Through his Foundation, Mr. Li has dedicated his time, energy, resources, and life to serving the human race. He has pioneered and supported multiple projects of philanthropy and initiatives around the world with an eye toward social progress and reform. Each project reflects his belief in the inherent value of each human being regardless of race, class, or circumstances.
This presentation, although sponsored by the Shantou University College of Liberal Arts, Center for Women's Studies, and the Shantou University School of Law, Public Administration Department, was at the invitation of the Li Ka-shing Foundation. It was presented as part of the Public Lecture Series for the Fall, 2012 term.
TRENDS OF INTERNATIONAL CHARITABLE NGOS,
INCLUDING FUNDRAISING, DECISIONMAKING, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND MONITORING
29 November 2012
Shantou University
Shantou, Guangdong Province, China
global trends in
civil society
©Rollin A. Van
Broekhoven, JD, LLM, DPhil, DLitt, DPS
INTRODUCTION
+copy+copy.jpg)
Let’s start now with a few questions. First, how many of you have given money to
charitable organizations, volunteered your time, or otherwise been involved
with the third sector? How many of you
have thought that there is a distinction between what charities do and what are
properly government responsibilities?
How many of you think that transparency and accountability are
important? If they are important, how
many of you think that the government should monitor them, beyond simple
registration, or that there should be some form of self-regulation within the
sector, or monitoring by an independent monitoring organization within the
sector with special experience in the sector?
Well, what about me, and how did I get
involved in all this NGO activity, transparency, accountability, and
monitoring? This is my story, and maybe
we can draw some lessons from some of the challenges and trends
internationally. Have you ever reflected
on what drives you to be involved in charity and the charity sector? Either as a contributor or donor, volunteer
or charity leader?
Preparing for this talk got me thinking about
being up front here about my biases and motivations for what I have been doing
as a donor to charities, as a member of a number of governing boards of
charities or nonprofit organizations, and as someone who has been involved in
charity monitoring for over 30 years.
I was raised in the nonprofit sector. My father and mother were missionaries in
Central America, first in Nicaragua and later in Guatemala.
Admitted, my memory of
that time may not be the best, especially when my interpretation of events and
my understanding of what I was experiencing was through the eyes of a young
boy. I remember a basically happy time,
where the streets and parks were safe, where my mother shopped without fear in
the central open market, where there seemed to be a measure of freedom, at
least through the eyes and imagination of a young boy. The countryside was beautiful, and the local
Indian people warm and friendly, although very poor. It was a time when charities, and
particularly those of the religious communities, such as the Roman Catholic and
Protestant Churches flourished. But, I
also remember wars, where the governing authorities were overthrown in
revolutions. I went to a boarding school
operated by a mission organization. I
will sprinkle some of the lessons I learned as we think of some of the global
trends in nonprofit sector and the challenges charities face throughout the
world.
The first thing I
learned from this experience comes from the recognition that I was raised in a
Christian family that devoted itself to its religious calling and service to
others. You see, it was in the family
that I learned what was important in life and the meaning of calling and
stewardship. I don’t mean to suggest
that these are simply religious terms, which they are indeed. But, rather, there is a difference between being
called to serve to poor and others in need, as opposed to be driven to be
successful trying to change society and the world to fit my agenda. My talents, my experiences, my time, and
material resources are held in trust, and to that end, my only interest is to
be a good steward. Stewardship defines
not only what I do with my talents, experiences, time, and material resources,
but also how I am accountable for what I do with them.
A friend told a story about coming home from
a business trip and finding this horrible odor in the house. He searched the house, checked the plumbing
and bathrooms, but could not find the cause.
The closer he got to the bedroom, the stronger the odor. He finally went to sleep in a chair in his
library, but still was bothered by the odor.
In the morning he called his son, and together they searched for the
source of the smell. They found the
cause, a dead possum in the attic that had burst open because of the summer
California heat in the attic. This
occurred during a time in the United States when there were a number of
scandals rocking the nonprofit sector.
Too often, the stench
of the scandal is present in the air, but we just aren’t able to pinpoint its
cause, unless it is so obvious, and then the cause we discover, tends to be a
symptom of the problem, not the real problem.
Almost invariably, the
first thing that happens in these situations is that the State, through its
legislature, or regulatory bodies, tries to regulate the sector. The news media and commentators begin to
write and urge governmental action to curb these kinds of scandal, as if the
problem is systemic rather than due to some moral or ethical failure on the
part of some individual or organization, as if some vague sense of
accountability would have prevented the problem in the first place. The statutory scheme or regulation may take
the form of prescribing rules.
All because someone smelled a dead possum in
someone’s attic. Incidentally, I am not
making this up. The regulatory proposals
were actually considered by a committee of the United States Senate. While few of them were actually enacted into
law, the danger of this kind of regulatory scheme is still present, perhaps
more so today. This all raises several
questions. One, are transparency and
accountability really important and goals to be pursued? Second, how might we best to insure some
sense of achievement of transparency and accountability in the charity
sector? If so, is monitoring of the
sector and important means of encouraging organizations to be transparent and
accountable, and therefore, trust in the sector? And finally, if monitoring is an important
means promoting public trust in charity, should it be done by government fiat
and surveillance, or by independent monitoring or some system of
self-regulation, particularly if a government is neither transparent nor
accountable?
CIVICUS in a recent
publication state that the “growth of civil society in scale and importance
over the past two decades has increased its vulnerability.” As CIVICUS noted in this release and as those
of us who observe the sector know, civil society is challenged from three
directions. The first is internally, by
risking public trust. The second is
externally, by political threats to its right to exist. And thirdly, by the general threats that face
humankind as a whole, such as violent conflicts, poverty, and inequality. My focus here is generally on the first two
threats.
So, first, loss of
trust. Some of this loss simply is the
result of scandals that are publicized in the media. For example, many of you have heard of Greg
Mortenson, and his book, Three Cups of Tea.
Greg Mortenson was the founder of the Central Asia Institute. The purpose of this charity was to build
schools for girls in Pakistan. Millions
of dollars were raised for the project, much of it from very prominent and
wealthy philanthropists and donors. The
problem was, there just were no schools built.
He wrote the books, Three Cups of Tea and Stones Into Schools telling
about his projects in Pakistan. There
was no segregation between the finances of the charity and Mortenson’s personal
finances, and although the charity funded all of his travel, he took the
royalty from the sale of these best selling books.
Then there was the
Foundation for New Era Philanthropy that was a massive Ponzi scheme. The idea was that charities and
philanthropist would invest money in US Treasury Notes, which would then be
returned to the charity for its projects at an amount double the amount of the
initial investment. The charities/investors
represented major prestigious universities, nationally acclaimed orchestras,
libraries, and religious charitable organizations. The money from the late depositors paid off
the amounts due to the earlier depositor.
