Ken Goldstein

I am a Bostonian. I don't mean that just in a general "today we're all Bostonians" way - not "Ich bin ein Bostonian" - but in a born there, in my blood, key to who I am way.

No matter how long I live elsewhere, no matter how Californian I may also be, no matter if I never step foot on Massachusetts soil again, I will always be a Bostonian.

Growing up, going to watch the Boston marathon was an annual tradition. We had our usual spot, along "heartbreak hill," where the marathon wound its way up Commonwealth Ave through Newton.

Those memories come flooding back today with news of a probable terrorist attack killing at least two and injuring dozens more at the marathon's finish line.

There is now only speculation as to who and why this happened. I have my own theories, based on my own ideas of what the greatest threats are to America today. But I'll keep them to myself until actual facts are available.

Right now, all I have to say is, "I am a Bostonian." Hopefully we all are.

It started a couple of weeks ago - March 21st to be exact - with the Guilty Pleasures episode of Glee. Yes, I sometimes watch Glee, and I suppose that is a bit of a guilty pleasure, but this post is not about Glee. I watch it, I admit it, get over it.

Anyway, the theme of the episode was that each kid would perform a song from an artist they were embarrassed to enjoy; their guilty pleasure. Blaine (Darren Criss)'s choice was to perform Phil Collins' Against All Odds. It was a decent cover, and the rare live performance rather than lip-synched production number. And, I had to agree with young Blaine, it's about time to get over being sick of how overplayed Phil Collins became, he still wrote some damn good songs and deserves our respect.

Yes, he created a lot of meaningless pop songs that all blended together into one horn-infused mess after a while. But he also maintained Genesis following the departure of Peter Gabriel, and while it wasn't the same, they made records worthy of the Genesis name (Mama and Home by the Sea from 1983's self-titled Genesis LP immediately spring to mind). Beyond the silly pop songs, his solo hits also included the undeniably classic In the Air Tonight.

Listening to Blaine sing Against All Odds, I tried to remember if I appreciated how great a song it was at the time. It may have been just after the saturation point had been reached and Phil was no longer cool. And, as a movie theme, I may not have taken the song as seriously as I should have. But, really, I don't fully remember.

What I do recall is a time about a year or two before, on December 19, 1982, when Phil embarked on his first solo tour of the USA, and I attended the show at Perkins Palace in Pasadena. His first solo LP, Face Value, had done well (featuring In The Air Tonight), and his second LP, Hello, I Must Be Going!, had just been released a few weeks earlier. I was working at the Music Plus record store on Vine Street, in Hollywood, and got the tickets only hours before the show from the Atlantic Records rep.

Two specific things I remember about that show. First, was standing in line before the show directly behind Tony Dow. Second was the excitement at the opening drum beat of I Don't Care Anymore. It was a great show that was captured on video and for radio broadcast on the King Biscuit Flower Hour.

So, anyway, yes, watching Glee a couple of weeks ago, I had to admit that, yes, Phil rocks, and that Against All Odds was, and still is, a brilliant song. But then, the next morning, I had it stuck in my head. Checking my email in the morning, "How can I just let you walk away, just let you leave without a trace?" Standing in the shower, "Oh, so take a look at me now-ow..."

And it continued the next day, and the next, and the next. It was 1985 all over - I'd been Phil Collinized again! Yesterday I thought it was finally gone, but it's back this morning.

This has to be one of the longest-lasting ear worms I've ever experienced. And that's the thing about Phil Collins' songs; they are infectious. The good ones along with the bad ones. Whether you like them or not, you cannot get them out of your head. "And there's nothing left here to remind me, just the memory of your face," and the endless loop of this song in my brain.

I'm just thankful now that Blaine did not choose Sussudio.

Sometime last years I promised that I would write about blog about the Laffer Curve, and how it has determined Republican tax policy for the past 30 years, from Reagan to Romney. Well, it's a little late, and it's in a video rather than a written blog, but here it is.

Sit back and learn about Dr. Arthur Laffer and the little doodle he made on the back of a napkin that ended up changing U.S. economic policy for a generation, and why a vote for Mitt Romney is yet another vote for the Laffer Curve.

There's still a bit over a month to go before the Presidential election, and the debates have yet to start, so much can still change, but recent trends show that President Obama is headed for re-election, and that Governor Romney's campaign is tanking hard.

This has led much of the punditry to focus on Romney running-mate, Congressman Paul Ryan, and how he plays the next month with an eye to running for President himself in 2016. This led me to wonder, what are the odds of a losing Vice-Presidential candidate going on to eventually a) get their party's nomination for President, and b) actually win the Presidency?

