When Not To Lead

To be a successful blogger we are told, "Be authoritative! Demonstrate your expertise!" etc. But the truth is, all any of us can ever do is to write from our limited experience, share the lessons we have learned, and hope it helps somebody in their own journey. In the end, we are all in a constant process of learning. Even the so-called experts and teachers - if they're good at what they do - are still learning.

This is generally a blog about nonprofit leadership (including fundraising and administration) written by a middle-aged (58), well educated (Master's degree), white (by most standards, but not to a few), cis male (although that never stopped any bullying by those who presumed I wasn't cis).

In relation to today's headlines, and the continued protests, counter-protests, and eruptions of violence in the wake of the murder of George Floyd by four Minneapolis police officers, this is not the time for my leadership, or for my voice to be the loudest one in the room. It is time for me and (in my opinion) people like me, to be an ally.

But, in my three decades of nonprofit service, what I've learned about being a leader and what I've learned about being an ally both rely on the same skill. That skill is knowing when to close my mouth and just listen.

Yes, I get the irony. I'm taking the time to talk about why I should shut up. You're under no obligation to read further.

Lao Tzu said that, "A leader is best when people barely know he exists, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: we did it ourselves."

My experience in life has been one of probably 98% privilege. I've had a few incidents with anti-Semites (a lost job, a bloody nose or two), but these are rare. In school days, long ago, my preference for longer hair and lack of skill or interest in sports led to a certain amount of anti-gay bullying (despite my not being gay).

But overall, my life has been one of middle-class, white privilege. I've driven away from traffic stops with only a warning and never thought "this is how I die" when I was pulled over. When shop owners have kept an extra close eye on me I've had the luxury of thinking "what a paranoid ass" instead of "what a racist."

So listening has done me well when serving organizations working with folks who don't share my experience. Listening first, and speaking later, has helped me in building mutual trust and understanding. Listening first, and speaking later, has helped me to recognize leaders, and nurture their skills, where others may have only seen need.

Listening first, and speaking later, has taught me that the most important question I can ask as a leader is, "How may I support you?"

Which brings us to this week. And to be a good ally, the most important thing I can do - the only thing I can do - is to ask the same thing, "How may I support you?"

I've taken answers from many sources, one of them being the Movement for Black Lives, and their Week of Action. Each day has a demand, and a list of suggested actions you can take in support of it. The actions are divided into "Safe," "Medium," and "High Risk."

Today (Thursday) the demand is Community Control. Communities need to control the laws, institutions, and policies that are meant to serve them, but all too often fail (and fail by design). That includes local schools, public budgets (budgets are political documents), and the police. One of my chosen "safe" actions is to write a blog about this (other actions I've chosen are not so safe).

For several years there was progress in many cities regarding community policing. Getting cops to actually live in the areas where they worked. Training them to be present in support of community, not just to show up and pull people out of the community. Policing as a preventive activity, not a strictly punitive one. This was good, but rarely truly brought policing to the full demand of Community Control.

Partly, because the counter-force to that effort has been stronger. There is a nationwide trend toward militarization of the police. Federal programs have sold surplus military equipment to local departments, turning police into an invading force, far beyond what is needed to "protect and to serve."

According to the ACLU, "Sending a heavily armed team of officers to perform 'normal' police work can dangerously escalate situations that need never have involved violence." And police have received training in the use of that equipment that goes contrary to the training they'd previously had in community policing.

Sadly, one of the factors making things worse are the police unions. Bob Kroll, head of Minneapolis's police union criticizes the community policing approach like this, "Certainly cops, it's not in their nature. So you're training them to back away. And it's just not a natural."

You know what else isn't "natural"? It's not natural for a 200lb man to kneel on another man's neck for over eight minutes and expect him to live, or for his three colleagues to stand by and watch.

So, back to theme of this blog. What can we, as nonprofit leaders, do today? We can truly listen to those who we claim to serve. We can elevate their voices where and when we can. We can add our voices as needed (and never loud enough to cover theirs). We can admit our privilege (be it white, Christian, CIS, male, or whatever the source or sources).

But whatever else, what we can do, what we should do, what we must do, is to take action.