Ultimately, as in all Ponzi schemes, there
was no money to pay off the later depositors, and New Era Philanthropy was
forced into bankruptcy, owing $350 million with assets valued at approximately
$35 million. Here the massive fraud
caused many victims to suffer. A
creditors’ committee was formed for the bankruptcy process, and I was chairman
of that committee. Ultimately, we were
able to recover some money through lawsuits against major investment houses and
from those charities that came out ahead, and through a global settlement agreement,
were able to cover most of the losses.
The point is that this massive fraud caused not only financial damage to
over 3000 charitable institutions, but also damaged the trust relationship
between the charity sector and the public, and especially, the donor public.
The purpose and scope of the global
settlement was to restore trust; public trust in the charity sector that may
have been too eager to raise a lot of funds through this kind of a deal; trust
between donors and their designated charities, and trust between the workers
and volunteers of the charities and the charity management and board. Pursuing normal bankruptcy procedures and
litigation would have destroyed what trust was left after the Ponzi scheme was
discovered and the charity filed for bankruptcy.
You had a different kind
of scandal in China with the Red Cross and the Guo Meimei Baby story as it was
known, that had all the elements of a trashy novel or television drama. The pictures showed a young woman draped
across and expensive sports car enjoying drinks in the business class section
of an airliner, and claiming to be the commercial general manager for the Red
Cross Society of China. Although the Red
Cross denied she was employed by the Red Cross, one of the Red Cross’s board
members that ran the fundraising campaigns for the Red Cross in China resigned
in the midst of allegations that Ms. Guo was his mistress and that her
glamorous lifestyle might have been paid for by funds embezzled from the
organization. Shortly after the story
broke, the State media reported that up to 90 percent of people polled said
that they might refuse to give money to the Red Cross in the future. Shortly thereafter, the Shanghai branch of
the Red Cross Society of China spent 9,859 RMB for a restaurant meal for its
staff. The general view at the time was
that both of these scandals would adversely affect the amount of donations
given to charity by Chinese citizens.
These are examples
that are going on all over the world.
But, there are similar examples of scandals or events that cause the
public to lose trust in other institutions, including business companies and
governments. However, governments
receive their funds through taxation and coercion, businesses through the sale
of their goods and service. Loss of
trust may adversely affect the authority and reputation of government, or even
the existence of the business. But, a
loss of trust to a charity can affect not only the reputation of that charity,
but also the well-being of other charities, and indeed, of the entire sector in
a community or country, and thus, the welfare of the community.
The charity sector is
also challenged by external threats.
Perhaps some of these external threats simply reflect an offensive
against democracy. As a result of some
backlash against these offensives, there has been a pronounced shift from
outright repression of democracy to a more subtle effort on the parts of
government to restrict the space in which civil society organizations, or CSOs,
are permitted to operate.
The legal and
quasi-legal means by which governments restrict the space in which CSOs operate
include: (1) barriers to entry, such as those that discourage, burden, or
prevent the formation of CSOs; (2) barriers to operational activity, such as
the use of law to prevent organizations from carrying out their legitimate
activities; (3) barriers to speech and advocacy; that is, the use of laws to
prevent organizations and associations from engaging in a full range of free
expression and public policy engagement; and (4) barriers to resources, which
may include the use of law to restrict the ability of CSOs to secure financial
resources necessary to carry on their work.
Legal impediments affect a broad variety of CSOs without regard to their
mission or purpose for existing. In many
countries, these impediments are disproportionately concentrated on those
organizations that advocate for human rights and political engagement.
Governments justify
these kinds of legal and regulatory measures that serve as barriers as
necessary to promote NGO accountability, protect state sovereignty, preserve
national security, or harmonize and coordinate the activities of NGOs. Many governments justify imposing controls on
CSOs by accusing independent NGOs of treason, espionage, foreign interference,
or terrorism. But these rationalizations
are just that, and the real motivation is almost always political.
This is not to deny
that there is a legitimate role for government with respect to civil
society. Rather, it simply is to
recognize that in many countries, these actions by governments that raise
barriers to a viable civil society sector, are not for the purpose of defending
citizens from harm, but rather protecting those in power from scrutiny and
accountability.
The third risk is the
threats that face all of humankind, such as wars or conflicts and natural
disasters. While this does not represent
as much a risk to the sector in some ways, it is one area in which charity is
very much involved on an emergency basis.
It is an area in which I have seen charity work and threatened first
hand. It is also one that will be with
us forever.
In 1954, there was a
civil war in Guatemala. While it was
dangerous for charities to operate during the fighting, my father continued
with his leadership of the charity that he founded. There was a mistake in the targeting, and our
property was bombed and attacked by attack aircraft, resulting in a lot of
damage. Yet, almost 60 years later, the
charity is as strong as ever, and continues to grow, in large part because of
its faithful relationships with donors and accountability.
Earthquakes are common
in Guatemala, and the need for charities and charity support is very high. Just this month, there were six major
earthquakes in Guatemala causing death and destruction. During the 1960s through 1980s, my father,
together with other charitable organizations, took teams of doctors to
Guatemala, construction workers, blankets and medicine, to provide emergency
relieve and long-term relief. None of
this would have been possible without the financial support of the donor base,
the volunteer service of doctors, aid workers, and construction folks, and the
accountability and reputation for accountability by my father and his
charity. But, more about that later.
CHALLENGES TO THINKING ABOUT ACCOUNTABILITY
The first challenge
that I have is connected, in part, to the external threat to the charity sector
that I just mentioned. Here, it seems to
me, that the challenge is two-fold: one of language and definition, and as part
of that, the issue of the nature and roles of civil society and
government. I would like to frame this
with a story about how this might confuse us about the definition and nature of
civil society and CSOs, or in other words, about what the charity sector is all
about. Picture with me this situation
reported in the Washington newspapers: Destitute people in Pulaski County in
the mountains of southwest Virginia lined up outside the office of the Pulaski
Community Action office, a small poverty emergency assistance charitable
organization.
The first client was a young woman with tangled hair and smudged
eyeliner, a single mother of two young children who had lost her job at a local
restaurant. She told the aid worker that
the Pulaski Community Action office was her last resort. She had just received a termination notice
because of an unpaid electric bill, and was about to get evicted from her
home. She needed $510.15 immediately to
cover the past-due electric bill, and asked for help.
The aid worker told her that all she could provide was $35. Outside the door, there were other voices
talking about their needs. Pulaski, a
town of 9,000, had lost 3000 textile workers when the factory closed. The local Wal-Mart, the main street barber
shop, and all eight restaurants in the downtown had closed.
The Pulaski Community Action office had been in town for 50 years and
routinely handed out vouchers worth $1000 each week, plus met other emergency
needs of the people of that area on an annual budget of $7 million. Normally, 48 percent of its budget came from
the federal budget, 7 percent from the state budget, and in 2009, 15 percent
came from the Obama Administration stimulus money, a one-time influx money that
was spent by that summer. The rest came
from donations from businesses and individuals.
