http://acreform.com/article en alison@acreform.com Copyright 2012 2012-05-18T15:39:28+00:00 http://acreform.com/site/the_debt_ceiling_its_back/ http://acreform.com/site/the_debt_ceiling_its_back/#When:15:39:28Z It’s starting to look like déjà vu all over again. We all remember the high-stakes game over raising the debt ceiling last summer.  “Not pretty” is the best way to describe that exercise. And now, we may be headed toward debt ceiling debate 2.0… Federal 2012-05-18T15:39:28+00:00 http://acreform.com/site/newsletter_5.18.12/ http://acreform.com/site/newsletter_5.18.12/#When:10:05:23Z Highlights from the latest edition of the ACR newsletter: ACR Blog Highlights - What is Transparency and What Does it Mean for Philanthropic Organizations? Washington Roundup - Ways and Means Hearing on Nonprofits - Process for Tax Reform Consider This… The Debt Ceiling, It’s Back.. Federal, State, Proper Oversight 2012-05-18T10:05:23+00:00 http://acreform.com/site/house_ways_and_means_subcommittee_on_oversight_holds_hearing_on_tax_exempt_/ http://acreform.com/site/house_ways_and_means_subcommittee_on_oversight_holds_hearing_on_tax_exempt_/#When:21:06:19Z House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight Holds Hearing on Tax Exempt Organizations The House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight held a hearing today to examine compliance and regulatory issues for some tax exempt entities, specifically public charities. ACR followed this hearing, which was the first in a series of hearings that will occur on nonprofit issues. Charitable Deduction, Federal, Proper Oversight, Welcome 2012-05-16T21:06:19+00:00 http://acreform.com/site/what_is_transparency_and_what_does_it_mean_for_philanthropic_organizations/ http://acreform.com/site/what_is_transparency_and_what_does_it_mean_for_philanthropic_organizations/#When:19:12:03Z This was the topic of a lively roundtable event yesterday co-hosted by The Philanthropy Roundtable and the Aspen Institute. The panel featured experts from different areas of the nonprofit sector to bring a broad perspective to the discussion. Panelists included Rick Cohen, national correspondent for Nonprofit Quarterly, Jack Horak founder of the nonprofit organizations practice area at Reid and Riege Law Firm, Cindy Lott, senior counsel to the National State Attorneys General Program at Columbia Law School, and John Tyler, general counsel, secretary, and chief ethics officer at the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Suzanne Garment, visiting scholar at Indiana University’s Center on Philanthropy, moderated the discussion. This discussion previews issues that will be covered in a new Roundtable publication (coming Summer 2012) authored by John Tyler on transparency in the nonprofit sector. This book will discuss some of the myths surrounding transparency, provide a practical guide to encourage thoughtful planning of transparent endeavors, and open thought on means of good voluntary transparency.  There have also been movements to increase transparency by nonprofit organizations through both mandated and voluntary means.  The Roundtable believes that transparency raises complex and important issues, and we are enthusiastic to host thought, discussion and debate on the topic.  You can watch the full event here, but here are just a few nuggets as a primer. Tyler opened the event and introduced some of his ideas that will appear in the new publication. Tyler challenges his audiences – at this panel and his future readers – to consider the basic question, “what is transparency,” suggests the need for clarity, and offers to dispel some common myths.  This included the idea that just because an organization is being transparent doesn’t mean they are being effective. Tyler was followed by Rick Cohen who offered areas where he believes more transparency is needed (preview his latest column on transparency here). Tyler and Cohen did agree that there are no easy answers and organizations are diverse, requiring thoughtful deliberation. Jack Horak provided a “boots on the ground” perspective as a legal adviser, and offered that there are many issues nonprofit organizations do not consider that can cause trouble down the road.  Horak’s comments re-emphasized the need for organizations to plan and anticipate.  He offered that applying “the Goldilocks principle” – not too hot, not too cold, just right – was both helpful and complicated.  And, Cindy Lott provided insight on the perspective of state regulators and how they are key players in transparency strategies.  She also stressed the importance for nonprofits to be proactive and take charge of their own image, especially in the context of online and social media where, if you’re not careful, others will shape your image for better or worse. Simply put, if you aren’t telling your story somebody will do it for you. This is a very brief overview of the incredible and rich content of this event.  It’s definitely a panel worth watching because all of us in the nonprofit sector should be thinking about how we will approach transparency. This event was co-hosted by The Philanthropy Roundtable and the Aspen Institute’s Justice and Society Program and Program on Philanthropy and Social Innovation. 