"We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented... Wherever men and women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must - at that moment - become the center of the universe." - Elie Wiesel

"Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

Guidelines and Sample Policy on Nonprofit Political Activity

In these contentious political times, those of us in the social services field may feel the need to be more vocal about policies that effect our clients and our missions, while simultaneously facing pressure to "not rock the boat" or be controversial.

Perhaps you have board members who (wrongly) believe that nonprofits cannot play any role in politics, and don't want you to take a stand on those very questions where your voice is most needed to be heard.

With mid-term elections barely six weeks out, the organization where I've been the Executive Director for the last 3-1/2 years has been asked to put our name in support of a couple of local ballot initiatives. To explain the law and put my board at ease, I have gone through several sources to put together the following guidelines and policy for engaging in political activity.

Please feel free to borrow and adapt this policy for use in your organization.

Policy and Guidelines for Political Activities

[THIS ORGANIZATION] encourages all of its board, staff, volunteers, and clients to be active and informed citizens, and supports the individual capacity of all to execute their prerogatives as citizens.

However, as a nonprofit corporation whose activities are regulated in part by Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, the Organization is prohibited from participating in political campaigns for candidates and is restricted in conducting certain lobbying activities. This does not restrict [THIS ORGANIZATION] from taking part in limited issue advocacy related to our mission, except in regards to spending limits for lobbying activities.

Violation of IRS regulations could have serious ramifications for the Organization, including loss of its tax-exempt status. Therefore, we provide these guidelines on the permitted use and restrictions of [THIS ORGANIZATION]'s resources for politically related activity by its board, staff, and volunteers.

These guidelines cannot address every potential situation. [THIS ORGANIZATION] reserves the right to amend or modify these guidelines at its discretion or as it deems necessary to comply with the regulations governing political activities of 501(c)(3) entities.

Allowable Activities:

Endorsing Ballot Measures

Ballot measure advocacy is an attempt to influence the passage or defeat of a law or constitutional amendment - not the election or defeat of a candidate. 501(c)(3) organizations are free to takes sides on ballot measures as a lobbying activity, subject to normal limits on lobbying. Ballot measure advocacy is a first amendment issue, not a matter of tax law. Any organization or individual is free to express their opinion for or against a proposed law or constitutional amendment.

As a 501(c)(3) organization that does not file the 501(h) form, [THIS ORGANIZATION]'s activity in this regard falls under the "insubstantial part test," meaning that [THIS ORGANIZATION] may only spend an "insubstantial" amount of money on lobbying efforts. "Insubstantial" is generally assumed to be 3-5% of annual spending. Any costs associated with endorsing or advocating for ballot measures, including related staff time, must fall under this threshold.

[THIS ORGANIZATION] chooses to only endorse and promote those ballot initiatives and proposals which are directly related to its mission and to the benefit of our clients. These would include, but not be limited to, initiatives related to [LIST KEY TOPICS RELATED TO YOUR MISSION].

The Executive Director is empowered to add [THIS ORGANIZATION]'s name and logo to any "sign-on letter" in favor of a ballot measure meeting the above criteria and initiated by a nonprofit partner or nonprofit coalition of which [THIS ORGANIZATION] is a part.

The Executive Director will bring all other endorsements, and any lobbying activity that will incur any expenses, to the Board of Directors for approval before signing or taking any action. If a timely endorsement is required before the next regularly scheduled Board meeting, unanimous approval by the Board officers (President, Vice President, Secretary, and Treasurer) will suffice.

Promoting Voting

Nonprofit organizations classified as 501(c)(3) public charities may conduct nonpartisan "get-out-the-vote" activities and voter registration without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status. It is a legitimate charitable activity to support voter engagement and educate the public about the importance of voting.

[THIS ORGANIZATION] encourages all Board, staff, and volunteers to participate in all elections. We especially uphold and encourage the right of our clients, and all marginalized populations, to take an active role in our democracy. [THIS ORGANIZATION]'s staff may distribute voter registration materials and/or non-partisan voter information guides to clients, and/or allow other organizations to conduct nonpartisan voter registration and get-out-the-vote activities within the program site.

In these ways, [THIS ORGANIZATION] affirms its commitment to the "Vote with Your Mission" campaign of CalNonprofits. More information on this initiative can be found at calnonprofits.org/programs/voteyourmission

Running for Office

Board Members and staff may decide to run for public office while associated with [THIS ORGANIZATION], as is their right. To ensure compliance with IRS regulations and Organization policy, including conflict of interest and/or a conflict of commitment, a plan to manage potential conflicts must be established upon declaration of candidacy.

