The Foraker Group

Almost everyone is glad that last fall’s election is history – I know I am. We should give thanks for recycling efforts. Otherwise, the shear waste of paper on political ads would have been a tragedy. I recently heard that the only people thankful for the last election, other than the winners, were the firms that produced ads and the printers and commercial broadcasters that shared them with us. They had a banner year!

I have served in an executive role in nonprofits for over 30 years. When I started my career, I learned that my public position on all things political was better left neutral. The lesson: the public does not differentiate my views from my organization’s position.

Charitable 501(c)(3) nonprofits are forbidden to participate in electioneering or endorsing a candidate. However, they are allowed to advocate, even lobby on behalf of their mission and constituents.

My professional neutrality did not mean that I was politically neutral. I am a super voter and have not missed an election since I was old enough to vote. But in my professional role, I was expected to, and to the best of my ability succeeded in working with whoever was elected. I was able to do that because I was not seen as politically conflicted. Neutrality during the campaign allowed me to support my mission by working with anyone. I often quipped that my Democratic friends thought I was one of them, but my Republican friends knew that I was on their side. The fact is, I am registered as an independent and have never stated a party affiliation.

I may have taken neutrality to an extreme – a position that no one in our sector should assume is the only way. However, I learned that I could be true to myself and remain publicly neutral because my most personal core value is to collaborate – to work with others, and that includes working with those that see the world differently than I do.

In Turning to One Another, Margaret Wheatley encourages us to hold our initial outrage at another’s conflicting (often “stupid”) opinion, and become curious why the other person thinks so differently. It is through such discipline, she suggests, that we increase our social intelligence. In addition, we could possibly adjust our opinion or at least become a better advocate for what we believe. In today’s world, the more typical response to another’s “flawed” belief would be to get upset, then close up and stop the conversation. Unfortunately, that has become the norm on many entertainment-rather-than-news networks. I recommend that we listen to Meg’s advice and re-learn how to agree to disagree. By the way, Meg will join us in April for the Foraker Leadership Summit.

My personal conviction on neutrality for candidates includes neither attending political fundraisers nor displaying bumper stickers on my car nor candidate signs in my yard. That rigid approach requires flexibility from my life partner, Stephanie, who was raised in a very political home. She has strong opinions and party affiliation. She gives to candidates, attends fundraisers, and posts her opinions on social media. Her convictions are one of the most endearing qualities of my bride, and I would never ask her to adhere to my beliefs or rules. But she understands how important neutrality is to me, so she voluntarily is less visible than she would be otherwise.

Still, while urging caution on candidate endorsement, I strongly believe that nonprofits have a duty to be involved in politics – the right way. Every nonprofit leader should know what is happening at the state and national level. We need to know and regularly speak with our elected officials and their staff. We have a right to advocate. And while some limits on lobbying exist, there are times that if a charitable nonprofit is not lobbying, it is not doing its job – that is, it’s not supporting its mission.

When The Foraker Group was asked by the M.J. Murdock Charitable Trust to meet with other state associations in the Northwest seven years ago, we learned that we were not doing all we should to support the nonprofit sector in Alaska. We needed an active public policy agenda and have worked to build our capacity to do that. The first thing we did was to join the National Council of Nonprofits, the most competent national organization focused on nonprofit public policy. We have dedicated staff time and a strong and active committee with a board approved public policy agenda.

Our first public policy effort in Alaska was to provide affordable health insurance to the sector – candidly with limited results. Since then we worked with partners on the Pick.Click.Give. legislation, secured funding to support nonprofit capital projects, and educated the legislature about the sector. Last session we spoke to legislators and the administration about creating a nonprofit liaison – someone in the administration who would be a direct link between nonprofits and policy makers. All were open to how to best meet that request, and hopefully next year we can bring that goal to reality.

The weekend before Thanksgiving the new administration convened the largest transition team in memory. A disproportionate number of that team was current and former Foraker Governance and Operations Board members. Byron Mallot, our new Lt. Governor, was on our founding board. I have served as an advisor to previous transition teams and hope that through this past engagement we can have open access to decision makers when and if needed.

On the national scene, we meet every year with the staff of our congressional delegation. We update them on the status of nonprofits and answer their questions on how to better support nonprofits in Alaska. Recently we worked with our delegation to get the America Gives More Act passed. During the session before the last election, Senator Begich pushed hard to make that happen with a personal letter and calls to then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to introduce the bill, which had been requested by the National Council of Nonprofits, our professional association. It almost worked. Senator Murkowski’s office also has assisted with this legislation.

