Ken Goldstein (aka kenrg)

Each election year there are a variety of websites that claim to match you with your perfect candidate for President. This year, one which has done a pretty good job of it is I Side With... (.com). I Side With... uses a wide-ranging questionnaire to determine your politics. In some categories you can expand beyond the basic questions to give additional information.

Once your survey is complete, you are shown how close your views are to those of each of the declared candidates. Here are my current results:

It seems apt that the final weekend before 2011 tax returns are due should start with Friday the 13th. I completed our returns and filed electronically last month, although I didn't mail the required checks until this past Monday (no refund here).

Back in January, I wrote about Mitt Romney's 15% effective tax rate. Around the same time, in the Statue of the Union Address, President Obama also talked about how wrong it is that millionaires should pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries, or teachers, policemen, or other middle-income earners. To illustrate the point, Warren Buffett's secretary was sitting with the First Lady in the audience.

"The Buffett Rule" was introduced to correct this, with the simple premise that those with over $1 million in annual income shouldn't pay a lower tax rate than middle-class families. To promote passage of the Buffett Rule, the White House has posted a "Buffett Rule Calculator" - just plug in your income and your taxes, and see how many millionaires pay less than you do!

So, how did I do (actually, for my wife and I, filing jointly)? After deductions, we had an effective tax rate of 17% - higher than 37,600 millionaires. Some of our income is taxed at the 25% bracket, but our over-all effective rate is 17% thanks to some generous deductions, primarily the home mortgage interest deduction.

That deduction alone reduced our income by nearly 14% and had a dollar value greater than a full time job at the federal minimum wage. Think about that for a moment. We are not rich by any stretch, and are frankly going through some lean times. Even so, we write off from our income more than many people earn.

With the rich dodging taxes above, and the working poor struggling with a sub-standard minimum wage below, the gap is getting wider. The Buffett Rule is a small, symbolic step, and I support it, but it's just the tip of the iceberg in getting our economy working for everybody again.

(Tell your Senators to vote for the Buffett Rule by clicking here...)

As I write this posting, I have 324 friends on Facebook. But, considering it's an election year, and I tend to be quite open with my strong opinions on things political, the folks over at the Pew Internet Project would like to warn me that I can expect to have only 262 Facebook friends by November 7.

That's because 9% of users of social networking sites "have blocked, unfriended or hidden someone because they posted something about politics or issues that the user disagreed with or found offensive," and another 10% of those on Twitter and Facebook, "have blocked, unfriended or hidden someone because they post too frequently on politics."

I don't believe I would ever fall into the second group; de-friending just because the person likes to talk about politics. I would also never de-friend simply because I disagree with the person's politics. If that were true, I'd have long ago dumped several of my Facebook circle who post daily reminders of why they're voting for Newt Gingrich or Ron Paul. (Thankfully, I don't have any Rick Santorum voters in my circles. Or, maybe I did, but they already dumped my liberal ass? More likely, they're just too embarrassed to admit who they're voting for in public.)

Actually, I quite like seeing posts on my newsfeed from all over the political spectrum. I enjoy reading things from different points of view, even when I find them dangerously stupid. Of course, I try to be polite in my commenting, and not just come right out and tell them they're being stupid. And I'm usually successful at that.

And then there have been times when I'm afraid I've gone too far in my commenting, and been surprised when the person was still on my friends list the next morning. I'd like to take this moment here to thank them for that (you know who you are).

But the "found offensive" thing... I'd like to say that I'm not easily offended, and that I have a high tolerance for questionable humor. But there are some areas where I have to draw the line.

If I find your ideas politically offensive (see example)  I will argue with you, but I will not be the one to click the "unfriend" button. I will also remain your friend, no matter how pious, self-righteous, and pig-headed you are in declaring your beliefs to be morally, ethically, or intellectually superior to mine (I've done a bit of grandstanding myself, this post included).

But, if you resort to overt racism or sexism or other hate speech to try and make your point, where you have no legitimate point to begin with, I will remove you from my view. That's it. You've been warned.

Now, the Pew study has a bright side too. Although I may lose up to 19% of my friends for either being too political (10%), or just not the right type of political (9%), they also point out that 16% of users have "followed or friended someone because that person shared the user’s political views."

So, my net loss may only be 3%, dropping me from 324 to 314. But it will be a much more civilized and intelligent 314. I'm looking forward to that.

Thanks to pressure from a few Republican leaders and the loss of at least half-a-dozen sponsors, Rush Limbaugh has issued an apology to Sandra Fluke for calling her a "slut" and a "prostitute." And, in that apology, manages to once again ignore the point of her testimony before Congress, lie about the purpose of the hearing, and make her out to be a self-absorbed sexual adventurer.

"I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke," Rush's apology states, after three days of on-air attacks that included the above remarks, as well as repeatedly stating that she is "having so much sex she can't pay for her birth control," and suggesting that if she's going to force others to pay for her sexual activities she should videotape them and post them online for us all to see.

The "apology" continues:

I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities.

• Ms. Fluke's testimony had nothing whatsoever to do with her sex life. She was speaking on behalf of a friend who lost an ovary. The friend had been prescribed birth control pills to help control ovarian cysts, but because her health insurance did not cover "contraception" she could not take the medication, and she lost the ovary. Yes, "birth control" is prescribed for a number of reasons beyond the desire for "guiltless sex."
• The hearing was not about whether or not American citizens should pay for the "sexual recreation" of others. The topic before Congress last week was whether or not private employers should be allowed "moral exemptions" from new requirements that birth control be included under preventive health care coverage. As stated, this is not about "sexual recreation," it's about family planning and access to prescriptions for a number of health concerns.
• Rush repeatedly suggested that if somebody has trouble affording birth control pills, it must be related to the amount of sexual activity they are having. I have trouble believing that a man over 60, who has had four wives, does not know how the pill works, but one takes the same number of pills, regardless of how often they have sex, or how many partners they have, or whether they are a single college student or a married person.

Today is Rare Disease Day 2012! Who knew there was a special day set aside just for talking about rare diseases? I only just found out about it minutes ago, and just in time to celebrate.

In honor of Rare Disease Day, I decided to check out the Rare Disease Database to make sure my rare disease was listed... and it is! Gilbert Syndrome's listing is there, and fairly accurate:

Gilbert syndrome is a mild genetic liver disorder in which the body cannot properly process bilirubin, a yellowish waste product that is formed when the liver breaks down old or worn out red blood cells (hemolysis). Individuals with Gilbert syndrome have elevated levels of bilirubin (hyperbilirubinemia), which occurs because they have a reduced level of a specific liver enzyme required for elimination of bilirubin. ... Bilirubin levels may increase following stress, exertion, dehydration, alcohol consumption, fasting, and/or infection.

We Americans love to declare war on whatever social problem we feel is of vital importance - and sometimes we assume that our political nemesis has declared the war on us. At any given time, depending on who you ask, any number of wars may be raging. From the religious right's point of view, one of those is the War on Christianity. From the progressive left's point of view, a big one is the War on Women's Health.

Over the last couple of weeks we've watched as these two wars met head on following the Obama administration's refusal to grant religious employers an exemption to new rules requiring that health insurance plans include coverage for birth control and other reproductive health services. When we talk about religious employers here, we're mostly referring to nonprofit social service organizations, universities, and hospitals: organizations that serve the general public (not just co-religionists), and who employ people of all faiths and beliefs.

To the right, this is a violation of these groups' (primarily Catholic) fundamental right to religious freedom, by forcing them to pay for a product (contraception at a minimum, abortion at the extreme) that goes against their beliefs.

To the left, the denial of this coverage violates the employee's (mostly women) access to a full range of health care options, and forces them to abide by their employer's religious restrictions - whether or not they are of the same religion.

Whose rights are more important? The employee's rights to make their own private health care decisions with their doctor's advice, or the employer's rights to not have to support practices they don't believe in?

I believe that the employee's rights have to win out. Not only for the access to care, but also for the right to privacy. Under HIPPA, we all have the right to privacy regarding our medical records, including not having to share our health care decisions with our employer.

But the employer is paying for it, right? Well, let's take a look at that a little closer. Those against the administration's decision are saying that religious organizations will "be forced to pay for contraception and abortions." But that's simply not true. Employers pay for health insurance only. What the employee does with that health insurance is their own business.

Saying that the employer has the right to dictate health care choices made by an employee is the same as saying the employer has the right to dictate what the employee may or may not purchase with their paycheck.

Do you need to ask your boss permission before making any purchases for your home? It's the employer's money after all, isn't it? Of course not! Once they pay you, it's your money, and your decision how it's spent.

Same with health insurance. Once the employer purchases it - as part of your compensation package for your labor - what you do with it is between you and your doctor only. At least, it should be that way.

Unfortunately, this being an election year, too much will be made of this perfectly reasonable decision by the administration, and they may be forced into a compromise position. While the compromise may temporarily appease those on the religious right, it will certainly be a set-back for women's access to health, and blow to privacy for us all.

Media watchdog organization, Reporters Without Borders, has just released their World Press Freedom Index - a tracking of several indicators of press freedom - and the United Sates has fallen 27 points since their last survey; from #20 to #47. That puts us behind Slovakia, El Salvador, and Ghana, but still (slightly) ahead of Latvia and Haiti.

