FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

I'm Flip-Flopping

I’ve long been publicly opposed to the Independent Sector’s Non-Profit Panel’s Principles for Effective Practice for promoting best practices and good governance in the sector.

I find the proposals for self-regulation way too lenient. Basically, bad charities are never going to self-regulate, and donors lack the information to differentiate between those who are adopting the standards and those who mock them.

So who’s with me in opposing the panel’s suggestions?

The list is long: The Direct Marketing Association. Association of Fundraising Professionals. Alliance of Nonprofit Mailers. American Charities for Reasonable Fundraising Regulation. Direct Mail Fundraisers Association. Association of Direct Response Fundraising Counsel. There are more.

But none of these groups oppose the Panel’s recommendations, as I have, because they’re too lax. All of these groups think the proposals, voluntary as they may be, are unduly harsh.

Geoffrey W. Peters of the American Charities for Reasonable Fundraising Regulation said the proposals are “flawed. He’s especially bothered by the one where good charities would agree not to sell donor names without the donors’ permission. Lee Cassidy of the DMA Nonprofit Federation says the proposals are “arrogant” and that IS “can’t get anything right.”

You can tell a lot about a man by the company they keep, and this is not company with which I choose to be associated. I represent donors, some 4 million strong as a matter of fact, and I would have no credibility with any one of them if they knew that I was on the same side as the telemarketers and the mail solicitors, no matter the reason.

So, if we’re drawing up sides, and the choice is between a) the Independent Sector, who I believe to be too protectionist and slow to adapt, but are undoubtedly smart people with good intentions representing some excellent charities, and b) the DC insiders who lobby on behalf of protecting the right to send your grandmother 843 pieces of unsolicited junk mail from sound-alike charities in an effort to trick her into supporting their groups, I’m with the former.

Not sure they want me, but they have my support. And if you’re with me, go here and tell the Independent Sector that you support the standards, and hope that in the future, they’ll work hard to make them a bit more stringent. But for now, given the resistance they're facing, we're satisfied with this step.

Labels: , , ,

5 Comments:

Blogger Jeff said...

I followed your request and sent my comments to IS. I agree that they shouldn't be selling donor names, and relayed about my dearly departed mother (over a year ago) who is still getting junk mail from obscure Veterans organizations because she sent money to the Disabled American Vets.

3:42 PM  
Anonymous Robert Tigner said...

I was not aware that the Association of Direct Response Fundraising Counsel (ADRFCO) was "opposing the panel’s suggestions" (in your words). As far as I know, ADRFCO does NOT oppose the IS "Principles". If you believe otherwise, please advise when and how.

Robert S. Tigner
General Counsel
ADRFCO

1:53 PM  
Blogger Trent said...

I gathered it from this directive that you wrote to your clients. http://www.adrfco.org/IB71.pdf

Do I have it wrong? Are you not opposed to the principles? The language in your exhortation to your troops would certainly lead most fair-mided people to believe otherwise, but if you'd like to tell us all now that you're on board with the IS panel, I will of course remove your name and humbly apologize.

2:48 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home