With so much money coming from federal and state government, the Pulaski
Community Action office had lost its donor base because of neglect in
sustaining the corporate, philanthropic, and individual donors who would
otherwise have been committed to the charitable mission of that organization.
This kind of story is being repeated around the United States, and
indeed, around much of the world. There are organizations that are established
as charitable organizations to provide for the care of animals, such as horses
and dogs in the UK, or trade associations, that have received some funding from
the government, that have lost that funding because of budget cuts. Because of this government funding, they have
not developed a base of donors or established relationships with donors to meet
their core mission objectives. My
question is whether or not, civil society organizations, such as the Pulaski
Community Action office, are truly charities, NGOs, public benefit volunteer
organizations, CSOs, or whether they are simply organizations that are serving
as arms or programs of the government.
You see, the very concept and definition of civil society raises all
kinds of questions. The classic
definition in the West, evolving from the writing of Socrates, Plato, and
Aristotle, to Alexis de Tocqueville in the early 19th century, to
modern thought is that civil society represents that intermediate ground
between the individual or family and community and government, at any level.
Consider the warnings
of Alexis de Tocqueville as he considered his native France as a growing and
centralized state, coddled and an increasingly individualistic and
undisciplined populous with more emphasis on pleasure and equality than virtue.
I see an enumerable multitude of men, alike
and equal, who turn about without repose, in order to procure for themselves,
petty and vulgar pleasures with which they fill their souls. Each of them when drawn apart is a virtual
stranger, unaware of the fate of others.
His children and his particular friends form the entirety of the human
race.
As
for his fellow citizens, he is beside them, but he sees them not. He touches them and senses them not. He exists only in himself and for himself
alone. And if he has a family, one could
say at least that he no longer has a fatherland.
Over
these is elevated an immense tutelary power which takes sole charge of assuring
their enjoyment and of watching over their fate. It is absolute, attentive to detail, regular,
provident, and gentle. It would resemble
the paternal power if like that that power it had as its object, to prepare men
for manhood. But it seeks to the
contrary, to keep them irrevocably fixed in childhood. It loves the fact that the citizens enjoy
themselves, provided that they dream solely of their own enjoyment and
happiness, but it wishes to be their only agent and sole arbiter of that
happiness. It provides for their
security, foresees and supplies their needs, guides them in the principal
affairs, directs their industry, divides their inheritances. Can it not relieve them entirely of the
trouble of thinking and of the effort associated with living?
In
this fashion, every day it renders the employment of free will less useful and
more rare. It confines the action of the
will within a smaller space and bit by bit, it steals from each citizen the use
of that which is his own. Equality has
prepared men for all of these things.
After
having taken each individual in this fashion by turns, into its powerful hands,
and having kneaded him in accord with his desires, the sovereign extends its
arms about society as a whole. It covers
its surface with a network of petty regulations – complicated, minute, and
uniform – through which even the most original minds and the most vigorous
souls know not how to make their way past the crowd and emerge into the light
of day. It does not break wills; it
softens them, bends them and directs them.
Rarely does it force one to act, but it constantly opposes itself to
one’s acting on one’s own. It does not
destroy, it prevents things from being born, it extinguishes, it stupefies and
finally, it will reduce each nation to nothing more than a herd of timid,
industrious animals of which the government is the shepherd.”
What Tocqueville is suggesting in the extended quote is that the civil
society sector could be in danger and the role of government could grow in its
influence, power, and control of so much of society, to the extent that all
freedoms, acts of will and charity could be snuffed out.
Author George Orwell picks up some of these
themes in his novel, 1984, when he argues the central importance of language to
human thought because it structures and limits the ideas that individuals are
capable of formulating and expressing.
If control of language is centralized in a political agency, Orwell
argues that this could alter the very structure of language to make it
impossible to even conceive of disobedience or rebellious thoughts because
there would be no words with which to think them.
It seems to me that the challenge here pertains to both the role of
government with respect to social welfare and social services and its role in
monitoring the charity sector. First,
with respect to social welfare programs and similar programs of charities, but
funded in part by governments, with the economy the way it is in many parts of
the world, funds are being cut and charities cannot perform their charitable
services, just like the Pulaski Community Action office. There is real confusion about what the roles
of charity and government are. When
government funds a charitable organization, it has the right to dictate the
service, the terms of accountability, and the use of funds.
From what I have read from the scholarly literature here in China that
the definition and nature of civil society as understood here may be different
from the historical theoretical narrative we see in the West extending from
ancient Greek history. But, there is one
more thing I would add here. While civil
society includes all kinds of intermediary institutions between government and
the individual, I am not sure that I would equate charity with all forms of
civil society, or even with all types of nongovernmental organizations,
especially for public policy and tax treatment.
I think that it is possible to separate true social welfare charity,
such as housing and feeding the poor, caring for the sick, providing for the
orphans, meeting the emergency needs arising from natural disasters, etc., from
NGOs that are engaged primarily in advocacy roles. These may be intermediaries between
governments and individuals and responding to what they consider as civil
liberties and the goals of democracy.
But, often when they represent large international organizations with
certain specific agendas, they may be larger and more powerful than many
governments, and as often is the case, their agenda are in direct conflict with
public policy in a particular country.
On a related matter, there is also the problem of the role of
government with respect to regulating the charity sector.
Orwell portrays a
state in which government monitors and controls every aspect of human life,
even to the extent that a disloyal thought is against the law. In the US, hate crimes legislation comes
close to this picture presented in this novel, 1984. The government controls every source of
information, managing and rewriting the content of newspapers and television
and radio programs and histories for its own ends. Memories become fuzzy and unreliable, and
citizens, and by extension, NPOs, become perfectly willing to believe what the
government says and requires of them.
By means of
technology, the government is able to monitor members and organizations to
exert large-scale control over the economic life of the country. Remember, 1984 was written before computers
were invented and widely used.
Throughout the novel, we are presented with a place in which there is no
darkness. Existence is merely a prison
cell in which the light is never turned off, symbolizing the main character’s
approach to the future and extreme fatalism in which no matter what he does, he
is faced with trusting the government for everything. This level of intrusive accountability forced
on the citizen deprives the citizen of any moral character or act of will,
including acts of charitable generosity.
This extended quote of
de Tocqueville, and discussion of Orwell’s novel, 1984, point to an interesting
transition in my thinking about civil society and of accountability as it
affects the civil society movement. My
first concern and interest is the question of roles of government in addressing
the public benefit interests of a society and of the civil society concept in
addressing public benefit issues. While this first concern is beyond the scope
of my address today, there are a few things that should be said. The definitions of “third sector,” “civil
society,” “public benefit,” “charity,” and “voluntary associations” tend to be
rather broad and vague. Moreover, it is
impossible to have a conversation about politics and public policy today,
especially in an international context without talking about civil society.