Much of the reason for the sharp drop this year is attributed to local over-reaction to the Occupy movement, with mayors and police chiefs nationwide having journalists carried away along with demonstrators. The great irony in all this is that American journalists now have greater freedom in covering protests overseas than they do at home.

But beyond last fall's local yahoos trying to make their city streets safe for holiday shoppers, the crackdown on a free press in America continued yesterday in Washington, DC, at a hearing of the House Science Committee, where Oscar-nominated documentary director, Josh Fox, was arrested for trying to film part of the hearing:

Today marks the second anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, which unleashed unlimited spending by corporate "persons" to influence our elections. We saw some of the effect of this in the 2010 mid-term elections, and we're seeing it already this year in the wildly expensive and nasty fight for the Republican nomination. But, while Citizens United expanded the concepts of corporations as legal persons and money as speech, it didn't start there.

It actually started about 125 years ago with the case of Southern Pacific Railroad v. Santa Clara County. In that decision, the court held that the railroad corporation was entitled to rights under the 14th Amendment. Many cases between Southern Pacific and Citizens United have further expanded the concept of corporate rights and personhood, often at the expense of human citizens.

But the humans have not given up hope, and have begun to fight back. Move to Amend is an organization trying to pass an Amendment to the Constitution that would clearly state that corporations are not people, and money is not speech. Yesterday, they held rallies across the country themed as "Occupy the Courts" aimed at overturning Citizens United and educating people on the need for a Constitutional amendment.

I attended in San Jose, where our rally took place in Saint James Park, across the street from the very courthouse where the Southern Pacific case began 125 years ago. There were a few speakers, including a city councilman and a woman who was fired from Walmart for being a whistle-blower, followed by a skit of "campaign speeches" from a robot representing different corporations. We then marched through town, past the Federal office building, and ending for second, smaller, rally in front of City Hall.

At its height, there were maybe a couple hundred of us. Not too large, but a good sized group for a rainy weekday. But where was the media? I saw only a couple of people who seemed to be taking notes or a few professional photos, but no TV crews. The Move to Amend folks are going to need to get much better at PR if this movement is to take off.

Passing a new amendment to the Constitution may be difficult, but is not impossible, and the stakes could not be higher. While there has always been an undue influence of money in our political process, Citizens United amplifies it hundreds of times over. Corporations are now able to give untraceable millions to SuperPACs that are not bound by any of the controls or limits that we've placed on candidates or individuals. They can say pretty much anything and will drown out the voice of We the People.

We have to make it clear to our leaders, and to the corporate interests that fund them, that democracy is for us human citizens only, and is no longer for sale to the highest bidder. One person, one voice, one vote.

This week Mitt Romney let slip the real reason why he's reluctant to divulge his tax returns. It's not how much money he earns that he's hiding - we're all aware that it's a considerable sum - it's the tax rate he pays on that income that is controversial.

Because Mitt's income is mostly from investment earnings, he pays the capital gains rate of 15% on his millions rather than the current top marginal rate for wages of 35%, or even the average middle-class top marginal rate of 25%. This has left his supporters to explain why this very wealthy man should pay a lower tax rate than most middle-class Americans.

Capital gains, we are told, are very special because of the risks involved. Not every investment pays off, after all. Very true. But, of course, that's why losing investments can be written off as business expenses and deducted from one's over-all income, reducing one's taxes. So, why, when an investment is successful should it be taxed differently than regular employment income?

Well, 15% of $1,000,000 is still more than 25% of $75,000! Kinda like how, if you buy in bulk at Costco, you get a lower price on food. That's fair, right? Well, in as far as that analogy does hold water, the tax code already has provisions for the "bulk buyer" (IE: additional children = additional deductions). In my case, my home (modest by CA standards, but expensive by national standards) gives me quite a mortgage interest deduction. Add that to my business and other expenses and I probably deduct as much from my income than a minimum wage worker earns in a year.

But on the taxable portion (after deductions), I gladly pay a rate that's somewhat higher than the minimum wage worker because of my relative success. And somebody who earns 10-20 times what I do should pay a little higher yet. Certainly no less a percentage. So, why so much lower?

Well, they say, the rich need an incentive to invest. Why bother if your earnings after taxes will barely keep up with inflation? When I hear this argument I always have to reply that I don't think the rich are as lazy as you think they are. I have faith in their entrepreneurial drive that they'd still invest, create, and build, even if capital gains were taxed as regular income. As long as the tax rate is below 100% any gains are still better than a mattress full of cash (and, no, I'm not suggesting a 100% tax).

If you buy that "incentive to beat inflation" argument, then people should be turning down C-level jobs that hit the 35% marginal rate, and even middle-management positions in the 25% range, and all the MBAs would be looking to work in mail rooms. It turns out, however, people prefer to have 65% of $500,000 over having 75% of $75,000. So, why does investment income require a tax rate so much lower than income from labor?

Gosh! You're just envious! After all, everybody has the opportunity to invest and get the tax benefits of capital gains! Well, perhaps we do have that opportunity, but not to the same extent. According to the Washington Post, "The 400 richest taxpayers in 2008 counted 60 percent of their income in the form of capital gains and 8 percent from salary and wages. The rest of the country reported 5 percent in capital gains and 72 percent in salary." When you defend 400 out of 312,877,450 with "everybody can do it," it's more than a bit of a stretch.

Here's the thing about all this in relation to Willard Mittens Romney: the millions he makes each year from capital gains are not even from investing his own money. There is no risk involved. Mitt's millions are part of his retirement agreement with Bain Capital. Every year he gets a nice slice of Bain's profits, even though he hasn't worked there in 13 years.

Of course, while most of his income comes from Bain and other capital gains, Mitt does work part-time as a public speaker. He describes his income from speaking fees as "not very much." It's actually $374,000/year. As a point of reference, $380,000 is the cut-off point for being in the top 1% of earners.

Capital gains have not always been taxed as low as 15%. This rate is the result of tax cuts (from both GW Bush and Clinton) that were supposed to inspire and encourage the wealthy to invest more, thus creating new jobs. As you can see, that plan didn't quite work out.

Many Republicans are now pushing for a new rate on capital gains: 0%. Romney, in his defense, is not one of them (although he does have other tax cuts in his plan). But if Newt Gingrich is elected, Mitt's tax bill will fall to nearly nothing.

So, please, remind me again, why are capital gains taxed so much lower than income from actually working for a living?

I've been playing around with the idea of publishing some ebooks of various material I've written over the years, and the first result of that experiment is now available for Nooks, iPads, Kindles, and most any other device you might have: A Bottomless Cup of Coffee (Short Stories).

I've self published before - several of the stories in A Bottomless Cup originally appeared in the print collection, Aaron’s Intifada and Other Short Stories (still available on Amazon.com), and my Introduction to Fund Development Planning continues to sell (available on Amazon.com as well) - but I've not done any eBook specific projects, which is odd considering how involved I've been with social media and online content creation.

Anyway, I'm now entering the eBook age, and hopefully this is just the first of many projects. If you want to check out the new eBook, it's yours for about two bucks at:

• Amazon.com (for Kindle)
• Apple iBookstore (iBooks on iPad/Pod/Phone)
• Barnes & Noble.com (for Nook)
• Lulu.com (ePub, various readers)

News from Portland is that the parks have been cleared of all OWS protesters. Closer to home, efforts have been made in Oakland and Santa Cruz to end, or severely curtail, the extent of encampments and daily protests. In the online world it is in current fashion to write Occupy Obituaries, with a general theme of "enough is enough," repeating some popular myths about the movement, and be done with all this protesting nonsense before the holiday shopping season. So, here's my attempt at summing up a few points.

1 - "Enough Already" - Of course, the far right, tea party crowd never supported OWS, but this last week I've seen many posts from people who describe themselves as (at least somewhat) liberal echoing that they're bored of OWS, sick of seeing/hearing about the protesters, worried about conditions in the camps (see #5), and "most important", concerned about the cost to the taxpayers for law enforcement and park clean-up.

While I understand and appreciate each of those concerns, none of them rises to the level where a repeal of the Bill of Rights seems to be necessary. There's nothing in the First Amendment that limits "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" only to when it's convenient for commuters, good for business, in the budget, or when it's sunny outside.

I've not been very active in OWS, but I have spent some time at Occupy Santa Cruz (attended a couple of General Assemblies, took part in protesting, brought food and supplies to the campers). I am also a tax payer and I protest because I pay more in federal taxes than General Electric, PG&E, Dupont, Wells Fargo, and Verizon ... combined.

Is there a cost to the taxpayer (me!) for exercising our right to free speech? Yes. Of course there is. Just as there is a huge cost for elections, multiple branches of government, etc. Democracy and freedom are far more expensive than dictatorship, and generally worth the investment. Freedom is not cost effective, but I'll take it anyway.

And I really don't care if you preface your posting with "I supported them for a while, but..." Whether or not the protests are well organized, whether they have fifty million or only a single supporter, whether or not you've reached the end of you're limited attention span doesn't much matter. Either you support freedom of speech or you don't. You don't get to pick and choose the voice, the time, or the place.

2 - "Get a Job!" - Much of the criticism from the right, that the bench-warmers on the left now seem to have accepted is that the occupiers are all unemployed, on the public dole, and just looking for a hand-out. I can't speak for other cities, but in talking to people at Occupy Santa Cruz I've been surprised by how many of the key people are employed full-time. And not just among the day-time protesters, but even those camping out are packing up at 6 AM, running home for a quick shower, and then going to work before returning the camp in the evening.