It turns out, odds are that after November 7, Ryan becomes not much more than a footnote in history books.

Since the dawn of the modern political parties (1828 for the Democrats and 1856 for the Republicans), only two losing VP candidates have gone on to win their party's nomination, and only one of those went on to win the Presidency.

In 1920, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the losing VP candidate under James M. Cox on the Democratic ticket. FDR, of course, went on to win the Democratic nomination and the Presidency in 1932 (and re-elected in '36, '40, and '44).

On the Republican side, Bob Dole was incumbent President Gerald Ford's running mate in 1976, and himself captured the nomination in 1996, losing to incumbent President, Bill Clinton. (Note, Dole was not the incumbent VP in '76, Nelson Rockefeller was Ford's appointed VP.)

So, if you consider that from 1828 through 2008 there have been 46 Presidential elections, that means  there have been 92 major party VP candidate opportunities (some years have included more than two major contenders, but we'll keep the math simple here for a Saturday morning).

That makes the odds of Paul Ryan eventually getting the Republican Party's Presidential nomination (assuming a loss this November 6, please) 2:92, or 2.17% and sets his odds of being elected President at 1:92, or 1.09%. Those are pretty long odds, but somehow, I'm still not comforted.

By now you've all read the news that the Veterans Job Corp bill failed to pass the US Senate yesterday by only two votes. You've probably also heard that this was a surprise, as it was purposely crafted to be bi-partisan and non-political, with input from Republicans as well as Democrats.

Whether the Republican change of heart was due, as they claim, to the bill's costs, or whether, as many believe, it was because they felt putting anybody to work (veteran or not) just before the election would help President Obama's re-election efforts, is not the point of this post.

While every other liberal bloggers is shaming the Republicans who contributed to the bill, only to vote against it, I'd like to take a few moments to thank the five Republican Senators who actually voted their conscience, and chose to help our veterans, and our country, and put policy above politics for at least this one issue.

They are: Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, each of Maine, Dean Heller of Nevada, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

Of course, some might say, it's easy to be brave if you're not running for re-election this year. Olympia Snowe is retiring from her Senate seat, so this may be one of her last votes ever, but she has many times demonstrated her independence from the Republican leadership. In fact, her frustration with the current Republican mind-set of destroying Obama before fixing America may be part of her decision to not seek re-election. I would like to thank Senator Snowe for her service to our country.

Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins are each in safe seats this year, so this vote may or may not come back to haunt them later. Even so, there are many more Republican Senators in safe seats (Senators face re-election every six years), why are there only two willing to vote for jobs for veterans? Safe or not, it takes courage to cross party lines these days.

Scott Brown and Dean Heller are each facing re-election this year, which makes their votes even more important. Brown is running in traditionally liberal Massachusetts against the nationally known (and funded) Elizabeth Warren. Some might dismiss this move as just playing to local biases, but considering that when Brown first entered the Senate (filling Ted Kennedy's old seat) it was feared he'd be the furthest right tea-bagger of them all, he still deserves to be thanked for this vote.

I know less about Heller, other than that he's a recent appointee now running for the first time to continue in the Senate. For a "new guy," who probably needs the help of the National RNC in his election, to buck the tide and go against the party is, to me, a positive sign of independence.

Okay, enough positivity and praising of Republicans. I will use this one paragraph to point out those who voted against this bill. Or, rather, one Republican Senator in particular. I find it dishonorable and disgusting (but not surprising) that "the mother of all mavericks," John McCain, is not on this list of those who put veterans above party. Shame on you, Senator McCain.

Last night Earth lost one of our most brilliant and imaginative literary minds when Ray Bradbury passed away at the age of 91. Bradbury's books were the first to introduce me to the world of adult literature as well as science fiction, and probably the first to inspire in me the desire to write.

It was around 1970, I was about 10 or so, when I picked up a copy of The Martian Chronicles. From those first pages of Rocket Summer I was hooked. For a kid in Boston, who grew up following our conquest of space and landing on the Moon, the images came through clearly. The heat of the rockets, leaving for Mars, melting the Ohio snow were vivid in my imagination. By the end of the book, There Will Come Soft Rains, was etched equally into my thoughts and my life.

There were other "young adult" authors that I read in that period. Of course, S.E. Hinton's books were all on my shelf. The Hinton books were great for a kid who felt like an Outsider, and also helped teach me about literature. But the Bradbury books took me further, outside of myself, and into a universe of possibilities and morality.

