Principles in tension

You are the executive director of a nonprofit, “Puzzle Piece”, that has a mission to help adults who self-identify as having autism integrate into the workplace and participate in social organizations that help keep these adults self supporting and functional in daily life. One of your national board members has introduced you to an independent fundraising professional who says that for a nominal fundraising contract, she has a donor looking for a worthy recipient whose mission revolves around autism. The potential donor is a founder of an alternative currency competing with Bit Coin. The donor has stated that he will donate up to $5 million up front, with equity interest in his innovative currency platform annually thereafter, to an autism organization that will run a series of public service announcements about available autism resources, at least one of which must feature the donor’s adult child. As executive director, how do you proceed with this introduction that has been made? How do you handle the board member? Potential donor? Your own in-house fundraising staff? Your marketing team? Are there identifiable conflicts of interest, and if so, how do you proceed? Answering: As the Executive Director of Puzzle Piece, the organization is thankful for the possibility of this generous $5M gift. We would approach the decision on whether or not to accept this gift from a duty perspective. Our first responsibility is to the organization and stakeholders, and maintaining our mission “to help adults who self-identify as having autism integrate into the workplace and participate in social organizations that help keep these adults self supporting and functional in daily life.” We would also start by meeting with the independent fundraising professional who has brought this proposal to our organization so that she may provide more background information on the donor himself, as well as his expectations. We would inform our in-house fundraising staff so they may fully vet the donor using their existing databases and research tools. We would invite the fundraiser to meet with our board so that they are fully informed as well. After this meeting, we would discuss with the board whether or not it is within our policy to form a relationship with an outside for fee fundraiser. Based on the information provided, we believe that IS 32 would be in tension as it states that “a charitable organization should not compensate internal or external fundraisers based on a commission or a percentage of the amount raised” (Independent Sector, 2015, p.42) and would request the fee being charged by the external fundraiser be waived. If the board agrees to move forward, we will need to confirm if there is no conflict of interest with the board member and the donor as we believe in being as transparent as possible. Dependent on if there was a positive outcome of said meetings this would be when we inform the remainder of our staff and volunteers. We agree with group 6 that principle 30 would be in tension as we believe that accepting this major gift with the donors current stipulations will take away from the programs focus. As Tempel states, “we cannot allow our search for funds to compromise important missions or feel pressure to solicit gifts or accept funds that may be tainted” (Pettey, 2013, p. 91). We also agree with group 6 that with the current stipulations tied to the donor request, IS 3 would be in tension as the donor is requiring the use of his son in the PSA which is a conflict of interest. Principle 28 is also in tension as “before accepting a gift, the organization should review whether the gift is consistent with the organization’s gift acceptance policy and should ascertain whether the donor has stipulated any specific terms for the use of the gift. If the organization will be unable or unwilling to comply with any of the terms requested by a donor, it should negotiate any necessary changes prior to concluding the transaction” (Independent Sector, 2015, p.39). In reviewing all of the stipulations from the donor, we do not believe it would be prudent to accept this gift as there are too many requirements that do not align with our organizations policies. We believe that “organizations should resist undue influence of donors over the organization’s programs and activities” (Pg. 42, Grobman) and that in this case the donor would not be a good fit. Analytical Framework: 1.What is the organizational context you sit in and your role vis-à-vis that organization? The organizational context we sit in is the role of the Executive Director of Puzzle Piece. 2.What stakeholders are impacted by the ethical dilemma posed and how? Board of Directors, employees, volunteers, program recipients, and the public. 3.What are the principles in tension? IS Principles 3, 22, 30 and 32. 4.Which principle or stakeholder will you prioritize over another? We will prioritize Principle 30 and our program recipients as they would be the most affected if the donation is successful, and if it turns out to be tainted. 5.How best to execute a decision as to an ethical course of action? We would have our Board of Directors and our in-house fundraising staff vet the donor and the requirements. Whie the $5M donation would obviously be very helpful in accomplishing our mission, we would not agree to the donation with its current requirements. We would try to negotiate an amenable agreement in which all parties involved are satisfied so that our ethics are not in question and we can be completely transparent.                                                                                                                                                                                                      

Sample Solution