The occupiers I've spoken with include lawyers, high-tech engineers, and other "respectable" sorts. Yes, there are people there who are victims of the economic downturn, who have lost their jobs, homes, health care, etc., but they are not the total occupy population.

3 - "Get a Message" - As much as people are repeating the mainstream media's contention that the OWS protesters have no message, I find it hard to believe that there's anybody outside of Fox News who doesn't know that this is about economic injustice, from the ponzi scheme that led to the foreclosure crisis, to the bailing out of the very banks that profited from that ponzi scheme, to Congress' inaction on any comprehensive jobs bill, to the Supreme Court's declaration that corporations are people.

Considering the lack of centralized leadership (see #4) or the engagement of a national PR firm, there's remarkable unity in this message across all the occupations, and coordination of imagery/branding. Yes, there's other complaints being voiced, but the overall theme of economic injustice has been clear.

Others admit that the message is clear, but follow up quickly with, "Complaining is easy, give us solutions." I agree, it's easy to say the outhouse stinks, but tearing it down before installing modern plumbing is a bad idea. Looking back at that First Amendment again, however, I don't see that the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances is limited to those who have ready solutions.

Meanwhile, looking at the signs of protesters I see that they are offering some ideas, whether required or not, including closing tax loopholes and ending corporate welfare, a Constitutional Amendment reversing the Citizens United decision, forgiveness of student loans, prosecution of those responsible for the foreclosure scandal, the passage of a comprehensive jobs bill, and much more.

(And, going back to #2 and the idea that the protesters are all just looking for something for nothing, the only one of the above demands that comes close to that is student loan forgiveness. Most of the protesters are willing to pay their fare share; they only want the same from the corporations and for their government to put people first.)

4 - "Get a Leader" - One of the most frustrating things for the mass media has been the lack of a single person, already in their contacts list, who they can call for comment. This "everybody's a leader" has been great in getting more people involved, amusing to watch the press attempt to navigate, as well as frustrating to those of us in General Assemblies who lack the patience to herd cats for even the most basic and simple decisions.

But beyond being a symbol of the desire for true democracy and consensus, the distributed leadership has been one of the messages of OWS. Distrust of leadership - any leadership - is such an inescapable symptom of our current global political crisis, that OWS protesters rejected any form of hierarchy, even when it would have benefited them.

The right also recognizes and feeds on this distrust of self-appointed leaders. The irony is that the Tea Party protests have been largely funded by the Koch Brothers, and that two of the largest Tea Party groups are suing each other over trademarks and (more vital and valuable) mailing lists. The right's answer to distrust of leaders has been pure astro-turf and deception.

As messy as some Occupy meetings have been, at least it was authentic. But, to move forward, the movement will have to develop some form of leadership, as distasteful as many may find that to be.

5 - "We're Concerned for their Health & Safety" - Yes, it's a concern when you have a few hundred people camping out with a couple of port-o-potties and no showers. But it's their choice. This "we have to clear them out for their own good" argument would have been more effective if the first several times I heard it wasn't from people who opposed health care reform and want to dismantle the EPA and OSHA.

There's much more to write about the Occupy movement, and I'm sure there will be ample opportunity to do so in the future. Yes, there have been problems with the way the occupations have been handled, some of which have kept me from becoming more personally involved, but on the whole I still believe they have been a good thing.

While many of the camps have been cleared for now, I don't believe this is over by a long shot. Lessons will be learned, leadership will be developed, and the people will not politely go inside and be quiet.

By now you know the story: In 2002 a graduate student at Penn State witnessed an assistant coach sodomizing a young boy in the showers. He tried to report it to university authorities and was given the run-around. Now, nine years later, that assistant coach is finally facing charges of molesting several boys over a 15 year period. Also charged are a couple of the university officials who led the cover-up.

Two officials who were aware of the accusations and did nothing, but are not currently under arrest, include legendary football coach Joe Paterno and Penn State president Graham Spanier. Well, make that former coach Paterno and former president Spanier; the Board of Trustees canned them each last night for their failure to protect children from the sexual predator they knew was on their staff.

That should be the end of the story. Justice served. Far later than it should have been, but the right thing to do.

But no. In America we pretend to care about child abuse. But apparently we care about winning football games even more.

Shortly after the news of Peterno's firing was announced, riots broke out on the Penn State campus protesting the actions of the trustees. Preserving the legend of beloved "JoePa," it seems, is more important than any little boys who make have been robbed of their innocence and youth.

Paterno now says (in his prepared statement), "With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more." Is that the hindsight that by protecting his former heir apparent many more children were abused, or the hindsight that it would end his career in disgrace? I fear it's only the second that motivated that minor bit of remorse.

The coaches and officials at Penn State are not alone in their quiet dismissal of societal condemnation of abusing and raping children. Another major story this last week was the release of a video showing a Texas judge brutally whipping his teenage daughter.

One would think that the judge would have no supporters, but up steps a former English Headmaster to reminisce about the good old days of beating children for a living. While he faults the judge for having acted out of anger, instead of calmly and dispassionately beating his child, this headmaster has no regrets and offers no apologies, "I was merely doing my job in upholding the discipline of the school."

Sure, protecting children is important. But not when it interferes with maintaining order or winning football games. We are Penn State. Go Team!

Way back in 2002, Congress passed the bi-partisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly referred to as McCain–Feingold in reference to its primary sponsors. One of the provisions of McCain–Feingold prohibited corporations (for-profit, nonprofit, unions, etc.) from broadcasting “electioneering communications” either for or against a particular candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary.

Last year (January 2010), the Supreme Court struck down that provision in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission on the grounds that it violated their first amendment rights to free speech. While there have been many laws and court decisions over the years that have treated corporations like people or citizens, Citizens United was never-the-less a landmark in overtly saying that the protections of the Bill of the Rights are explicitly applied to corporations as well as people.

Justice Stevens, in his dissenting opinion, wrote:

At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding... It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense.

I have been having many conversations with friends the last few weeks about the Occupy Wall Street Movement, and have been down to take part in Occupy Santa Cruz for a few hours at a time on a couple of occasions, so it seems fitting I should finally post something here as well.

Part of what I have found surprising is that some of the friends who I would have expected to be the most supportive of this movement have been the most skeptical of it, while I see support coming from a few unlikely quarters.

Some of my associates who have been with me through a few decades of protests, from the anti-nuclear movement to trying to prevent and/or end a few wars, are impatient with the "start-up phase" and distrustful of some of the younger leaders of the Occupations. But what gives me hope is the support from people who've never been a part of any mass movement, but who are now ready to take a stand.

I find myself frustrated with those who have bought the mainstream media line that "there's no message." Spend any amount of time at your local Occupation and it's quite clear that this is about economic justice. Within that theme, there are specifics around a fair tax code, re-regulation of the banks and bringing the crooks behind the foreclosure crisis to justice, and the end of corporate personhood.

But, even if it weren't that clear, what does anybody expect from a movement that's barely a month old? On top of that, a movement that's based on consensus and democracy, without clear pre-existing leadership? I'm actually pretty amazed at the success of the OWS movement so far, with over 1,000 local occupations in support of the original in NYC.

I feel the greatest success is simply that people are talking about the protests and economic justice. People have discovered that they are not alone; there are millions of us who are angry but are not represented by the tea partiers. And, they are willing to take to the streets to return democracy to the people.

The media would prefer that there be one spokesperson with whom they are already familiar and whose staff is already in their speed-dial. They don't like the messiness of consensus building among large groups. It takes time, and can be endlessly frustrating. But nobody promised that revolution would be easy or pretty.

Remember, it took the Continental Congress two years to get around to passing that Declaration of Independence. I'm willing to give the Occupy movement a few more months before being disappointed that they failed to change the world.

A couple of obligatory links:
* Who are "the 99%" who are protesting?
* Where can I find Occupy (My Town)?

You know,  the classics: "War is peace. Freedom is slavery." And today's favorite, "Tax cuts create jobs."

The right's answer to solving the nation's economic woes has for the last thirty years been the dictum that cutting taxes creates jobs which, in turn, increases revenue, thus decreasing the deficit. Maybe sometime when I have all day to get way into economics I'll do an extended blog post about the Laffer Curve, and it's misapplication by opportunists, but today let's keep it pretty basic.

Check the trajectory of our debt and job growth: The above theory has been empirically proven wrong again and again over the same thirty year period.

A few of the facts (not ideological theories, but observable, measurable events):

1. The Federal tax burden is at its lowest point in 60 years.
2. The debt exploded the most under Presidents Reagan and Bush (Jr.), the Presidents most closely associated with the above economic theory.
3. Job growth under George W. Bush, perhaps the strongest believer in "tax cuts create jobs" - even more so than Reagan - was the worst in 75 years, since Herbert Hoover and the start of the Great Depression.

Jim Harris was a computer consultant, a software developer & programmer, a teacher, a union organizer, president of a trade school, a gifted musician, and a social activist. It is in that last role that I became aware of Jim, soon after he and Pat Murphy co-founded Progressive Secretary in 1997.

Progressive Secretary was not the first organization to see the potential for using email and the net and what we now call "social media" to encourage activism, and bring people together for progressive causes (MoveOn.org had them beat by at least a year), but they were certainly early in the line.

And, for all the changes and advances in technology in the last fourteen years, Progressive Secretary has remained true to their original, simple concept:

Progressive Secretary sends out progressive email letters to Congress, the President, and other officials on peace, the environment, civil rights and other issues.