So the second thing I learned from growing up in Guatemala from my
parents, and later from my personal experiences and history, from my colleagues
and friends as I lived in a number of countries around the world and traveled
to over 40 or more countries is that whenever I am in a country other than my
own, I am a guest of that country. I
really love being a guest here in Shantou, and in China generally. It is an enriching and learning
opportunity. It also has a number of
effects on how I think and act that may be contrary to many International NGOs,
such as Amnesty International, Greenpeace, CIVICUS World Alliance, Earthrights
International, Transparency International, or similar groups, and I don’t deny
that they are important. But, this is
not where I am intellectually or emotionally, and for other reasons that may be
come clear soon.
A third lesson I learned from my parents’ work in the charity sector,
and from my colleagues in the sector, and years of working with the government
and travel around the world is that all government’s deserve a certain sense of
skepticism, both with what they can deliver in terms of social services and
good government, and how they can regulate all sectors of national life. This is not to say that I am anti-government
in anyway. However, as one who has
worked for the United States for almost 50 years, but who also spent his
formative years in Latin America, I have learned that governments, no matter
where they are located and at what level they operate, are not able to provide
for all the needs of all the people, and still allow a decent level of personal
freedom and personal responsibility. I
also understand that through legal and regulatory regimes, and the exercise of
executive powers, civil society organizations may be restricted in what they
can do, either through registration processes or regulatory enforcement
mechanisms, and that charities will often owe their existence to government
decisions.
One might think that the only threat to
“accountability” is the assertion of freedom, the protection of trade or
business secrets, or of the importance of success, whether it be in fundraising
or beating out the competition in achieving favorable notice in the press, or
maybe even on the public benefit ground, such as reducing poverty, alleviating
homelessness and hunger, conquering cancer or heart disease, or reducing the
incidence of HIV/AIDS.
For over the last 30 years, I have been
considering this question: Why do we need NPO accountability? It all seems so simple, doesn’t it, because
everyone thinks we need accountability?
So, the first challenge is a question of the definition of civil
society, the second challenge is also one of definition and closely related to
that, that is, the challenge of the language and definition of accountability. And, specifically what accountability is all
about.
German philosopher, Josef Peeper observed
that words first convey reality, that something is real, and then identify it
for someone else and that secondly, this denotes the interpersonal nature of
human speech. Since language sustains
our engagement with reality and with one another, when words become corrupted,
human existence itself will not remain unaffected.
And sometimes, I sense that this is the case
in areas outside of politics, especially when we deal with the NPO and NGO
sector, and we are unclear just what we mean by our more common euphemisms and
cloudy vagueness. When one listens to
someone on a platform somewhere mechanically repeating a bunch of hackneyed and
vague terms, we may wonder if we really think about it, if the speaker really
knows what he or she is talking about.
We keep hearing terms like: “we need charities to be accountable,” “we
need to have more monitoring of charities,” without really saying what we mean
by monitoring, and by whom. Or “we need
to give wisely,” “we need to watch our fundraising and administration cost
ratios to make sure that they don’t exceed 25 percent.” “We need better attention by our watchdog
agencies to make sure our NPOs are transparent.” “We need integrity in the public benefit and
civil society sector.” So, it goes.
I think the word “accountability” maybe one
of those words that have, or is becoming devoid of any meaning. So, for example, “accountability” may have no
agreed upon meaning and may simply signify something desirable. Words, such as, “justice” “equality,” “equal
opportunity,” “fairness,” may have several meaning, often in conflict with each
other and come to mind.
The third challenge is that of postmodernity
and postmodernism. What I am addressing
here is the consequences or effect of postmodernity. Postmodernity is a post-traditional order,
but not one which replaces the sureties of tradition and habit with the
certitude of rational thought and knowledge as suggested by the Enlightenment. Rather, doubt is a pervasive feature of
modern critical reason, permeating into everyday life as well as consciousness
and forming a general existential dimension of contemporary social order.
To be more specific, modernity
institutionalizes the principle of radical doubt and insists that all knowledge
take the form of hypotheses. Claims,
which may be true, are always open to revision and may have to be abandoned at
some point. Relationships exist solely
for whatever rewards that relationship can deliver. Trust can no longer be anchored in criteria
outside the relationship itself, such as criteria of kinship, social duty, or
traditional obligation.
How does
“accountability” work in the context of radical doubt and tentative hypotheses
that can be revised or abandoned at any time?
Science, technology, and expertise more generally play a fundamental
role in what has been called the sequestration of experience. Systems of accumulated expertise represent
multiple sources of authority, frequently internally inconsistent and divergent
in their implications. In the
information age with instant availability of data and the explosion of
knowledge, there is a belief that harnessing the knowledge explosion offers the
key to instant, total information. The
goal is to know everything in order to predict everything, in order to control
everything.
With all of this,
there is a growing importance of a “new thinking class,” where everything is
segmented and sequestered to a variety of experts to tell us how to run
everything, including our nonprofit organizations. Again, how does an organization become
accountable to anyone, including the State or an independent monitoring agency,
when so much of what is done by that NPO is done by experts plotting mission
strategy, communication strategy, fundraising techniques, accounting practices,
and reporting policies, when they may not be communicating with each other or
with management or the Board about anything other than their respective areas
of expertise.
Where there is no truth, except the statement
that there is no truth, and where ideas of an individual may be in flux,
interesting, creative, and important for that individual, they can no longer be
rejected on the basis of some exclusive truth.
How does accountability square with any sense of reality?
How do we define and encourage
accountability when concepts of morality and ethics are confined to the private
domain of personal preference and opinion, and when decisions and conduct occur
far away from the central management authority and the community in which the
leadership, including management and board is known?
A fourth challenge to
understanding the idea and consequences of accountability is what I would call
the challenge of the appearance of impropriety.
Over the last 20 to 30 years, we have been engaged in a far-reaching
effort to increase public confidence in institutions through the use of ethical
rules. We have rules dealing with legal
ethics, judicial ethics, medical ethics, business ethics, and ethics for almost
every possible conceivable profession or vocation.
Although these kinds
of rules and principles have been around for a long time, what is unique in the
last 20 to 30 years, has been the fact that these rules stress appearances and
procedures, rather than matters of substantive morality and ethics. The main effects derived from this outburst of
ethics have been the proliferation of bureaucracies to enforce them,
journalists, ethics consultants, and political operatives focusing on what is
now the cottage industry of appearances of impropriety. To an unprecedented degree, ethics
legislation and rules focused on appearances – both on the appearance of proper
or improper conduct on the part of public officials, professionals, and
executives, and on the appearance of enforcement by authorities.
