'm a non-believer.

Buffetted Around

Peter Buffett's op-ed  in The New York Times on July 27th - "The Charitable-Industrial Complex" takes to task those donors who want to "save the day" with little or no regard for the culture, norms or interests of those they are "helping." It's the old story of the boy scout who helps the old lady cross the street whether she wants to go or not.

Buffett has it mostly right: there is a great degree of arrogance attached to giving: the big foundations are probably the worst. They have huge staffs who keep busy by pulling the threads. Then there are the donors who are in it for the recognition. They've done well; now they'll do "good." Anyone  in this business for awhile is very familiar with both types. High self regard and philanthropy are too often joined at the wallet.

He's right in arguing that the capitalist system that he endorses has concentrated more and  more wealth in fewer and fewer hands and to grease the skids that lead to heaven they "sprinkle some of it around." True. But what's new  in this? Buffett is an unusual critic only in the sense that his father is one of the major wealth concentrators. The inequalities inherent  in our society are not exactly unknown nor starved for critical attention. 

I've often thought what I'd do if I had even as much as he has, let alone his famous father: my interests are civil rights, social action, human services and the arts more or less  in that order. I'd give only to groups about whom I knew something first hand and I promise I'd  listen carefully. And I promise that I'd measure my grants not by "ROI" but on whether they had any effect at all on whatever the organization at hand made any difference  in human betterment however defined.

This all said I have had the great  good  luck of  getting to know a few eight and even nine digit donors who were empathic, modest, smart  in their giving and above all able to put themselves in the other person's shoes.Mr. Buffett it seems has  only been at this for seven years. He has good  instincts and deep pockets. He'll make a difference.

EVE BATES AT 100!

Sunday, June 9, 2013

EVE BATES AT 100!

Eve Bates, 100 Years Old

On June 9th Eve Bates celebrated her 100th birthday. It was a grand party.

More years ago than I'll admit, I replied to a blind ad in The New York Times. Eve was then VP of what was H. L. Oram, Inc. She called me and thereby ushered in my career at The Oram Group, Inc. It's been quite a ride for both of us. I had the privilege of working with her almost 15 years I'd guess.

Eve retired many years ago  but we are neighbors in New York and  over the years we kept  in touch, sporadically at times. But once in awhile we'd run into each other at the local market and catch up.

 Though a bit hobbled  by age she is totally all there and at her party on June 8th we talked and re-lived good times, worried about our country's present and future and otherwise enjoyed the day.