The letters are suggested by participants in the cooperative and are sent to you as a proposal. If you tell us to "send", then the letters are sent ... over your signature and return address.

It's early June, and today we're having record rains... So I stayed inside all afternoon and wrote and recorded a new song... Didn't intend for it to be so sappy. Sorry about that.

   50 to 50 by kenrg

50 to 50
© 2011 K.R. Goldstein

today it's hard to see through the rain
but I feel it coming around again
reviewing it all from way back when
and long-lost friends

the cast of characters come and go
some too fast and some to slow
only the rare have a chance to rust
turn to American dust

to those I've loved and those who cared
hold up high those times we dared
when all was lost and all was found
we held our ground

this next big day could turn the tide
of this long confusing ride
set the course for the final stretch
of this comic sketch

can't let all these aches and pains
tie me down with battleship chains
and if the wind blows it all away
refuse to fade away

(not fade away, not fade away, not fade away)

By now you've probably heard that Borders Books is entering bankruptcy and will be closing many of its stores. The two Borders outlets nearest me are both on the list to be axed. This blog post is not so much about Borders itself, but a comparison of the two towns that are losing the massive retailer.

On one side we have the beach-side college town of Santa Cruz, and on the other the Silicon Valley suburb of Los Gatos.

Santa Cruz is known for being on the funky side. The shops downtown cater to a younger, hipper audience. Walking down Pacific Avenue on any given day, you're likely to encounter several street musicians and even more homeless (or near-homeless) asking for handouts.

Los Gatos is known for being decidedly more upper-crust. The shops are high-end and expensive, and the restaurants compete with San Francisco for cutting-edge gourmet dining experiences. Only one homeless person at a time is allowed on North Santa Cruz Avenue (yes, Los Gatos' main drag is called "Santa Cruz").

Santa Cruz culture emphasizes the small, the local, the sustainable, the unique. Los Gatos also stresses unique and special, but is more open to corporate influence and its perceived worldliness. In Santa Cruz many of the shop windows have signs for the 3/50 Project - a nationwide campaign to get people to shop locally. I'm not sure I've ever seen 3/50 references in Los Gatos.

Santa Cruz has always been home to multiple bookstores, each with their own specialties and market niches. When Borders announced they were moving in, there were protests saying the chain store was neither needed nor welcome. Since Borders opened there's been some changes in the local book scene, but they never managed to supplant the major local players.

Borders was welcomed with open arms in Los Gatos, where, at the time, there were only two other bookstores: One locally-owned specialty mystery bookstore and one Crown Books discount book chain outlet. Shortly after Borders came, each of these closed. The Crown is now the Pier One Imports and the mystery book shop is now quite an excellent little restaurant.

The loss of Borders in Los Gatos means the closest thing to a bookstore will be going to the Apple Store and purchasing an iPad to read your iBooks. For as much emphasis as Los Gatos places on being a place of "culture" and refinement, the lack of a bookstore should be a major embarrassment. For a community that bases its overblown property values in a large part on the quality of its schools, the inability of the town's adults to support even one bookstore demonstrates where their real values are.

For Santa Cruz, the loss of Borders won't alter the town's voracious appetite for literature and learning in the least. The only concern for Santa Cruz will be such a large vacant space in a prominent location.

Is your community ready for the loss of Borders? What if the other large box retailers were to pull out of your town? Do you have any more local retailers left?

Support your local bookseller and read about the 3/50 Project before it's too late.

So, how have you been the past two months? It's hard to believe that my last post was a pre-election summary of ballot initiatives. I suppose following any election comes a bit of a let-down. Either my candidates lost, and that - of course - is depressing. Or, as happened recently, my candidates won, and given what they've got to work with, they can only disappoint and embarrass me. And that - of course - is depressing as well.

But November also brought news of exciting changes to come, and that is a large part of what has distracted me from my usual social media participation. After a long interview process and much discussion, I have been offered, and have accepted, the position of executive director at a local, Santa Cruz County nonprofit agency, effective January 3, 2011.

It is a wonderful agency, with excellent professional staff, a great board, and an incredible contingent of volunteers, and I am very much looking forward to getting started. Of course, it is also a bit bittersweet in that I will be giving up my consulting practice and "independent contractor" status.

The next distraction from blogging was, of course, the Thanksgiving holiday, around which time I was contacted by an old friend who said, "How about Pearl Harbor Day in Pearl Harbor?" I replied that he was crazy, it was barely two weeks out, and there was no time to plan, etc. He said he'd found some deals on airfare and hotels and I ran out of objections. So, on December 6, I took off for a week's vacation in Oahu.

It was quite moving, being at Pearl Harbor on December 7th - the 69th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor. There was, of course, much ceremony, both in memory of the nearly three thousand soldiers and civilians who died in the attacks, and in honoring the more than 100 survivors who were present (average ages 86-97). They were also dedicating the opening of the new visitors' center.

It was good to see so many people turn out, when for many of us it's not even a memory, but something we learned from history. For our generation, it's 9/11 that marked us the way Pearl Harbor did for that previous generation. And the shadow of 9/11 was present, as the new visitors' center was momentarily evacuated due to a "suspicious package."

We returned again on December 8th - the 30th anniversary of the assassination of John Lennon - to continue our tour with smaller crowds. The coincidence of the anniversaries did not strike us until we were there, honoring those who died at the start of WWII, and remembering an artist who's message was that war is over, if we want it.

For more of my thoughts on these Pearl Harbor visits, and the dual anniversaries, please play the podcast embedded below (...video posted here...):



I'd been to Hawaii twice before, each time with my wife, and we'd stayed on Maui and Kauai, so this was my first time spending any time on Oahu, other than stopping over at the airport. The cities of Honolulu and Waikiki were not like the Hawaii I'd known before. I kept commenting that they seemed a strange mix of Hawaii and San Diego.

That's not necessarily bad. I like San Diego; I just don't need a five hour cross-ocean flight to get there. But in terms of it being a busy, metropolitan area, with a large military presence, lots of traffic, tall buildings, etc., it's like San Diego. But with volcanoes in the background. Wonderful, but a bit odd. Next time, it's back to Maui, or maybe the big island.

I started this post with a remark about politics, it turned to the topic of bittersweet changes, and touched on history. I'll finish with a bit of news that hits all three; the demise of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

It's a bittersweet and historic victory, that gay and lesbian Americans can now openly enlist in our armed forces, and ironic that those of us civilians who fought the hardest for this this change, are also - largely - those who are most opposed to our current wars.

The end of DADT is a wonderful moment for the advance of civil rights. But, somehow, I don't feel much like celebrating. Or, maybe it's just the rain speaking.

There will be nine statewide propositions on Californian's ballots on November 2nd, including one I'm very excited about. In fact, back in May of 2009 I called it my "Fantasy Proposition: Majority Rule!" On November 2, I get my fantasy with Proposition 25, "Changes Legislative Vote Requirement to Pass a Budget From 2/3 to a Simple Majority." What I wrote then was that:

"California is one of only a handful of states that requires a super-majority (2/3 vote) to pass its annual budget. This allows a minority of legislators (34%) to hold the majority hostage... The stalemate has to end, and the way to do it is with a simple majority rule, like we imagined a democracy would be. If the minority party wants to have a say, they've got to come to the table to work, not just be obstructionist babies."

It's hard to believe two weeks from now, as I write, we'll be starting to see the mid-term election results coming in. Even harder to believe that I've blogged so little about this election (see It Ain't Over Till it's Over). It's not that I don't care, or that there's nothing to say; perhaps there's so much that it's overwhelming.

To recap for newer readers, I call myself "left-of-center, Independent." I left the Democratic party in disgust around late '94 or early '95. I was registered as Green for several years, but have most recently registered as "Decline to State." Simply put, I have always rejected the idea of voting for "the lesser of two evils" when there are multiple "3rd party" and independent options on the ballot.

But this year, much as I expected and hoped for more from President Obama and the great Democratic majorities in Congress, I am terrified of the possibility of the Republicans taking back either (or both) houses of Congress.

This year's Republican nominees are not the principled conservatives we debated with in the past. These are fringe candidates with dangerous ideas, not just to turn back the small progress the Democrats have made in the last 21 months, but to turn the clock back decades, if not centuries, on our fragile democracy.

These are candidates who want to repeal not only the new health care reforms, and the new student loan reforms, but who want to repeal Medicare and turn your Social Security over to the same Wall Street fat-cats who put us into our current economic mess. These are candidates who question whether the Voting Rights Act of 1964 went too far. They don't just question Roe v. Wade, they've vowed to ban all abortions, even in cases of rape and incest.

But I'm sure you've read all that, or seen it on TV or online. My only point here is if you're staring in disbelief at candidates like Christine O'Donnell or Carl Paladino, just imagine having to hear from them for the next two, or four, or six years, or more.

Maybe you're disappointed in the Democrats too. I know I'm sure as hell overdue for an economic recovery myself. The rebuilding of our future may still have a long way to go, but at least we've stopped digging the hole.

This year, this left-of-center independent is proudly voting a full Democratic ticket, and I'm encouraging everybody who's concerned for their future to do the same. The stakes are just too high to sit this one out.