How does
accountability thrive in the context where the true facts relating to ethical
conduct can be manipulated by good public relations experts? What we have here is accountability by spin
where reality may be hidden and what is disclosed can give a false impression
of the true facts.
After all, both as
human beings disclosing an account of one’s actions or failure to act, and as
human beings receiving that information, subject to all the human frailties in
human communication, we will never really understand perfectly just what the
true facts are or were with respect to decisions made and conduct which
implements those decisions.
The fifth challenge is
the assumption that accountability represents some moral virtue. Several years ago I argued in a paper, Why Do
We Need NPO Accountability? that contrary to public understanding, including
that within the third sector, “accountability is not a moral virtue.” Rather, it is simply the language used by
certain “experts” to describe and evaluate the process of whether money was
treated in accordance with certain specified rules.
Thus, if the
government prescribes rules of accounting, governance, fundraising, or some
operational practices, accountability may require the NPO to report, explain,
or justify its actions to the government and to the public if the government
prescribes laws that require such public disclosure.
The challenge is this:
if the ultimate goal in ethical conduct is the raising of funds, the management
of those funds for the public benefit purposes that define the particular NPO,
the conduct of operations consistent with accepted norms of morality, and
ethical and responsible governance, i.e., stewardship, then accountability does
not define the moral virtue, rather it merely reports what is minimally
required to be disclosed by law, regulations, or some “Ethical Standards of
Integrity” promulgated by some monitoring agency.
It would seem,
therefore, that the concept of “accountability” cannot exist alone and without
some external reference or moral principle.
Moreover, if there is to be true accountability, then the individual or
the organization must be “transparent.”
That is, must be open, frank, honest, and candid, so that what is behind
the scene, whether agenda, decisionmaking, financial integrity, responsible
governance, can be recognized and detected by those outside the immediate
organization.
So, I might add here
that the fourth thing I learned from my parents and my experience from growing
up in Guatemala in a missionary family and my 35 years of work within the
charity sector is the importance of accountability, or of being accountable to
someone or some group. You see, in those
days, and to a certain extent even today, most missionary societies in Europe
and in the United States required their missionary workers to raise their own
financial support from individual donors as they went out around the world; to
Africa, India, China and other parts of Asia, and to Central and South
America. Those preparing to go out into
missionary service raised funds from organizations, churches, and individuals,
with the donations made directly to the missionary society or charity. Salaries, expenses, and project costs were
then paid by the society or charity.
I remember evenings,
especially after I had gone to bed, when my father sat down at his typewriter
writing personal thank you notes and project reports to those who had given
money for our family support and for project costs. He did this for almost sixty years during
which he served as a missionary, and right up to the time he died. My father and mother, when they returned to
the United States, would visit those organizations, churches, and individuals
that contributed money to the cause to thank them and to report on their
work. My father and mother believed that
they were part of a team effort of which they were the point of the spear,
whereas those who contributed were also part of the team and every bit as
important to the accomplishment and success of the work.
The sixth challenge is what I call “Media
Ecology.” The point here is not simply
how we use technology and new media or the social media. It is much more than that. It is what we are becoming because of the
technology and new media. Our
communications have become totally impersonal, and we tend to live in a virtual
world rather than actual reality.
About 40 years ago, I became quite interested
in the work of Jacques Ellul, a French philosopher, sociologist, theologian,
and law professor teaching at the University of Bordeaux, France. He wrote in his best-known book, The
Technological Society, that regarding technology, instead of being subservient
to humanity, “human beings have to adapt to it and accept total change.”
Many
years ago, during a symposium, he told a story of a friend of his, a well-known
surgeon in France, who was asked by a man, also a surgeon, whether he was
aware, as surely as he must have been, of the technology and its process. The doctor gave a somewhat humorous but
serious answer: I am of course very familiar with the progress in medical
technology and science. But, ask
yourself this question, he replied: Currently we carry out heart transplants,
liver transplants, kidney transplants.
But, where to those hearts, those livers, those kidneys come from? They must be healthy organs; not affected by
illness or damage. They must be
fresh. They can only come from one
place. From people who died in traffic
accidents. So, to carry out these
transplants, we need more traffic accidents.
If we make driving safer, we will have fewer organs with which to carry
out these wonderful operations.
One of the illusions we have is that
technology gives us more freedom. But
freer to do what? Freer to go more
places, see more things. And it is true,
I guess, at least if you have more money.
So, I noticed during the National Holiday here in April that millions of
people in Beijing decided to go someplace or do something different on the
holidays. They acted independently of
each other and were free to make any decision and go anywhere they wanted to
go. The trains were full. It was impossible to get a taxi, and when I
did, it took an hour to go to my destination, rather than the usual 20
minutes. I wonder how many of these
people thought of the wonders of technology and freedom they enjoyed because of
it.
In a technological society such as ours, it
is almost impossible for a person to be responsible. For example, you have a dam, and one day it
bursts and destroys property, kills thousands of people, and leaves countless
others homeless because of flooding.
Geologist did the survey and determined that the rock could hold the
dam. The engineers built the dam and
supervised its construction. Workers
built the dam. And politicians decided
that the dam was needed for flood control and hydroelectric power, and where it
should be constructed. Who is
responsible? No one.
You see, in our technological society,
including that with computers, mobile phones, social media, text messaging,
work is so fragmented and often bureaucratically determined and
controlled. Everyone has a specific task
and does not have freedom to go beyond that task. The nonprofit sector is no different.
About 400 years ago, René Descarte,
discovered what he thought was an unshakable foundation to self-discovery and
human knowledge. Thus, “I think,
therefore, I am.”
Today, our electronic and digital equipment
have redefined how we think and communicate with others, and how we have access
to the world of information. Many people
now locate self-discovery and human knowledge, not in their own thinking, but
in the smartphone. Thus,”iPhone,
therefore, I am.”
This evening my focus during this part is not
just on the iPhone, or other smartphones, but on new media generally, and on
virtual reality, and how these affect the way we think and act.
Prior to 1454, communication between people
was basically personal, whether in oral or written form. In other words, people communicated with each
other directly, usually in the context of a relationship.
In 1454, there was the beginning of mass
distribution of information through the printed media. This was dramatically increased through
electronic media during the period following 1939. Time and space boundaries were
collapsed. We were able to experience
things vicariously around the world.
Now, we are hardly able to distinguish between reality and fiction.
With the advent of the digital era since
2000, and the advent of new media and social media, communications have become
almost totally impersonal, and we tend to have more virtual relationships that
real personal relationships, and we have the advent of virtual reality instead
of actual reality.
Although mobile phones have been around for
about 20 plus years, what has changed in the past 10 years has been the
presence of smartphones beginning in 2002.
