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.
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: Bogus Spammers Who Hate America, DMA, Independent Sector, Obstructionist Telemarketing Lobbies
posted by Trent Stamp at 9:45 AM
5 Comments:
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.
Do Not Mail Opt-Out Law would be fair to everyone.
The proposed recent "Do not mail" is an Opt-Out law. Only those not desiring advertising mail need opt-out. Anyone desiring advertising mail can do nothing - and continue to receive it. Why deny those wishing to avoid advertising mail the power to do so?
I do not consider handling unwanted advertising placed against my will on my personal property to be a civic obligation!
The US Supreme Court said in the Rowan case in 1970, ““In today's [1970] complex society we are inescapably captive audiences for many purposes, but a sufficient measure of individual autonomy must survive to permit every householder to exercise control over unwanted mail. To make the householder the exclusive and final judge of what will cross his threshold undoubtedly has the effect of impeding the flow of ideas, information, and arguments that, ideally, he should receive and consider. Today's merchandising methods, the plethora of mass mailings subsidized by low postal rates, and the growth of the sale of large mailing lists as an industry in itself have changed the mailman from a carrier of primarily private communications, as he was in a more leisurely day, and have made him an adjunct of the mass mailer who sends unsolicited and often unwanted mail into every home. It places no strain on the doctrine of judicial notice to observe that whether measured by pieces or pounds, Everyman's mail today is made up overwhelmingly of material he did not seek from persons he does not know. And all too often it is matter he finds offensive.”
Furthermore, the Supreme Court said, “the mailer's right to communicate is circumscribed only by an affirmative act of the addressee giving notice that he wishes no further mailings from that mailer.
To hold less would tend to license a form of trespass and would make hardly more sense than to say that a radio or television viewer may not twist the dial to cut off an offensive or boring communication and thus bar its entering his home. Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit; we see no basis for according the printed word or pictures a different or more preferred status because they are sent by mail.”
We need a nationwide “Do Not Mail” law to create a one-stop, convenient place for homeowners to give senders the aforementioned affirmative notice that we do not want certain kinds of mail sent to our homes.
http://www.newdream.org/emails/ta19.html
Signed,
Ramsey A Fahel
US Postal Service won’t let you refuse mail.
If the US Postal Service would abide by its own rule, each homeowner could easily stop junk mail from getting into their mailbox by putting a written notice on their mailbox expressing their preference.
The US Postal Services practices are supposed to be according to the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM). The DMM contains provision 508.1.1.2 that says, “Refusal at Delivery: The addressee may refuse to accept a mailpiece when it is offered for delivery.” I interpret this rule to mean that if a homeowner wants to refuse an unwanted mailpiece (i.e. junk mail), the homeowner can do so when the mailpiece is offered for delivery. More to the point – refuse it before it is put into the mailbox!
In practical application, since the postal carrier comes to homes at different times each day, the homeowner cannot be waiting at the mailbox to dialogue with the mail carrier about each mailpiece. The only realistic way to interpret 508.1.1.2 therefore is that the homeowner should post a notice on the mailbox telling the postal carrier about the homeowner’s preference. The notice to the postal service must be specific and unambiguous. For instance, a homeowner should certainly be able to write, “No mail that is not addressed to the Jones” because that does not require the postal carrier to make a subjective judgment. On the other hand, it would not be acceptable to write “no junk mail” because the definition of “junk mail” is subjective and the mail carrier cannot decide.
Unfortunately, the US Postal Service has written to me that they will NOT honor a notice refusing mail, not matter how specifically it is worded, because the postal carrier does not have time to sort through the mail at my mailbox to pick out the pieces that are not addressed to me. Therefore, the US Postal Service is passing their sorting and disposing task onto me by putting all the mail they want into my mailbox, even though this seemingly violates 508.1.1.2.
Since the U.S. Postal Service will not abide by 508.1.1.2, homeowners need to stop unwanted mail at the source (i.e. by blocking the sender from sending it). We need a nationwide “Do Not Mail” law to create a one-stop, convenient place for homeowners to give senders notice that we do not want certain kinds of mail sent to our homes.
http://www.newdream.org/emails/ta19.html
Signed,
Ramsey A Fahel
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
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.
Post a Comment
<< Home