At our next Leadership Summit, April 20-21, Tim Delaney, the CEO of the Council, will address the audience with a call to action on sector advocacy. He will also conduct a workshop on how charitable nonprofits can and should effectively and appropriately engage in the political process. Tim’s biography is extensive and impressive. This represents some of why we are so fortunate to have him in Alaska next spring, and to have him as a national leader:

Tim Delaney was a partner at a large law firm (where he focused on litigation, media law, and government relations), then Solicitor General and later Chief Deputy Attorney General for the State of Arizona (where he guided the state to win several cases in the U.S. Supreme Court), and was the President of the Nonprofit Center for Leadership, Ethics & Public Service (where he championed positive ethics and advanced civic engagement.) Since graduating from Yale and earning joint degrees in law and public affairs from the University of Texas, Tim has helped nonprofits from a variety of vantage points, including as an attorney, author, board chair, CEO, consultant, founder, incubator, lobbyist, teacher, trainer, and volunteer. Tim currently serves on the Leadership Council of Nonprofit VOTE. In the field of ethics and public trust, Tim has served as a prosecutor (helping to impeach a Governor and later remove four other elected officials from office), author, legislative drafter (developing Arizona‘s Public Service Ethics Act and a comprehensive rewrite of Arizona‘s Open Meeting Law), and consultant and trainer for businesses, governments, and nonprofits.

Tim Delaney is the trusted voice that nonprofit leaders, staff, and board should hear as they develop a public policy agenda.

Our latest economic study showed that 34% of Alaska’s charitable nonprofit revenue is from government grants. If we add the revenue health care nonprofits receive from Medicaid and Medicare and the other government payments reported on non-health nonprofit 990’s as program service fees, we are certain that over half of total charitable nonprofit revenue is from a governmental source. That alone makes the point of why we need to build our capacity to respond.

But leaders that have a majority of their revenue from charitable contributions may ask, why worry? They don’t receive government grants. However, they should understand that last year in Washington D.C. both parties considered eliminating the charitable deduction as a part of comprehensive tax reform. Doesn’t that need their attention?

And for nonprofits that receive a majority of their revenue from program service fees (earned revenue) other than government payments, changes in the tax code may be on the horizon. Some national policymakers question why charities that primarily earn revenue, like a business, need a nonprofit tax status.

But more challenging than the national scene, many state and local governments are looking for additional revenue. If you didn’t follow the recent nonprofit tax debate in Nome, you should know what is going on close to home. Nome’s city council wanted to impose a tax on nonprofits. It did not pass, but we have seen other communities begin such conversations. No nonprofit should feel free of concern. We are all vulnerable, and we must become competent at addressing public policy issues like we strive to be competent with donors, clients, and our services.

Not only has Foraker dedicated more resources to our direct public policy activities — visit our new Sector Voice page on the website — we plan to increase trainings to support our Partners and the efforts of other nonprofits. Attending the next summit would be a good first step in learning what to do. We also encourage you to visit the websites for the National Council of Nonprofits and Independent Sector because both have significant news and resources to inform and guide your direction. We will publicize upcoming opportunities to learn more about how to engage in public policy.

There are 39,000 employees in the Alaska nonprofit sector. Imagine the power of 39,000 well-informed citizens that have asked candidates the right questions and not only understand how a candidate’s philosophy is in line with their personal values, but also their professional goals. We should be informed – we should vote. But, as leaders, we must be aware of how our political views may hamper our organization’s ability to address mission.

The approach to engage in the political process that has served me well may also fit your style. If your personal values allow you to work quietly to support your favorite candidate, then do so – that is the safest strategy. But there are other options. I spoke with many colleagues while writing this article to learn how they have approached their involvement with candidates. Some mirrored my approach. Others have openly supported a candidate with little to no negative reaction. Some attend political fundraisers. Others give to both candidates. Some have spoken in support of a candidate, but made sure that they were explicit that they were speaking as a private citizen, not as a spokesperson for the organization. At a minimum, we encourage such restraint.

When I speak in public, most times it is on behalf of The Foraker Group. That means that I am speaking the “one voice” of my board. My board is politically diverse. I value that diversity. I think it is hard for me to keep such diversity involved if I seem a mouthpiece for one side or another.

I had calls during the last election from nonprofit leaders about how to openly support a candidate. I had more calls from board members and donors with concerns about such actions. I stand by the right of any nonprofit leader as a citizen to follow his or her conscience. There is no one right way to engage in an election. As long as a nonprofit organization does not endorse a candidate, no policy or law has been broken. The charitable tax status can be defended.

However, in these days of excess political strife, all nonprofit leaders must understand that regardless of their organization’s official neutral position on an election, many in the public will interpret the CEO’s personal endorsement of a candidate as coming from the organization they represent. That interpretation could impact donations and goodwill.

In closing, after years of being quiet, I look forward to a day when I will no longer feel muzzled by my professional ethics.