But, it was the release of the iPhone in 2007 that brought the
smartphone into mainstream use. Of the
6.2 billion mobile phones in the world, essentially all are SMS capable, and
1.08 billion or approximately 18 percent are smartphones. This percentage is down a little in the last
two years, most likely due to the advent of the iPad and other tablets. Most mobile phones are now both SMS and email
capable. The statistics regarding text
messages are amazing. But, the mobile
phone is not longer simply a means of communication between two people. Rather, with its connection to the Internet,
it is essentially a computer where all can be gods, knowing almost everything,
being essentially present all around the world, and with our grasp of
information, all powerful and able to effect all kinds of things. We don’t need to know anything. We get all we need to know from the
Internet. We don’t read newspapers and
books. All we do is surf the Internet
on our phones. We no longer need to
carry on discussions or have relationships.
All we need to do is send text messages, and 140 character tweets and
Weibo texts and pictures. We don’t need
to have personalities. All we need to
do is Google, or Baidu a joke website and we can be funny on demand.
In the US, we are addicted to Twitter. Twenty-eight percent of all iPhone users
check their Twitter accounts or update them before getting up in the
morning. Twenty-three percent of all
iPhone users check their Twitter accounts before turning on their television
sets, and about the same percentage of iPhone users get their news in the
morning from Twitter. Forty-eight
percent of smartphone users check their Facebook and Twitter accounts before
going to bed at night.
I am not sure that it is much different in
China with Weibo. What I find
interesting is that in the comparison between Weibo and Twitter, the percentage
of active Weibo registered users is almost twice as high as the number of users
for Twitter. What is also interesting is
that more mobile phone users socialize online through new media than do on
computers, and more women socialize online through smartphones than do
men. Looking at this from a charity
perspective, if giving and financial decisions in the home are made primarily
by women, as they are in the US, then this is a significant tool for reaching
them.
Fundraising for the Haiti earthquake relief
through new media and text messages was very successful, at least right after
the earthquake and with all the horrible pictures on television. It was a little different for the earthquake,
tsunami, and nuclear disaster in Japan.
The pictures on television were emotionally draining. The appeals for money went out. For example, the Red Cross in the US put out
an appeal for the Japan disaster, and in the first week raised $4 million, of
which $1.5 million was raised by text message.
Very effective for impulse giving, $10 at a time in a text. No relationship between giver and Red Cross,
and indeed between the giver and the immediate need in Japan. No possibility of meaningful accountability
for the money raised and spent on the emergency. Besides, it is not clear how much of the
money raised by the Red Cross actually got to Japan for disaster relief. But, that is another story.
So, if the first lesson I learned from my
parents growing up in Guatemala and from my experiences in the charity sector
was that my service to others represented a sense of calling and stewardship,
and if the second lesson I learned was that I was a guest in the country in
which I found myself, and if the third lesson was one of skepticism about what
government can do, and if the fourth lesson I learned was the importance of
accountability, then the fifth lesson I learned was that my effectiveness and
the effectiveness of the charity takes place in the context of relationships.
You see, this involves learning about the
history, culture, and traditions of the people with whom I work and to whom I
offer assistance, or funding. In
countries that are not my own, this might involve learning the language,
meeting and knowing the people and their interests and needs. My father brought into his circle of
advisers, including members of his charity board, national Guatemalan leaders,
technicians, and specialists. Not
because the law required it at the time.
Rather, because he wanted the relationship and advice of those who knew
the country, its people, and wanted to be a part of the mission of the
organization. My father not only loved
his work, he loved the Guatemalan people.
Have you seen couples, or a group of friends
at a table in a restaurant eating, but instead of talking, they are engaged
with their smartphones, checking their email messages, surfing the web, or
sending and receiving texts? As Marshall
McLuhan puts it, “on the air and on the phone, you have no body.” Although present, they are absent from each
other. Rather than be some place, they
are no place. They are part of the
global village, anywhere and nowhere.
What is missing in most of the current
fundraising practices is this idea of giving both finances and volunteer
services on the basis of relationships; relationships with the charity
organization and its leadership, with a sense of mission for what the
organization is doing, and with the ultimate beneficiaries. Impulse giving through psychological
manipulation may be effective at raising funds, and maybe lots of funds very
quickly, but it does not develop a sustaining donor base. It may work for emergencies, but will not
work for the normal, continuous charitable operations of the organization,
especially one that is involved in the daily grind of feeding the poor, housing
the homeless, healing the sick, and educating and caring for children, none of
which involve emergency operations covered on television.
So, with a simple text message, we can send
US $5 or $10, or RMB 50 to a phone company to be passed on to some charity or
NGO. Four or six weeks later, we get the
phone bill and don’t even pay attention to what we have been billed. Besides, the image on the television screen
is gone, and the text message long forgotten among the 1000 text messages we
send out every month, all part of the $350 billion a year SMS business. By the way, this kind of fundraising does not
sustain the donor base of the charity, and as everyone knows, it cost more to
acquire new donors than to keep them.
Moreover, while social media or new media may
work well for branding, I have seen no evidence that it is any more effective
at raising funds than direct mail, or as a result of personal appeals and
relationships. Part of the explanation
arises out of the use of social media.
Much of the generous giving occurs at the upper income levels and older
population. Yet, most of the use of
social media is found in those 44 years of age and under. Where many in this population spread live in
a virtual reality with virtual friends and followers, or as Marshall McLuhan
puts it, “on the air and on the phone, you have not body,” the reality of
sustained giving and volunteer service in actual reality becomes much more
difficult.
There may be one positive outcome to this use
of social media. In a recent Wall Street
Journal article discussing China’s recent 18th National Congress, and
the transition to new leadership, said that as Mr. Xi Jinping takes over the
reigns of the government leadership of China, he, and is government will
experience the sharpened gaze of half a billion Internet users. With the wide-spread use of Weibo and similar
microblogging capacity, with the short statements, but more important, with
publication of public documents, photos, and videos, leaders face unparalleled
scrutiny. While I am no competent to
address the political implications of this, the same capacity and tools for
monitoring the government and publicizing the results through social media
might well apply to public monitoring of charity, at least those charitable
organizations that are in the news.
SO, WHY DO WE NEED ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE FACE
OF THESE CHALLENGES?
There is an ancient warning that “men are
condemned because light came into the world, but that men liked darkness rather
than light because their deeds are evil.” (Jn 3:19) Although this warning addresses a different
matter, the fact is that it is human nature to hide what one does, and to avoid
transparency. Accountability properly
understood addresses that basic human problem.
The issue here is one
of abuses, such as where funds are improperly diverted into private hands,
where there is fraud, self-dealing and enrichment, where there are payments of
excessive compensation to key employees, and the like. It is also the absence of effective
stewardship and use of funds donated.
But, it is much more than that, isn’t it? In a world in which we use language
carelessly, it is important that we be clear about what we call accountability.