2012-05-11T19:12:03+00:00 http://acreform.com/site/philanthropic_transparency/ http://acreform.com/site/philanthropic_transparency/#When:20:43:00Z PHILANTHROPIC TRANSPARENCY: HOW PUBLIC SHOULD PRIVATE PHILANTHROPY BE? Thursday, May 10, 2012 • 12:00 – 1:30 pm Hosted by: The Philanthropy Roundtable The Aspen Institute Program on Philanthropy and Social Innovation The Aspen Institute Justice and Society Program Federal, State, Multimedia , Add to Pressing Topic 2012-05-10T20:43:00+00:00 http://acreform.com/site/newsletter_5.4.12/ http://acreform.com/site/newsletter_5.4.12/#When:16:00:00Z Highlights from the latest edition of the ACR newsletter: ACR Blog Roundup - What Does Transparency Mean to Philanthropy and Why Should You Care? - House Committee Holds Hearing on Tax Issues Important to Philanthropy - Online Training Resource on Lobbying and Advocacy Worth Your Time - Massachusetts Legislature Considers Capping Nonprofit Executive Compensation Washington Roundup - Hearing on Expired Tax Benefits Consider This… Tax Reform Buzzwords Charitable Deduction, Federal, State 2012-05-04T16:00:00+00:00 http://acreform.com/site/massachusetts_legislature_considers_capping_nonprofit_executive_compensatio/ http://acreform.com/site/massachusetts_legislature_considers_capping_nonprofit_executive_compensatio/#When:15:38:10Z Since we last reported on this, the Massachusetts House passed its budget bill and included this amendment to limit nonprofit executive compensation, albeit changed. The budget passed by the state House calls for a feasibility study to be completed by the Investigator General by the end of 2012 before implementing these limitations on compensation could go into affect. Read the text of the full amendment here. Depending on the results of the feasibility study, the limitations could then follow. We will keep you posted on any developments that occur in the Senate budget process. ——————————————————————————————————————————————— We at ACR are always keeping an eye on things happening at the state level that could impact philanthropy and the nonprofit sector.  This year, there have been various bills in different states that have looked at addressing nonprofit executive compensation from organizations that accept government funding.  Most of these bills have applied to organizations that receive a majority of their funding from the state. However, there is some recent action in the Massachusetts state legislature that would affect nonprofits receiving smaller amounts of government funding.  Even more noteworthy, this latest attempt to address compensation is attached as an amendment to the state’s FY13 budget bill rather than as a stand-alone bill. The amendment to the state budget bill, filed by Rep. Peter Durant (R-Spencer) and Rep. Keiko Orrall (R-Lakeville), would cap executive compensation for any organization receiving at least 30% of their yearly budget from government funds. Compensation would include salary and all other benefits and would be based on the annual budget size of the organization. The maximum total compensation allowed would be $208,985 for a CEO or director.  To follow the progress of the Massachusetts budget as it moves through the legislature, click here. To read the full text of the amendment, yet to be considered on the floor, click here. We are always watching for legislative or administrative efforts that seek for increased government involvement in nonprofit governance. We will be following this and other proposals in Massachusetts to limit compensation as they move through the state legislature.     State, State Legislation, Welcome 2012-05-04T15:38:10+00:00 http://acreform.com/site/tax_reform_buzzwords/ http://acreform.com/site/tax_reform_buzzwords/#When:14:29:23Z The House and Senate are on a break this week so we thought this might be a good time to take a breath and run through some of the buzzwords and catch phrases on tax reform that might affect the charitable sector. Only a few policy makers will say “we should limit charitable giving incentives.” But that does not mean the outcome of what many policy makers are proposing will do just that.  General phrases like this that should catch your attention include:... Charitable Deduction, Federal 2012-05-04T14:29:23+00:00 http://acreform.com/site/what_does_transparency_mean_to_philanthropy_and_why_should_you_care/ http://acreform.com/site/what_does_transparency_mean_to_philanthropy_and_why_should_you_care/#When:13:21:51Z If you haven’t already, you should start thinking about how transparent you want your organization to be. The Philanthropy Roundtable began looking at this topic and is about to publish a short book, by John Tyler of the Kauffman Foundation, about all of the intricacies involved. So why are we talking about it and what does it mean for your organization? Does it mean releasing all of your organization’s financial information? Does it mean releasing detailed information about your board members and how they are selected? Does it mean releasing detailed information about all of your grantees and the criteria by which they were selected? Does it mean releasing racial or socioeconomic information about the beneficiaries of your grants? There are a many questions to ask about transparency. But at the same time, there are also some myths about transparency. So let’s have a look at some of those myths, some of the useful means of transparency, and what you can do to get ahead. Myth #1: Because foundations have tax-favored treatment, the public has a right to know. If private money is given to charity, what right does the public have to extensive information? The public does have the right to know we’re following the law. That is why we require foundations to fill out a Form 990, which is publicly available. But there is a distinct difference between private money going to charity and public money going to charity. What does the public have the right to know and where is the line? Watchdogs, Congress, and others who want information about your organization have different motives and objectives. But it’s your information and you need to think about its purpose. So what about voluntarily providing information to the general public? Foundations may be very well served by voluntarily publishing information. This gives your organization an opportunity to tell YOUR story, highlight YOUR work, and establish integrity. Myth #2: Blanket transparency will mean all are