An old adage in California politics, dating back at least 150 years, is, "In California whiskey's for drinking, water's for fighting." And, indeed, battles between the northern, water-rich mountain regions of the state, and the arid, desert south have shaped our politics, and our maps, with laws pitting agriculture against industry, and a massive system of aqueducts crossing the landscapes. But California's water situation is nothing compared to that faced in much of the world.

Just a few statistics to begin to paint the picture:

• African women walk over 40 billion hours each year carrying cisterns weighing up to 18 kilograms to gather water, which is usually still not safe to drink.
• Every week, nearly 38,000 children under the age of 5 die from unsafe drinking water and unhygienic living conditions.
• Many scholars attribute the conflict in Darfur at least in part to lack of access to water. A report commissioned by the UN found that in the 21st century, water scarcity will become one of the leading causes of conflict in Africa.
• Every day, 2 million tons of human waste are disposed of in water sources. This not only negatively impacts the environment but also harms the health of surrounding communities.
• The problem is not just in the "Third World" - Today, 40% of America's rivers and 46% of America's lakes are too polluted for fishing, swimming, or aquatic life.
• The problem is not just "other people's" issue - The cotton t-shirt I'm wearing right now took 1,514 liters of water to produce.
• The iPhone sitting on my desk is currently using half a liter of water to charge up for the day. Multiply that by over 80 million active iPhones in the world, and that's 40 million liters.

• Be aware of our water footprint; think of ways you can conserve.
• Donate to a charity that's building clean-water wells in Africa.
• Educate yourself and your community about the issues.
• Volunteer to clean a local stream; be aware of your effect on your local watershed.
• Click the widget below to sign a petition to the U.N.

I'm seeing many people tweeting and trembling over yesterday's Mashable headline story, "Most Tweets Produce Zero Replies or Retweets." Many are reading this as "Tweets Are Ineffective Means of Communication" (one exception: Tom Guarriello). Okay, first the data, then why I am seeing the silver lining.

• 71% of all tweets produce no reaction "in the form of replies or retweets"
• 23% of all tweets solicit replies
• only 6% of all tweets produce a retweet
• 96.9% of replies and 92.4% of retweets happen within the first-hour

Here's an interesting item (well, to those of us obsessed with social media). On the Jerry Brown for CA Governor YouTube channel, along with posting various interviews, campaign ads, biographical bits, and so on, the campaign has now posted a "Social Media Webisode" -- a short training video on how Jerry's supporters can help get the word out. The first webisode is on promoting the Brown campaign via Facebook:



Now, whether or not you're a Jerry Brown fan (I am) or support his campaign for Governor of California this year (I do), you have to admit that this is a brilliant strategy. Faced with a challenger who has so far spent over $119 million of her personal fortune, making hers the most expensive campaign for statewide office ever anywhere, Brown has not only made good use of social media to get his message out, he is harnessing the full power of social media by turning supporters into advocates.

Too many of the social media campaigns that I see, whether political or for products or whatever, treat facebook, twitter, etc., as one-way broadcast mediums. They neither engage the audience in dialogue nor tap into the extended networks of each of their followers. Brown 2010 has now done both.

A new initiative from the California Association of Nonprofits (aka CalNonprofits) is the Vote With Your Mission virtual campaign. CalNonprofit's goal is to have 100% of eligible California nonprofit staff and volunteers (including board members) vote in the June and November elections. According to Jan Masaoka, Executive Director of CalNonprofits, "All of us have come to work and volunteer in nonprofits because we have ideals about changing the world. Whatever those ideals are, use your vote to further them."

I couldn't agree more with the motivation and purpose behind this campaign, and find it sad to realize that folks in the nonprofit sector are not already participating 100% in all elections - in California and beyond. Every day, our staffs see first hand the direct results of political decisions, from increased homelessness to decreased funding for the arts. We see the results of over-crowded classrooms and a poverty-level minimum wage. To not speak out when we must, and vote when we can, is to contribute to the very problems our missions seek to redress.

"But is it legal?" some of you may be thinking. Yes, it is, and CalNonprofits has conveniently included a legal FAQ on the Vote With Your Mission website. All nonprofits may engage in nonpartisan, get-out-the-vote activities. Check the FAQ (or talk to the lawyer on your board) for more detailed guidelines when it comes to ballot measures and issues.

So, what does an organization have to do to participate in the campaign? First of all, sign up at the CalNonprofits website so they know you're on board. Then select from the recommended activities, such as asking all staff, board members, volunteers, and constituents to vote, providing on-site nonpartisan voter registration materials, adding "voting in every election" to your board member responsibilities agreement, or (my favorite) granting two hours of paid staff time to vote on Election Day.

If you're involved with a California nonprofit, I hope you'll sign on at the Vote With Your Mission home page. If you're outside California, I hope you'll still encourage all of your staff, board, volunteers, and constituents to vote with your mission.

The title of this post is written with tongue in cheek, but it does get to what's often a fine line between consulting and contracting. Even when talking with other nonprofit consultants, we don't always agree on where we should draw the line between performing tasks for our client organizations and empowering them to perform these tasks themselves.

As a prime example, when I started as an independent consultant, back in December 2003, one of the main things I did was grant proposal writing. Now, I will rarely accept those types of assignments. Basically, over time, I came to realize that the client was better served by my helping them gain the capacity to write grants in-house. One of my favorite things to do is when I teach workshops on proposal writing (next workshop is August 24 in Santa Cruz!).

Of course, there are times when it's quite legitimate to hire a contract proposal writer to supplement an organization's own capacity, and I'm happy to assist in those situations. But I believe that fund development is so central to any nonprofit organization's survival, that outsourcing it should never be more than a step along the way to building their own abilities.

There are other tasks, however, that are should almost always be outsourced. Among these, in my opinion, is facilitating a strategic planning session. Your organization may have leaders with excellent facilitation skills, but at a planning retreat they are needed as participants. A good facilitator should be neutral, and not a part of any political dynamic that exists in the group, or have a stake in any decisions that the group makes. A good facilitator empowers everybody in the room to speak and be heard, something that's not always comfortable or possible when there's a boss-worker dynamic present.

So, the next time you're in a meeting, and you hear the words, "We'll have a consultant do it," think carefully about what you are asking a consultant to do, and whether it is truly empowering and adding to your capacity to meet your mission.

Yesterday, on Alan Harrison's Voice of Reason blog, he posted a great article about the pitfalls of bad succession planning and the occasional need for Interim Executive Directors. As a consultant who has five times served as an Interim ED, I agree with much of what Mr. Harrison has to say.

In Mr. Harrison's colorful example, Jack is the departing long-term Director, who helps to personally choose Jill as his successor. Jill then flounders along for about a year before being eventually replaced. The details of the scenario presented ring all too true, and a story we've all seen played out before.

An Interim ED can be a great solution following the departure of a long-term leader. It gives Board and Staff room to breath, consider mission, separate the reputation and legacy of the departing leader from that of the organization, and contemplate changes in their vision before making the mistake outlined in the blog of trying to fit Jill's round peg into Jack's square hole.

So, who should be your Interim ED?

A well-meaning board member stepping in may sound great, but unless they've sat in the ED's chair before, and have the time and attention to devote, this can be a disaster (not to mention the conflicting roles of ED and board member).

A senior staff member could be a good choice (particularly if they're "auditioning" for the permanent job), but be careful how you back-fill their regular position - or are you expecting them to do two jobs at once? Be careful of setting unrealistic expectations for anybody you put in this tight spot.

An out-of-work ED, who is looking for a permanent position has other motivations in accepting your Interim offer. They're number one goal is completing their own transition, not assisting your agency in yours. If this is somebody who you are seriously considering for the permanent position, do not make the mistake of "trying them out" on an interim basis.

Those of us who regularly take on Interim ED assignments as part of our consulting business do so because we're not necessarily looking for the gig permanently. In fact, when I've accepted an Interim job that includes searching for a permanent ED, I would consider it a conflict of interest to then apply for the permanent position.

My mission as an Interim is to work on the Board's agenda, not my own, and to facilitate as smooth a transition for the staff, clients, funders, and community as is possible.

Returning to Mr. Harrison's post for a moment, he ends on what he considers to be such an important point that he prints it in bold and underlined:

It is never a good idea to have the outgoing director have a say on his or her permanent successor.  No matter who the outgoing director is or how amicable the separation is.  Never.  Never.  Never.

This seems like such a basic, "Fundraising Ethics 101" topic that I'd never have to write a post explicitly about it, but it seems that even high profile nonprofit organizations need to be reminded: Donor Intent is King!

This month started with the news that country star Garth Brooks had won his million dollar lawsuit against a regional hospital. The issue was over a donation Brooks had made with the understanding that a building would be named for the singer's late mother.

A week later came headlines that the Ray Charles Foundation was demanding the return of several million dollars the late singer had donated to Albany State University in Georgia for a performing arts center that was never built.

Now, today we learn that Johns Hopkins University is being sued over the alleged misuse of millions of dollars from the estate of Elizabeth Beall Banks. This dispute revolves around farmland given on the condition that it be used for agricultural research and development, but now will be home to nearly five-million-square-feet of construction.

These are obviously high profile cases involving millions of dollars and well known organizations and donors, but the principles involved are the same for $25 donations to local nonprofit groups. You must follow through on your promises to donors. If funds are designated for a particular purpose, it is your legal and ethical obligation to use it for that purpose and that purpose only.