If the word,
accountability, just becomes one more useless cliché, euphemism,
question-begging term, or a term clouded with vagueness, we accomplish nothing
in advancing the cause of ethical standards and responsibility. We need to be clear that accountability
involves describing something that is real, complete, accurate, and current, to
someone. In other words, it involves
both rationality and relationality.
There must be a disclosure or accounting of reality that can become
apparent to all observers. Secondly,
that disclosure must be made within the context of a relationship, however that
relationship is established and defined.
Accountability, if it is to be effective, must be based on conduct or
activity measured against certain standards.
Moreover, it is
virtually impossible to recognize some universal, binding moral principles that
would govern where the postmodern culture denies the existence of such
standards. While nation/states may not
be able to prescribe standards for accountability with respect to
extraterritorial conduct, it would seem that if an accountability standard is
to provide for the open, candid, honest, complete, accurate, and current
disclosure of the agenda, decisionmaking, financial affairs and integrity, and
governance, it should have some extraterritorial reach. Otherwise, we are only getting part of the
picture of the quality and exercise of stewardship, and whatever we think of
accountability just is not going to happen.
Too often, our
emphasis has been on appearances, and specifically appearance of
impropriety. It is so much easier to
just look at the surface appearance than to do the hard work of investigating suspected
wrong doing. If accountability is to be
worth anything, then the standards must be clear, the compliance procedures
must be fair and complete, and the disclosure of the investigation must be
honest with respect to the failure and the sanction.
If the general idea is that transparency is
important to prevent unethical or irresponsible conduct, then it seems to me
that a culture of transparency and accountability is required if the leadership
of the NPO, board and management, are to govern and lead the organization with
integrity and wisdom. In other words,
internal accountability is absolutely essential to the proper operation of the
NPO. Moreover, there will never be external
transparency and accountability if there is lacking internal transparency and
accountability.
The argument has been made that billions of
dollars in the US, and I suspect elsewhere, are transferred each year to
nonprofits, and there is no market or voters to exercise discipline to assure
that they are providing something of value to society. According to this argument, nonprofits are
accountable to no one but their boards and few boards make the effort to assure
that these groups are being productive so as to merit the support they receive
from donors.
I have trouble with this argument, especially
when it is the basis for asserting more active government involvement in
regulating and monitoring the sector. It
seems to me that the basic argument is premised on the idea that ultimately,
the government is the owner of all things, including all financial resources in
the country, and it is only on the basis of some act of grace or largess that
governments allow individuals and organizations to hold some of these resources
in trust to accomplish the societal goals governments deems worth of
promoting. In other words, citizens have
no real freedom with regard to what they are free to do with the resources that
have come into their possession.
Notwithstanding this philosophical difference
I have with that argument, transparency and accountability are important to
developing and enhancing trust with the donors, donor public, and with the
public generally. Most givers do not
have either the requisite expertise or time or inclination to engage in
appropriate due diligence to ensure that their donations are directed to the
charitable purpose that they intend to support.
Accountability to independent monitoring agencies, to the news media, to
governments, and to the public generally, serves at least some minimal purpose
to provide that assurance of the responsible stewardship of the NPO. But it still depends on some integrity and
character of those who have the responsibility of accountability.
MODELS OF NPO
ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE FACE OF THESE CHALLENGES
The thesis that I have been working with is
this: The present model for NPO accountability is not a sustainable model if
its purpose is to promote integrity and transparency on the part of
charities. The model is this: Some authoritative body, such as the State or
an independent monitoring organization, establishes rules regarding what type
of information must be disclosed. The
required information to be disclosed is based on the State’s value set and not
on any universally binding moral principles.
Secondly, accountability requires disclosure of this specified
information to designated individuals or entities, such as the State, the
public, or some independent monitoring agency or entity. Third, for the most part, accountability is
confined to providing information regarding the process of accounting for funds
and whether the NPO complied with certain processes or procedures in
accumulating and reporting the funds received and expended. Except with respect to certain tax related
information, there is limited accountability if any, required of any
organization not submitting itself to accountability and monitoring, which
represents the vast majority of NPOs.
For reasons which I will explain, I do not
think that this model is sustainable, and the question is whether there is another
model which would more adequately address the weaknesses in the current model,
or if in the end, we decide that this is as good as it is going to get and we
better just learn to live with its limitations.
The first model is simply an accountability structure
imposed by the government. First, with
millions of tax-exempt organizations around the world, governments simply are
not going to be able to monitor them, nor will governments be able to assure
their accountability either to the government, the general public, or any
monitoring organization. In fact,
theoretically, the only sector that is fully accountable to the political
process is government. Yet, there is
something uniquely risky possessed by the government’s coercive monopoly to
justify subjecting it to the very costly and inefficient discipline of elected
politicians and sovereign electorate whose vocabulary is limited to two words:
“yes” or “no.”
In many countries, the basic rules regarding
registration and perhaps some form of tax exempt status is the most basic
regulatory form. Little is required
other than the filing of some forms and a rather routine decision as to whether
the organization meets the basic requirements of the law for its existence, and
if applicable, its tax exempt status.
The basic danger here is that the government can deny status based on
its perceived political values and goals.
I think the interest with this model, however, relates to a more
intrusive and extensive regulatory scheme, such as the one proposed earlier in
the US, and in Norway, for example, and potentially what might be possible
under the various forms of the Law on Associations and Non-Government
Organizations, here in Cambodia.
Some weaknesses with this model include:
1)
Standards
without monitoring offer little assurance to the donor public regarding
transparency, integrity, and accountable and responsible governance of the
CSO. But heavy-handed government
monitoring with reporting of suspected fraud or some other kind of
irregularities to police and law enforcement authorities, with potential denial
of status or criminal prosecution tend to increase administrative costs. There would be an increased need for
accounting and expert legal services.
Data in the United States suggests that there is little evidence that
this assures the public that finances and operations are in accordance with the
law. Eg. Three Cups of Tea.
2) With
government regulatory schemes and monitoring, differences of opinion regarding
practices of charitable organizations often turn into the criminalization of
disputes, again handled by people with little or no experience or expertise in
the sector. As a result, while the costs
associated with compliance with complex regulations, obtaining status permit or
authority, and avoiding sanctions, including criminal investigations and
prosecutions, may be absorbed by larger NGOs, including major INGOs, it could
drive smaller charities out of operation.
This might be referred to as the Full Employment Act for Lawyers,
Accountants, and Public Relations Specialists.
3)
While
“experts” with accounting and finance and legal backgrounds may evaluate
financial reports and filings with the government, government “experts” seldom,
if ever, have competence in civil society and public benefit sector, especially
in that portion of the sector operated by religious organizations.