behaving appropriately. If we inundate the airwaves with heaps of information, we will literally flood people. The flood of information only creates a false security blanket that everybody in the sector is behaving appropriately. This could actually obscure good information, drown positive messages, and negate the goals of transparency. Overwhelming amounts of information also denies your organization the ability to tell its own story. You lose control of your message when you indiscriminately release lots of information in a one size fits all approach. How many of us read all the privacy disclosures we get from our credit cards, insurance companies, or something we sign up for on the Internet? Myth #3: Complete transparency equals organizational effectiveness. First off, who says you have to be effective, to whom, and for what? The release of information about an organization’s activities does not automatically mean it is effective or achieving its mission. For example, small foundations do not have the same resources to comply with broad transparency as large foundations. The need to release lots of data costs time and money, perhaps resulting in less effectiveness. Conversations about effectiveness are important, but let’s not forget about the variety of foundations that exist! The foundation world is diverse-large and small, new and old, corporate and community, independent and family-and we all have our own visions of effectiveness. Myth #4: Blanket transparency would not result in the forced change of foundation activities. If organizations are forced to release all grant information, it could chill support for things that may not be publicly popular. Gay rights, civil rights, school choice, global warming, and religious causes are all political hot potatoes. And they’ve all been funded by philanthropy. For business or personal reasons, donors may not want to release everything about funding decisions. But, this does not mean these organizations are misbehaving. Should organizations be forced or pressured to release information on grant decisions? What impact might this have on the grantmaking process? Could it embarrass applicants that submit poor proposals? Consider these questions and make a plan. These are just some of the issues involved in discussions on transparency. We hope we have piqued your interest about this and look forward to future conversations when Tyler’s book is published. ACR in the News, Add to Pressing Topic, Welcome 2012-05-02T13:21:51+00:00 http://acreform.com/site/house_committee_holds_hearing_on_tax_issues_important_to_philanthropy/ http://acreform.com/site/house_committee_holds_hearing_on_tax_issues_important_to_philanthropy/#When:19:47:58Z The House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Select Revenues held a hearing today on extending certain tax provisions. One issue of importance to philanthropy is on how to extend the IRA charitable rollover tax benefit, which recently expired.  The IRA charitable rollover is good for charity because it provides individuals a tax incentive to give money to charity out of their IRA accounts rather than keeping it and being taxed. It also allows individuals to participate in philanthropy who may not otherwise have extensive cash resources to give away, other than funds from an IRA. Several members of Congress spoke out in favor of the IRA charitable rollover in today’s hearing. Rep. Diane Black (R-TN) said the IRA rollover “encourages behavior that benefits our communities” and that it is “one of those cherished traditions we don’t see anywhere else in the world and would think that [Congress] would want to continue this”.  Rep. Wally Herger (R-CA) called for extension of the charitable IRA rollover and enactment of the “Public Good IRA Rollover Act”.  (You can read his full statement on the IRA charitable rollover below.) Also, Rob Collier, President and CEO of the Council of Michigan Foundations submitted testimony for the record on behalf of the Council on Foundations in support of the IRA charitable rollover provision that you can read here. The statement provides a quick, concise read on the history of this provision and what it means to charity. You can check out all the information about the hearing from the House Ways and Means Committee website here. We will continue to follow this issue as it gains momentum on the Hill and we hope the IRA charitable rollover will be extended next year. —————————————————————————————————- Statement by Representative Wally Herger (R-CA) Chairman Tiberi and Ranking Member Neal, thank you for the opportunity to testify.  As our Committee works to reform the tax code, it is important to closely examine the merits of the various “tax extender” provisions. One tax extender I strongly support is the charitable IRA rollover provision. First enacted in 2006, this policy allows IRA owners to make tax-free charitable contributions from their savings. Our country has a long and proud tradition of charitable giving and meeting human needs through voluntary private generosity, rather than relying solely on taxpayer-funded programs. The tax deduction for charitable contributions recognizes the importance of this tradition, and the charitable IRA rollover extends this favorable tax treatment to retirement savings. Maintaining incentives for charitable giving is especially important in tough economic times, and several organizations in my Northern California district have told me that this provision has been very helpful to them. I and Mr. Blumenauer have introduced the Public Good IRA Rollover Act to permanently extend the charitable IRA rollover. Our legislation would also make some important modifications, such as allowing tax-free rollovers to donor-advised funds, which help to keep foundations focused on local community needs. 2012-04-26T19:47:58+00:00