Raising funds with a pitch for one program or project, and then using them for another is a bait-and-switch con that will come back to haunt you. You may think you did well in the short run, but in the long-term you will lose donors, you will lose honest staff and board members, and you will risk your organization's reputation and future.

When dealing with large donations, do your best to set clear expectations with your donor, write out exactly what the purpose of the donation is, and have it signed. This donor agreement is not just for designated funds, as in the cases above, but especially important if you think the donation is unrestricted. The donor's signature on an agreement that you can use the funds in whatever way is needed to support the mission will protect you if they - or their heirs - ever come back and say the funds were designated.

Such clear, written agreements also protect the donor. And, with such well-publicized scandals putting us all under the microscope, offering your donors such transparency and guarantees will help ease their doubts about your integrity.

Tim Newell, Elizabeth Banks' nephew and one of the principals in the case against Johns Hopkins, explains, "You hate to lose faith in the entire system. ... All donors have the right to be assured that gifts be used for the reason they were given."

You know your organization does great work that benefits your community, but unless you get that message out clearly, consistently, and publicly, you will be losing out on donations to those organizations that have mastered communications and marketing. Today I have two bits of marketing & communications news to share.

First, for those nonprofits who are using YouTube, or creating videos to showcase your cause, you can get even more exposure for your good work by entering the 6th Annual DoGooder Nonprofit Video Awards. Presented by See3 Communications with support from Cisco, the Case Foundation and the Nonprofit Technology Network, the awards are "designed to recognize the creative and effective use of video to promote the work of the nonprofit sector in catalyzing social good."

Best of all, the awards are completely free to enter and open to any eligible nonprofit organization in the U.S., U.K, Canada, and Australia that created a video in 2011. The submission phase goes until February 29th, after which the public will have a chance to vote for the winning videos. Winning organizations will get their video on YouTube’s homepage on April 5th. To enter, visit the DoGooder Awards page on YouTube (click here).

Second, Nancy Schwartz, of the Getting Attention blog, has a new ebook for you: The 2012 Nonprofit Marketing Wisdom Guide. The guide is an easy to ready and reference compendium of advice from your peers on everything from branding, to email asks, to social media strategy, to media relations, and everything in between.

Last December, Nancy surveyed her newsletter subscribers and organized the responses by category into these 219 nuggets that are sure to help even the most seasoned professional. You can download your copy by visiting the Getting Attention website (click here).

At lunch with a group of consultants a couple of months back, we were lamenting the tendency of certain local organizations to fill their empty board seats by simply bringing on the termed-out board members of closely-linked organizations. In this scenario, as positions open up, a director will typically say, "What about so-and-so? I know her from board X." And so on, as our boards shuffle around in very small circles.

So, what's wrong with this? We recycle everything else, why not our boards of directors?

Yes, we get new members with experience serving on boards this way, but we never seem to question the depth or value of that experience. When we only recruit within our existing circles, we don't open up our boards to new ideas, new connections, and a broader range of experience.

Adding like-minded, friendly board members, who we already know, will never challenge us to consider different points-of-view, other ways of looking at the problems we face, or force us to take an honest look at our organization's practices.

Many people are drawn to serve on a nonprofit board of directors because of the social experience. We enjoy working with our friends on an issue that is close to our hearts and is important to our community. We feel it strengthens our friendships, and brings meaning to these pre-existing social relationships. And, indeed, boards of friends may be less likely to miss meetings, and might challenge members to work harder lest they lose face in front of their peers.

But there's also the very great danger of group-think. Amongst one's friends, one is less likely to speak out against a seeming popular decision. Peer pressure, and not wanting to seem out-of-step, makes yes-men and women of too many of us. The fear of harming the personal relationship makes us timid in our professional responsibilities.

Many organizations use web-based services like VolunteerMatch or BoardNetUSA to find new directors. Others advertise for board members the same as they'd do for any open staff position. Local board training and recruitment programs can often be found within chambers of commerce, community leadership programs, or nonprofit resource centers. Recently, I received an email from a national organization I belong to, asking for board nominations from among their entire membership.

So, what about your organization? Are you recycling board members within your circle of the usual suspects? Or are you actively developing new sources of recruitment? I'd love to have your comments below on where you are finding new blood for your board.

I am one who has always believed in the value of good story telling in fundraising. Nothing earth shattering in that statement. Most anybody who has been successful in nonprofit fundraising - whether writing grant proposals, doing direct mail, or creating event programs - will tell you the same thing.

Even with foundations (and others) seemingly more focused than ever on outcomes and measurements, when I teach proposal writing I always caution my students from getting so caught up in the numbers that they forget the human element. Data and statistics, I tell them, may help make the case, but it's putting a face and a story to that data that gets signatures on checks.

With that in mind, I also believe that nonprofits who want to be effective at fundraising should always be on the look-out for good stories from the people they serve, encouraging them to (if possible) write out their experience of how the organization helped in their own words. These can be used in proposals, letters, speeches, etc.

For years this was considered good advice, and was appreciated by my students and clients alike. Until earlier this year.

The program staff of an organization I was working with all very strongly felt that using these real stories - even with names and identifying details changed - was a violation of their client's trust and privacy, ethically questionable, and akin to an act of violence.

The clients had been through rough times and did not have much. What they did have was their personal story, and to take that from them was beyond exploitation. Unless the client voluntarily and without prompting offered, "I want you to use my story to market the organization," there would be no compromise on this position.

I completely understood where the program staff was coming from on this, and the importance of being respectful of telling somebody else's story. But I also know the reality of trying to raise funds for even the best of causes without the ability to talk about the organization's success in terms of the success of the individuals it serves.

I have no simple answers with this blog post, other than to inform and ask permission before using a client story in your organizational material. But what do you think?

Are the stories of your client's success so important that it justifies exploiting them to raise money? And while the circumstances that brought a client to your nonprofit may be their private affair, don't you have some right to talk about how you helped them out of those circumstances? Please comment below - I'd love to know how you handle this delicate issue.

Two of my recent posts here were encouraging nonprofits (the organizations and the people behind them) to be more politically involved (Nonprofits Talking Taxes & Nonprofits and the 99%), so I feel I should also post a quick update when I see examples of how nonprofits are flexing their political muscle.

The Silicon Valley Council of Nonprofits (SVCN) surveyed 560 nonprofit staff and found that they were both, more likely to be registered to vote, and more likely to actually vote than the general population. Senior nonprofit managers were even more likely to register and vote than their staff, with 96% and 97% voting in the last two elections.

Keep this in mind when you're meeting with your local elected officials, and don't be shy about sharing this information with them. As a sector, our voice has long been under-estimated, and we have been too shy about speaking out.

For the sake of our clients, and the survival of our organizations, we need to be proud to proclaim "I'm Nonprofit and I Vote!"

For more on the SVCN survey, click here -- Fore more resources see nonprofitvote.org

By now I'm guessing that you have all heard about the Occupy Wall Street protests and the 99% movement. The Wall Street protests started more than three weeks ago, and was at first largely absent from the domestic press, with coverage only getting to us through the European press until the story was just too big to ignore.

What surprises me is how little I'm still hearing from the nonprofit press about the movement. Perhaps they see the protests as happening outside of the nonprofit sector, being organized without the benefit of structured 501(c)(3)'s, boards of directors, strategic plans, or foundation funding. Perhaps many nonprofits themselves are wary of being seen as part of a protest movement, coveting their professional standing and reputation, thinking they are above the rabble.

But when you look at the protesters, listen to their grievances, and think about what they're looking for, it is inescapable that are us, and they are ours.

Those involved in Occupy Wall Street, and newer Occupy (fill in city name) movements across the country, are collectively the 99%. Not the owners of the banks or large corporations, but the rest of us, working to survive.

They are the middle-aged middle-managers who have found themselves laid off, retirement plans raided, homes foreclosed on, and health insurance canceled. They are the young, fresh college graduates with $50-$100,000 in student loan debt, fighting to get a part-time minimum wage job and holding no hope for the future. They are single parents struggling to keep a roof, any roof, over their children's heads. In short, they are the clients at all of our nonprofit human services organizations.

And, as workers in a traditionally low-wage industry, we in the nonprofit sector are also all in the 99%. We too watched as other industries got bailed out while we slashed our own budgets and laid off staff.

If you see your clients, your staff, and your organization's mission, reflected in the stories of those "occupying" Wall Street and elsewhere, what are you doing to support them? I know, you're afraid of jeopardizing your nonprofit status by "getting too political." But short of endorsing a particular candidate or ballot proposition, there's much you can do.

Begin by simply getting informed about local "Occupy (your city)" meetings, and sharing that information with your clients. Let them know how they can advocate for themselves, and empower them to fight for their future.

Perhaps your organization can't officially march in a protest, but off the clock you certainly can as a citizen. Invite a board member to come with you. Start a discussion and see where it goes.

Read the stories posted at "We are the 99 Percent."

Visit Occupy Together, and the "Events" pull-down menu find your region and search for your closest Occupy event. Follow them on Twitter and Facebook, and learn what's happening in your area.

There are many times in the life cycle of a nonprofit organization when it is appropriate to hire an interim CEO (or executive director) instead of bringing in permanent leadership:

• The loss of a long-term leader or founder,
• A change in strategic direction,
• Time to review long-term strategy,
• A financial or other management crisis that requires special skills,
• Consideration or negotiation of a merger.

