Post by Moses on May 5, 2004 16:52:10 GMT -5
www.courier-journal.com/cjextra/editorials/2004/05/02/opin-hawpe0502-7920.html
Foundations like operating in the dark, and not just at U of L
------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE WILLINGNESS to operate openly is not just a question for the University of Louisville Foundation, which has waged trench warfare in the courts to keep the public from knowing who gave money for the Mitch McConnell Center for Political Leadership on the Belknap Campus.
Earlier this year, Pablo Eisenberg wrote in The Boston Globe that, of the nation's 16,000 largest foundations, only about 2,200 issue an annual public report that describes their programs and finances. And those that do seldom offer the kind of detail that makes for real transparency.
Sure, they all have to file an IRS form 990 PF, but as Eisenberg, a senior fellow at Georgetown Public Policy Institute, pointed out, "these documents are not user-friendly, contain little program information and do not demand sufficient financial details that can easily uncover self-dealing activities, conflicts of interest and inappropriate expenses."
You would think, in exchange for the tax breaks they enjoy, these groups would share more information with the taxpayers — not to mention, in the case of the U of L Foundation, with the university community it is supposed to serve.
Instead of responding to a growing number of scandals that relate to foundation activities, the people who run these groups have formed a defensive perimeter. Former Louisvillian Dot Ridings, who is president of the Council on Foundations, tried to narrow the public relations damage with an editorial in Foundation News and Commentary headlined, "The Sins of the Few."
But the fact is, the foundation culture is largely private, insulated from scrutiny and, more often than not, dedicated to preserving the status quo. This is an odd impulse in what is supposed to be a dynamic society, and certainly odd in higher education, where prevailing wisdom and the existing order of things are supposed to be tested and challenged.
"The giving of the wealthy perpetuates the status quo and actually serves their class interest," says Teresa Odendahl, who chairs the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.
No wonder the bigwigs who run the UofL Foundation, and who have a big say in running the university itself, are so intent on protecting their secret prerogatives.
But the public has a stake in this too, since it finances giving with the tax breaks it allows. Philanthropy, Odendahl told the Globe, "is tax money forgone." In effect, it "gives wealthy individuals and the institutions they create a kind of undemocratic power."
At least one of the biggest, most powerful such groups, the $6 billion William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, thinks the public needs to know more. As The New York Times reported last week, the foundation is "flaunting its warts, and, even more shocking, urging its peers to follow suit."
"The more information we make available, the better we all are," said Hewlett President Paul Brest.
I had a thoughtful note this week from reader Gary Owen, who said, "Since we have agreed to differ on the issue of private university foundations, I will not dwell on existing differences. Nonetheless, since you have continued to parse this critical issue, I feel compelled to comment again. In particular, the argument of The C-J and staff is that contributors to the McConnell Center can earn influence with Kentucky's senior senator without public scrutiny. Are you arguing that this would result in a biased teaching philosophy more conservative than liberal, or is the bias less important than the principle of the matter?"
He warns me to keep in mind that "recent controversies at other institutions, Duke University for example, are focused on the preponderance of Democrats on college faculties rather than Republicans. It is the rage of conservative Web blogs and talk radio."
The answer is no, I don't think McConnell is using the public service training program named for him to produce the next generation of Jim Bunnings, Anne Northups, and David Williamses. If I did, I might lie awake at night.
Well then, he says, "is your concern that perhaps the Senator's wife's family gets privileged treatment on issues of American foreign policy? I am not just being difficult here. Your editorials imply that influence is being earned, but you give little insight into the areas that might be affected. It is a challenge to see your logic without a little more danger at the door to be honest."
Again, the answer is no. I have no evidence that shows why people, or companies, would want to ingratiate themselves with one of the most powerful people in Washington, a man named by Congressional Quarterly as the most effective Republican lawmaker in the U.S. Senate, a man who deals regularly with the White House, who helps control the flow of legislation, who chairs one of the most important Appropriations subcommittees (the one that deals with foreign spending) and who takes meals on a regular basis with the Secretary of Labor.
But I figure there are people out there who would like to have his ear, and his helping hand. Whether the palm gets greased with gifts to the U of L Foundation, only the insiders know.
In last week's Times analysis, reporter Stephanie Strom concluded, "The world of charities, the world of soliciting and spending other people's money, is governed by a principle so obvious that it has inspired at least three clichés: Beggars can't be choosers. Silence is gold. Don't bite the hand that feeds you."
That first insight applies here. With public support for higher education waning, especially in Kentucky, universities have to depend more and more heavily on what they can beg in private support.
And those other two clichés? Just ask yourself whether you really want them to apply to the University of Louisville, or the state's other public campuses. That's the danger at the door.