Plans must ensure that other Board Members and staff do not experience a compromised work environment or feel pressure to comply with the political goals of candidates.

An employee intending to seek public office must inform his/her supervisor and the Executive Director to develop a plan to avoid conflicts of interest. It is requested that this notification come as soon as the employee is considering becoming a candidate, but, in all cases, notification must be made no later than upon declaring candidacy.

In any case, the Board or staff member running for office may not solicit or accept funds or contributions for campaigns (their own or someone else's) from donors identified through donor rolls or other [THIS ORGANIZATION] records or directories.

Appearances by Candidates

Candidates for public office or their designees are welcome to appear at the program site or [THIS ORGANIZATION]'s sponsored events for non-campaign related activities, such as an educational or informational talk to [THIS ORGANIZATION], our clients, or our supporters.

Such appearances must satisfy the following criteria:

* The individual(s) is/are chosen to speak for reasons other than candidacy for public office.

* The individual speaks in a non-candidate capacity.

* The event and organization maintains a nonpartisan atmosphere.

* No specific organized campaigning activity occurs in connection with the event.

* The event involving a candidate should not be dictated by, or put under the control of, a candidate, their representatives, or any outside organization.

In no case shall [THIS ORGANIZATION] organize an event for the sole purpose of the promotion of a single candidate for any office.

Non-Allowable Activities:

Endorsing Candidates

[This Organization] will not endorse or promote individual candidates or political parties in any election, at any level of government, or take part in any form of partisan political activity.

Substantial Lobbying

While we affirm our free speech rights to engage in nonpartisan issue advocacy, such as endorsing ballot initiatives and engaging in get-out-the-vote activities, we recognize that as a 501(c)(3) organization that does not file form 501(h), [THIS ORGANIZATION] may only spend an "insubstantial" amount of money on such activities that may be interpreted as lobbying.

"Insubstantial" is generally assumed to be 3-5% of annual spending. Any costs associated with any such activities, including related staff time, must fall under this threshold on an annual, Fiscal Year, basis.

-->

The FCC is Coming After YOUR Nonprofit!

I'm not sure how closely any of you have been following the legal battles over "net neutrality" but the FCC has issued new (draft) rules that would effectively kill it (along with the ability of most nonprofits to use the web as an inexpensive communications strategy), all while wrapping itself up in the language of net neutrality.

Net neutrality is the concept that all content traffic on the web should be treated equally, and that ISPs (the companies you purchase your internet access from, like Comcast, Verizon, etc.) can't pick and choose which content you access (as long as it's legal), or send you one website at a quicker download speed than another.

Net neutrality is why your website should load in a browser at the same speed as Facebook (taking into account that large photos or videos take longer than text). Net neutrality is how start-ups compete with the established net giants, like Google, Yahoo, Facebook, and Amazon. Net neutrality is the even playing field that gives all information and ideas a fair chance at finding an audience.

The new proposed rules from the FCC would allow ISPs to set up "fast lanes" for those content providers who can pay them the extra fees (the established net biggies), and put all other internet traffic into the slow lane, stifling conversation and innovation along with it.

Guess which lane most nonprofits will find themselves in (unless we each find a generous benefactor who will pay off all the ISPs for us)?

Bottom line for nonprofits: If this proposal is accepted, and these rules go into effect, it could be much harder (and much more expensive) for us to communicate with the public about our missions and the good work we do. If our sites load at 1996 speeds, donors, volunteers, and others interested in learning about our missions will not be very motivated to stick with us long enough for our homepage to load.

Here's a great article that explains what's happening, and what the dangers are (click here).

And here's a petition that you may sign onto (click here).

Remember, as nonprofits you have to be careful about endorsing particular candidates and parties, but you are allowed to inform, educate, and take part in public policy debates that effect your mission or your ability to do your work.

(NOTE: The final language of the proposed rules will be released at the FCC meeting on May 15. That will begin the official public comment period before the rules are formally adopted. Public comment will be at least 30 days, likely longer. Petitions and letters now are still helpful and may influence the draft that is coming on May 15.)