• Two of my interim assignments resulted in successful mergers. One of a small, single-program agency into a larger regional organization, and the other of a mid-sized multi-program, single-topic agency into a larger regional organization. In each case I served as part of the negotiating team, protecting the interests of my client, and managing communications to staff, as well as managing day-to-day operations of the organization.
• A third assignment began with merger negotiations, but for strategic reasons the merger agreement was never completed. At that time the focus of the assignment became stabilization and sustainability of the organization before beginning a search for a new, permanent executive director.
• With another organization, I was asked to bring it back from the brink of bankruptcy after mismanagement by the previous executive director. My focus here was on bringing in new funding, re-negotiating a building purchase agreement, cutting the operating budget by 20%, and rebuilding the board from four to eleven members, before beginning the search for a new, permanent executive director.
• In only one situation was I asked to investigate, and then implement, a plan for bankruptcy and an orderly shut down of operations. Before proceeding with the shut-down, I held private interviews with all stakeholders, including funders, clients, board members, and others in the community, as well as other nonprofit leaders who had gone through bankruptcies.

Earlier this month I attended a workshop at the Community Foundation of Santa Cruz County called "Show Me the Money: Nonprofits Talking Taxes." The workshop was conducted by Kim Klein, a well-known, much respected, and quite beloved fundraising consultant and trainer.

But "talking taxes"? Kim Klein is the grassroots fundraising guru, not an economist or policy wonk. But, as she explained at the start of the workshop, over the past several years of the recession-that-will-not-end, with each round of budget cuts at all levels of government, more and more public institutions were turning to private foundations and individual donors to fill the gap.

Nonprofits that have always relied on those sources were suddenly in competition with schools and libraries. Not to mention those nonprofits who had been reliant on government funding suddenly got the message about diversifying their fund development plan and were also doing their first fundraising letters and grant proposals. Of course, the funds available did not grow. In fact, many foundations (and many individual donors) have less resources to meet these rising needs.

Meanwhile, the nonprofit sector as a whole has been remarkably silent in the public discussion of government budget cuts, tax cuts, and the unwillingness of many to talk about new revenue. Those behind Nonprofits Talking Taxes believed that it's high time for the sector to get involved in this debate as if our organization's lives depended on it, because that's not far from the truth.

This is not simply a fight for those nonprofits who receive government funding; this is about all of us who care about what direction our society and our communities are heading. As has been said by many, a government budget is not simply a financial document, it is a direct reflection of a community's values. So what does the California State budget say about our values, that it sacrifices the jobs of teachers rather than inconvenience corporations?

The workshop was not all gloom and doom. Quite the opposite. Through humor and group participation, we learned more about the state budget, taxes, why all nonprofit professionals should care about it, and left feeling optimistic; that we can have some control and say over the future direction of our state.

For an example of how humor is used to talk about the topic, click here to take the "Nonprofit Tax Quiz" that Kim created (on Blue Avocado).

These workshops are free, and are available to any nonprofit group in California. For those elsewhere, I'm sure they'd be happy to provide some guidance to creating a Nonprofits Talking Taxes curriculum for your state.

Learn more at the Nonprofits Talking Taxes website.

All of us in the nonprofit sector have heard the drumbeats over the last few years accompanying the chants of, "Merge! Merge! Merge!" That pundits outside the sector were saying it, we could brush aside as the rantings of somebody who didn't know how efficient and cost-effective most nonprofits really are, but when our funders - including government at all levels - joined in, many of us took it seriously and at least explored mergers, whether they were completed or not.

And now, the tables have turned... A nonprofit in New Jersey has now made it its mission to get towns to get with the times and start merging:

In New Jersey there are 566 towns. California, by comparison, has only 482 municipalities. An organization called Courage to Connect N.J. believes that the situation is unsustainable in light of the growing financial straits of local governments... They say too many local governments, and the costs associated with them, drive up property taxes.

A donation that's not a donation? What's that? When it's a situation where the supporter believes they've a donation, but the nonprofit does not see it that way.

Such as, a small nonprofit puts a link to Amazon on their website, because they get a few pennies back from each book sale as part of the "associates" program. The nonprofit thinks, "We're providing a service, and getting a little extra cash." The organization's supporter thinks, "What a fun way to make my donation!" On a larger scale, it could be the logo of a national organization placed on items or the marketing of a national chain store.

Either way, the supporter is often likely to confuse the $25 spent on goods with having made a $25 donation direct to the nonprofit. I've been skeptical of these arrangements for years, and (when I was consulting) often warned my clients not to put too much effort into such arrangements. But it was just my feeling that this was happening. Now, I have a little bit of evidence.

In today's Nonprofit Quarterly online, there's an article saying that Cause Marketing Drives Down Donations. The evidence comes from a University of Michigan study:

More precisely, the study found that giving decreased if a donor had previously purchased a cause-related product, even if the donor was going to make the purchase independent of any charitable considerations. As a result of her findings, Professor Aradhna Krishna, the study's lead researcher, suggests that maybe not all giving is good giving.

A first blog posting after a long absence is always difficult; so many things to talk about, it's hard to decide what the most relevant topic would be. First, let me remind you where I've been...

After about seven years as an independent consultant, in January I began a regular, full-time executive director position with a local nonprofit organization, and spent the month fully immersed in learning the programs, the culture, and the needs. I've been working long days (and nights) and coming home exhausted but happy. My orientation and training will continue for another couple of months at least, but I feel I can come up for air long enough for a blog post or two.

Which brings us to the topic of this post, how did this career of mine start? The truth is, at the time of my first nonprofit job, I had no idea that it would be my career. At the time, I was still planning a life in film production. I had not yet returned to school to get degrees in politics (BA) and public policy (MPPA), and was just looking for an interesting and meaningful way to earn some money to pay for my creative projects and take a few cinema classes here and there.

I don't even recall the exact year, but it must have been in the early or mid 1980s, when I accepted a job as a canvasser for the Campaign for Economic Democracy (aka Campaign California) in Santa Monica; an organization started by Tom Hayden and his (then) wife, Jane Fonda. At the time, Hayden had recently been elected to the state Assembly, but he did speak with us occasionally. I don't recall ever seeing Ms. Fonda, but rumor was that her exercise videos were our number one funding source.

Each afternoon we'd gather in our 3rd Street office for some motivational presentation before hitting the residential streets of Los Angeles County to knock on doors and ask for signatures on petitions (mostly promoting solar energy and environmental protection) as well as collect donations to support our work.

Asking for those $10 and $25 checks was the hardest thing I'd ever done. Nobody could have ever guessed at that time that fundraising would become a large part of my professional career. Confession: I was not the best at getting those checks, although I did get many signatures.

There was, of course, a downside to working for a figure such as Tom Hayden. As much as he may have been lionized in certain west-side, ultra-liberal enclaves, he was quite reviled and hated elsewhere, especially in areas where there were many veterans of the Vietnam war. I was physically threatened on several occasions, including once by gentleman who kept a saw by his front door and chased me off his property waving the saw violently after me.

But there were many wonderful people too, who would invite you in for a glass of lemonade on a hot LA evening. We'd make note of these "safe houses" to know where to run when the guys with weapons got out of control. I didn't last long as a canvasser, but I did eventually get better at asking for money...

How about you? What was your first experience raising money for a cause or working for a nonprofit?

Dear Pepsi Shareholders,    

This has been a very successful year for us indeed! We know Pepsi is the best cola out there, and we are 100% committed to getting the whole world to realize it too! Our achievements this year included a $50,000 awareness-raising advertising campaign on buses, billboards, and in magazines. These eye-opening ads highlighted our higher sugar content (yum!), attractive bottle design, and our Pepsi Generation credibility. We also launched "PepsiKids2.0," an online social forum where youth can get together and let each other know why they're committed to drinking Pepsi. Enclosed is a picture of Bobby Withers, an 8 year-old boy that had been drinking Coca-Cola his whole life. Now, he and his mom are buying a 12 pack of Pepsi each week! With your support, Pepsi is helping to create the world we all wish to see: a world where everyone drinks Pepsi.

• are safe from harm,
• feel valued and worthy of love,
• are free to heal and grow,
• can learn to love and to trust others, and
• have the opportunity to build lasting relationships with adults.

• # families recruited
• # families certified and active
• # speaking engagements
• # newspaper articles
• # brochures distributed
• % placements made within 24 hours

As regular readers of this blog probably know, I do a lot of Interim Executive Director jobs. Basically, an organization that is in a transition period between chief executives brings a consultant, such as myself, in as a temporary leader to help them through tough period, be it a merger, or a financial crisis, or just a pause to strategize between EDs.

Recently I was having a meeting with the board leadership of an organization that is considering hiring an Interim ED, and one of the questions they asked me was, "What is your management style?"

That's a typical and harmless enough interview question, but I always wonder how other people answer it. Do the micro-managers actually admit to enjoying looking over the shoulders of their staff as they work? Do the hands-off people really sit there and say, "I just trust that staff is performing"? I've seen many "experts" give the advice that you should answer this question to match the company's style (if they're command and control, you be too).

But my answer is usually more zen-like: my style is to have no style. Or, rather, the manner in which I prefer to manage is a far distant runner-up to the manner in which the employee needs to be managed.

For an example, let's take two of the senior managers who reported to me in my last interim assignment. Both highly intelligent and extremely capable, creative, and motivated. But very different people with very different needs.