David Hawpe's columns appear on Sundays and Wednesdays in The Forum. You can read them on line at www.courier-journal.com.
Foundations like operating in the dark, and not just at U of L
------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE WILLINGNESS to operate openly is not just a question for the University of Louisville Foundation, which has waged trench warfare in the courts to keep the public from knowing who gave money for the Mitch McConnell Center for Political Leadership on the Belknap Campus.
Earlier this year, Pablo Eisenberg wrote in The Boston Globe that, of the nation's 16,000 largest foundations, only about 2,200 issue an annual public report that describes their programs and finances. And those that do seldom offer the kind of detail that makes for real transparency.
Sure, they all have to file an IRS form 990 PF, but as Eisenberg, a senior fellow at Georgetown Public Policy Institute, pointed out, "these documents are not user-friendly, contain little program information and do not demand sufficient financial details that can easily uncover self-dealing activities, conflicts of interest and inappropriate expenses."
You would think, in exchange for the tax breaks they enjoy, these groups would share more information with the taxpayers — not to mention, in the case of the U of L Foundation, with the university community it is supposed to serve.
Instead of responding to a growing number of scandals that relate to foundation activities, the people who run these groups have formed a defensive perimeter. Former Louisvillian Dot Ridings, who is president of the Council on Foundations, tried to narrow the public relations damage with an editorial in Foundation News and Commentary headlined, "The Sins of the Few."
But the fact is, the foundation culture is largely private, insulated from scrutiny and, more often than not, dedicated to preserving the status quo. This is an odd impulse in what is supposed to be a dynamic society, and certainly odd in higher education, where prevailing wisdom and the existing order of things are supposed to be tested and challenged.
"The giving of the wealthy perpetuates the status quo and actually serves their class interest," says Teresa Odendahl, who chairs the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.
No wonder the bigwigs who run the UofL Foundation, and who have a big say in running the university itself, are so intent on protecting their secret prerogatives.
But the public has a stake in this too, since it finances giving with the tax breaks it allows. Philanthropy, Odendahl told the Globe, "is tax money forgone." In effect, it "gives wealthy individuals and the institutions they create a kind of undemocratic power."
At least one of the biggest, most powerful such groups, the $6 billion William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, thinks the public needs to know more. As The New York Times reported last week, the foundation is "flaunting its warts, and, even more shocking, urging its peers to follow suit."
"The more information we make available, the better we all are," said Hewlett President Paul Brest.
I had a thoughtful note this week from reader Gary Owen, who said, "Since we have agreed to differ on the issue of private university foundations, I will not dwell on existing differences. Nonetheless, since you have continued to parse this critical issue, I feel compelled to comment again. In particular, the argument of The C-J and staff is that contributors to the McConnell Center can earn influence with Kentucky's senior senator without public scrutiny. Are you arguing that this would result in a biased teaching philosophy more conservative than liberal, or is the bias less important than the principle of the matter?"
He warns me to keep in mind that "recent controversies at other institutions, Duke University for example, are focused on the preponderance of Democrats on college faculties rather than Republicans. It is the rage of conservative Web blogs and talk radio."
The answer is no, I don't think McConnell is using the public service training program named for him to produce the next generation of Jim Bunnings, Anne Northups, and David Williamses. If I did, I might lie awake at night.
Well then, he says, "is your concern that perhaps the Senator's wife's family gets privileged treatment on issues of American foreign policy? I am not just being difficult here. Your editorials imply that influence is being earned, but you give little insight into the areas that might be affected. It is a challenge to see your logic without a little more danger at the door to be honest."
Again, the answer is no. I have no evidence that shows why people, or companies, would want to ingratiate themselves with one of the most powerful people in Washington, a man named by Congressional Quarterly as the most effective Republican lawmaker in the U.S. Senate, a man who deals regularly with the White House, who helps control the flow of legislation, who chairs one of the most important Appropriations subcommittees (the one that deals with foreign spending) and who takes meals on a regular basis with the Secretary of Labor.
But I figure there are people out there who would like to have his ear, and his helping hand. Whether the palm gets greased with gifts to the U of L Foundation, only the insiders know.
In last week's Times analysis, reporter Stephanie Strom concluded, "The world of charities, the world of soliciting and spending other people's money, is governed by a principle so obvious that it has inspired at least three clichés: Beggars can't be choosers. Silence is gold. Don't bite the hand that feeds you."
That first insight applies here. With public support for higher education waning, especially in Kentucky, universities have to depend more and more heavily on what they can beg in private support.
And those other two clichés? Just ask yourself whether you really want them to apply to the University of Louisville, or the state's other public campuses. That's the danger at the door.
David Hawpe's columns appear on Sundays and Wednesdays in The Forum. You can read them on line at www.courier-journal.com.