My second concern is
that in the context of accountability, governments could set the terms of
accountability by the regulation of the sector in lines with what I described
earlier. What I am thinking of here is
redefinition of public benefit according to some perceived public policy,
frequent and period applications for reviews of the tax-exempt status of an
organization, establishment of standards for government reviews of
organizational functions, operations, and documents describing the
decisionmaking process and decisions, demands for increased data in
informational tax returns, penalties for failure to file timely returns or
minor clerical errors in the returns, detailed policies regarding the make-up
and governance practices of the governing board, and delegations of enforcement
practices to other authorities, to include increase in exposure to civil and
criminal litigation.
The second model is the model of financial
disclosure practiced by a number of valuable organizations, such as
GuideStar. Here, the disclosed
information is often restricted to that which appears in informational tax
returns or self-reporting. Many of these
reports or disclosures contain rather technical accounting information that is
not particularly accessible to the donor.
Without diminishing the importance of financial information and its
disclosure, this type of reporting says little about the organization, its
governing structures and quality, its fundraising practices, the quality of its
operations, potential conflicts of interest, and its compliance with law or
other standards.
The third model is one in which an
independent monitoring organization focuses on financial analysis and rating
schemes. The advantage here is that this
is generally a totally independent monitoring scheme. The disadvantage is that it is a totally
monitoring scheme, usually funded by some wealthy, self-appointed individual
with the goal of cleaning up the sector, but without any appreciation or
understanding of the nature of charity.
Monitoring charities through the simple use of financial ratios, such as
funds raised to fundraising and administrative costs, and rating schemes will
tell little about the integrity of its governance, its fundraising practices,
its effective use of funds raised and disclosure regarding projects and
financial information, and avoidance of conflicts of interest for example.
If the general idea is that transparency is
important to prevent unethical or irresponsible conduct, then it seems to me
that a culture of transparency and accountability is required if leadership of
the NGO, Board and management, are to govern and lead the organization with
integrity and wisdom. In other words, internal
accountability is absolutely essential to the proper operation of the NGO. Moreover, there will never be external
transparency and accountability if there is lacking internal transparency and
accountability.
Finally, I think we can look to the model
followed within ICFO circles. It is a
model in which there is either self-regulation within the sector by an
independent monitoring organization, or independent monitoring that is not part
of a self-regulation scheme.
According to statistics contained in a report
issued by One World Trust in London, there are more than 350 self-regulation
independent monitoring initiatives worldwide, and in most regions of the
world. There is an attempt by CSOs to
come together to define common standards and principles to improve practices,
protect the sector’s political space, and build donor and public trust and
confidence. These range from codes of
conduct, certification schemes, information services, compliance systems, and
systems for measuring effectiveness.
It does not necessarily depend on increasing
the number of organizations within a country that are required to be
accountable as part of the monitoring and certification or accreditation
scheme. With millions of tax-exempt
organizations around the world, governments simply are not going to be able to
monitor all of them, nor will governments be able to assure their
accountability, either to the government, the general public, or any monitoring
agency.
Applied to the NPO
sector, what I see happening is there is a form of “peer” review and
accountability. The model employed by
ECFA in the United States is based on a panel of specialists, such as
fundraisers, accountants, lawyers, NPO operational leaders, and the like,
examining the disclosures of monitored NPOs against set Standards of
Responsible Stewardship.
Relationships can be
established and nourished through transparent communication between the panel
and the charity involved. The expertise
is present to interact with the NPO, and bonds of trust are developed where the
emphasis is on enabling corrective compliance with the Standards and best
practices rather than on sanctions, such as termination of the accreditation.
Although there are
different models within the ICFO membership, and the model I just described is
employed by one of the members, the point is that each monitoring organization
has promoted a set of Standards of Accountability, and monitors charities
against those standards to determine compliance with the Standards. Sanctions are imposed for noncompliance,
particularly if the charitable organization is unable or unwilling to correct
the deficiency. The Standards cover
governance, finances, conflicts of interest, fundraising practices, and disclosure
of financial reports and other reporting requirement.
What a seal-granting
or certification model does is that it provides guidance to charities and
promotes self-reporting and on site investigation, where there is meeting
between leadership and the survey team, not only to ensure compliance, but also
to encourage those who are insecure in how they operate and lead their
organizations. But, also it provides a
means for publicly defending charities that are falsely accused of
noncompliance with certain standards of accountability.
My interest over the
past 45 years in the sector is not simply viewing my involvement as a donor, or
contributions of other donors, as a financial transaction. I do that when I pay my taxes. Rather, it is my embrace of the needs of my
fellow human community and how those needs are being met by the organizations I
support.
New College is one of
the colleges of the University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. New College was founded in 1379, and it was
called New College because it was new, the ninth college in Oxford, and I guess
it is still new by Chinese standards. It
is also one of the largest colleges of the University of Oxford.
As
in many or most of the Oxford colleges, the Hall, or dining hall, and chapel
are very beautiful. Around the turn of
the century, that is, 1900 or shortly before, engineers discovered that a kind
of beetle had been eating away at the high beams in the Hall. When I was in Oxford in 2000, or maybe a
little later, engineers and inspectors had found the same kind of problem of in
the Duke Humphrey Reading Room, where the beams had been badly damaged by
beetle infestation.
The
buildings in these pictures of New College were built during the 1370 to 1385
time period. When the beetle infestation
damage in the New College Hall was discovered, and it was determined that the
large beams needed to be replaced, the college discovered that there were no
oak trees in Great Britain large enough to produce the size and kind of beams
that were necessary for the project. So,
someone asked the college forester and learned from him that there was a grove
of oak trees planted in college lands during the 14th century to be
grown specifically for a time such as this.
College foresters had been told through the centuries that the land
could be managed and trees cut down, except for these large oak trees that were
to be untouched in case they were needed for harvesting for the replacement of
the beams in the Hall and Chapel.
This
is the kind of long-term thinking that has carried this charity, New College, Oxford,
for over 600 years, and that has allowed it to thrive so well. Maybe this kind of thinking is out of date
and old fashioned, but there was no crisis fundraising, text message
contributions, or panic for the college so that it could replace these badly
damaged beams. Maybe if we did more of
this long-term planning and were transparent and accountable to our
constituencies, we too would thrive and do well.
Theologically,
the interesting point in all of this discussion of charity monitoring, whether
by a government or independent monitoring organizations, is the vindication of
the theological doctrine of original sin.
Otherwise, why would we be concerned with fundraising practices,
decisionmaking, transparency and accountability, and monitoring? What we are really interested in, it seems to
me, is empowering the charity sector to tend to the poor, to heal the sick, to
feed the hungry, and to shelter the homeless, and in the process promote public
trust through our promotion of moral virtue and competent leadership within the
sector and from the sector.
"The humble heart is the beginning of all knowledge; service is the hallmark of a life well lived."
Li Ka-shing
No comments:
Post a Comment