One was new to her position and was still very fresh out of college. While she was full of great ideas and eager to implement them, she was also uncertain in some situations and in need of a mentor. She felt best knowing that we had a set weekly meeting where she could go over her plan for the week and get any input she needed. Of course, if she had questions in between, she'd also be welcome to pop into my office and go over any pending issues, and I'd also casually check in with her as we went about our week.

On the other end of the spectrum was the manager who'd been in her job for about a decade. Still loving her job and always excited about new ways to improve services, but very comfortable in how to go about it. For her, having a regular meeting scheduled (yet another meeting!) with no set agenda other than "what are you up to this week?" would be an unpleasant distraction. As long as she know she could come to me with questions or issues as they came up, that was enough.

Of course, some people prefer to be left alone, but really need supervision... but I'll save those stories for another posting. The idea is that the best "management style" is to be able to put your own preferences aside and find the best approach for any individual employee and situation.

At least, that's been my experience. How about you?

I was just checking Twitter, and saw a question from @GailPerrync: "In general, only 1 in 10 donors keep on giving indefinitely. Why?"

Well, I'm sure Gail has her own well-researched reasons why, but the answer that popped right into my head was, "Boredom & burnout; not being shown how their $$ led to progress."

Think of it, year after year, you've been giving a particular nonprofit. And, year after year, their appeal letters have been pretty much the same. The children are still hungry, the water is still filthy, and they're still asking you for another $50. When does it get better?

It's been said a thousand times before, by many more famous nonprofit consultants than myself, but donors prefer to invest in success than to be guilted into giving, yet again.

Do the appeals your organization is sending out make these mistakes? Or are you first explaining what progress you made since your last ask, the results that money led to, and what exactly you'll be doing with the next donation? Did you remember to thank the donor, and let them know how instrumental they are in your continued success?

Or did you just tell them how awful everything has gotten, and expect them to still be paying attention?

Join the conversation over on Twitter - I'm there as NonprofitKenG.

• Each member relationship starts with a two-party agreement
• We value member input and seek their input twice monthly
• Simple and thorough documentation validates mutual needs and successes
• Revised the information cycle to begin and end with our members

October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, and we're seeing pink everywhere to remind us of that fact. Many charitable organizations are involved in this effort, and many have entered into cause marketing agreements with various corporations to receive donations on products sold with the pink ribbon logo. Donations are mostly small, such as $0.10 for purchasing specially marked packages of Dannon Yogurt, to several dollars on a new pink Kitchenaid blender.

Cause marketing is not new, but it's certainly been receiving more and more attention. One recent survey found that "Mothers and Young People Are Most Likely to Buy Products Tied to a Cause." Certainly, they make the purchaser of the product feel good about their choice, and certainly it makes the producer of the product look like a good corporate citizen. But how effective are these arrangements for most nonprofit organizations as fundraising vehicles?

There's no question that such co-marketing agreements work well for certain large, national organizations, such as Susan G. Komen for the Cure. They are "The" breast cancer charity to many people as a result of their leadership in cause marketing. But how about your local food pantry?

As a result of writing this blog, barely a week goes by when I do not hear from a marketing organization that would like access to my readers to promote "a fantastic new way to raise money for your cause." Typically, it involves the nonprofit selling some product or service, unrelated to their mission, and keeping a small percentage of the sale. "This product sells itself," I'm always assured in these emails.

You'll notice, I haven't been passing those along to you. It's always been my opinion that these small-scale cause marketing agreements are a distraction. Grassroots organizations need to maximize their interactions with their supporters, and squandering those contacts with a sale they only keep a small portion of comes at their loss, no matter how good the product might be.

I also believe it's misleading the donor as well. If I were planning on giving you a $25 donation, and you sell me a $25 item, in my mind we're done. I've given you the budget I had for you. That you are only keeping $3.75 of that $25 doesn't occur to most donors. Selling instead of raising not only distracts, it decreases your potential donations.

Here's my rule of thumb:
"When you ask for small donations, you'll only get small donations."
You can quote me on that.

But this subject comes up for me today as a result of Twitter. This morning, my twitter feed was full of warnings to "read the fine print." It turns out that it's not so easy being pink, and consumers are starting to catch on that "cause marketing" may be more marketing and less cause.

Many of the tweets were forwarding on that "Just because you bought the pink blender doesn't mean you made a donation." The fine print indicates that you must first register your product on a certain website before Kitchenaid passes along any of their profit to Komen.

And Dannon Yogurt? You also need to enter a code from each package lid on the website for your ten cents to pass through to the National Breast Cancer Foundation. And, they'll only pass on the dimes up to a maximum donation of $1.5 million.

Of course, $1.5 million is nothing to sneeze at, and going Pink for October is wonderful for raising awareness of Breast Cancer. But as a cautionary tale for small, locally-based nonprofits, it's instructive. Before entering into any marketing agreements, read the fine print. Both from your organization's perspective, and from the point-of-view of your donor.

How much money are you really likely to raise? How much staff time is it going to take? Would you raise more from your list with a simple ask instead of a sale? Is the product something you really want to be associated with? Are there maximums on donations? Any loopholes or gotchas that might prevent you from collecting all that your donors think they've given you? In the end, who will benefit more, your organization or the company you were promoting?

Alternate title for this post, "What you got to say for myself?"

What am I talking about? I'm offering you a chance to write the Nonprofit Consultant Blog for a day. I am interested in occasionally having guest bloggers come in and take over. The topics should be of interest and benefit to those working in the nonprofit sector. They can be new tools and tips for fundraising, using social media, advocacy, industry news and happenings, or just plain old boring good management.

Some may want metrics, how many people will see your post... This blog has average visitors of 185/day or 5,200/month on the site, plus another 284 who receive blog posts by email, and an unknown number who read it in RSS form (ie: Google Reader, etc.). And, of course, your post will be fully credited to you, with links to your blog/twitter/etc.

You can contact me at ken at goldstein.net to pitch your blog ideas. I look forward to sharing this space with you!

Here's an interesting item for those of us obsessed with social media. On the Jerry Brown for CA Governor YouTube channel, along with posting various interviews, campaign ads, biographical bits, and so on, the campaign has now posted a "Social Media Webisode" -- a short training video on how Jerry's supporters can help get the word out. The first webisode is on promoting the Brown campaign via Facebook:



This is a great example of using social media, and a brilliant strategy. Faced with a challenger who has so far spent over $119 million of her personal fortune, making hers the most expensive campaign for statewide office ever anywhere, Brown has not only made good use of social media to get his message out, he is harnessing the full power of social media by turning supporters into advocates.

Far too many of the social media campaigns that I see, whether political or for products or nonprofit organizations, treat facebook, twitter, etc., as one-way broadcast mediums. They neither engage the audience in dialogue nor tap into the extended networks of each of their followers. Brown 2010 has now done both. That the video is well-produced and gets to the point in barely over 90 seconds also helps.

Is your organization simply pushing random updates to your followers without thinking about how they will use it, or explaining how they can help your cause by re-tweeting, "liking," and commenting? When a supporter posts something to your facebook wall, or asks you a question with an @tweet, how long does it take for you to respond? Do you respond?

Whether or not you support Jerry Brown for Governor, or even live in California, take a look at the training video and imagine how you might be able to train your followers to be an army of advocates for your cause and for your organization.

If you've done any sort of prospecting for new foundation grants, either using one of the resources from the Foundation Center or any other publisher, you've certainly come across those listings that describe the perfect prospect - interested in your mission, located nearby, lots of money to give - but then you come across those fatal phrases: "Applications not accepted," or it's partner, "Contributes only to pre-selected organizations."

Many, if not most, of the private, family foundations seem to have this notice in their listings. These foundations are typically small (under $1 million in endowment), have no full-time staff, and no means of effectively screening and evaluating the volume of material they'd receive if they did open themselves up to unsolicited applications. And so, they typically make their grants each year to the same small set of nonprofits that their Board members are already aware of. The only way in is to know a family or Board member personally.

Foundation Source is a company that has, for about a decade, worked with these private foundations, providing management and back-office services, advisory services, and online research and application services. They manage over $4 Billion in assets for more than 900 foundations, granting out about $250 Million each year.

The majority of the clients that Foundation Source serves are those smaller, family foundations that currently do not want your unsolicited application. And they are about to make it a whole lot easier for nonprofits to be seen by these mysterious, but important, funders.

Foundation Source will soon launch it's Access website, which, among other things, will allow nonprofits to set up organizational profile pages, and Project Proposal pages, that will potentially be seen by the 900+ foundations managed by Foundation Source. You will also be able to associate your organization's profile page with different Cause Pages (such as Emergency Relief, or maybe Hunger).

When the private foundations, already using Foundation Source for their research and granting, are searching for an organization working on certain topics, there you are with your profile and project proposal pages, and they will be able to simply "click and fund," or, at least, invite a formal application - which will be a single online application for all 900+ foundations.

Sounds too good to be true? Of course, there is a hitch... Following the formal launch there will be a fee for you to post Project Proposal Pages (although maintaining your organizational info will be free). When I spoke to representatives from Foundation Source they were still working out the pricing details.

The good news, though, is that if you pre-register now, before the launch on October 1, you will have complete free access to all the site features through April 30, 2011.

Whether or not Access will provide a good return on your investment after that will depend on what fees they charge and whether or not their foundation clients really use the system to find projects to fund. But, the free trial is certainly a no-brainer, and sure to provide a positive ROI.

To pre-register and get the six-month free trial, go to access.foundationsource.com and sign up before October 1.