I read more of Bradbury's short stories (The Fruit at the Bottom of the Bowl comes to mind) and novels, and later saw the movies that came from them. Truffaut's excellent adaptation of Fahrenheit 451 being the first, and later The Illustrated Man, starring Rod Steiger. That movie could not compare to the images that Bradbury illustrated through his prose, although to this day, when I see somebody with excessive tattooing, I hear Steiger's voice in the back of my head saying, "They are not tattoos; they are skiiiin eellustrationz."

And, of course, there was the Twilight Zone episode he wrote, I Sing the Body Electric. Many include this among the worst Zone episodes for its dripping sentimentality, but I always found comfort in Bradbury's melding of technology with heart.

Bradbury was not himself a "techie" or mechanical person. He never drove since witnessing a car accident when younger, and was afraid to fly. I learned that second bit of trivia from Bradbury's appearance as a contestant on "You Bet Your Life" with Groucho Marx. It came out through Groucho's interview with him at the top of the show. I don't recall whether or not Bradbury said the magic word triggering the duck to come down with $100.

The soft rains have come. Ray Bradbury, R.I.P.

Here's the story: A driver tries to give a disabled person a few bucks at an intersection, one dollar falls to the ground, and the driver is given a $344 ticket for littering.

What the ...? Well, you see, in Columbus, Ohio, it's illegal to give money to a panhandler.

Um, okay, but the ticket was for littering? Well, you see, the penalty for littering is higher than the penalty for giving to a panhandler, so they're prosecuting him for the "greater crime." All for giving a few bucks to a disabled panhandler.

This is your tax dollars at work. Not at work, trying to help a disabled adult whose only income is from panhandling. No, that would be foolhardy, and would only encourage people to be disabled and destitute. No, this is your tax dollars hard at work punishing those naive fools who help out their fellow man.

Anti-panhandling laws (and anti-"camping" laws, and loitering laws, and...) arise out of the notion that if you make life inhospitable to the homeless and destitute, that they will, at best, suddenly be able to get a job and move inside, or, at the least, move on to another locality.

In Columbus, however, they've taken the next step. It's no longer enough to punish the poor for being poor, they've taken it upon themselves to punish decent citizens who take pity upon their fellow man, and therefor encourage them to be disabled and broke.

In some ways, this does make sense: it's easier to collect a fine from the guy with a job than from the guy on the street. But this is also their public policy, they obviously believe that it's that driver's fault that the guy in the wheelchair is a beggar.

Clearly, the good people of Columbus have discovered and gone after the root cause of poverty: Generosity. If we would only stop caring about the less fortunate among us, life would be wonderful, and our streets would be clean and safe.

Thank you, Columbus, for leading the way to a sweeter smelling, less caring America!

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.

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.

I've written about the power of storytelling in fundraising many times over. I've also written about the ethical question of organizations sharing their client's stories (see Who's Story is it Anyway?).  Well, here we go again...

Last weekend, walking along Pacific Avenue in Santa Cruz, I spotted a gentleman behind a card table set up on the side walk. He appeared to be in him mid-50s, neatly groomed long gray hair, comfortably dressed, ready to be of service. The sign on the front of his table read, "Free Empathy."

Certainly empathy is something that frequently seems to be in short supply in these stressful times, but, I would argue, so are opportunities to show empathy. People are hungry, not just to find somebody to listen to their troubles without judgement, but to reach out and comfort somebody else as well.

By now you've likely heard the story of Karen Klein, the school bus monitor from upstate New York, who was videotaped by a group of young boys who were bullying her to tears. One empathetic person who came across the video on YouTube decided to send Klein on "the vacation of a lifetime" and created an online campaign to raise $5,000 for that purpose. That amount was raised in a few hours. By the time the campaign ended, 32,000 people had given over $700,000.

Each donor could see the total already raised, and knew that the target amount had been reached hundreds of times over. And yet they still gave. The campaign was bigger than simply reaching out to Karen Klein with a virtual hug. The donors wanted to make a statement. They wanted to be part of a movement.

Yes, there are official nonprofit organizations who work on bullying issues that they could have donated to - some of you probably think that would have been a better investment, and you might be right - but the campaign for Klein's benefit offered something more tangible. A story. A story and the chance for direct philanthropic empathy.

Many people I've met over a couple of decades in the nonprofit sector believe that they are highly empathetic, and I believe that's often true. Thinking about which nonprofit staff I've known to be highly motivated and effective workers, versus those who simply go through the motions as burned out bureaucrats, the difference is often empathy. The best workers are those who connect to their client's stories, who feel their pain, and share their joys. Indeed, this is why we are in this sector. The stories are why we do what we do.

So, let me ask you this... Why do some of us expect our donors to be any more connected to our organizations and motivated to support our causes without knowing our client's stories? Why do some of us believe we can raise the funds necessary to do our jobs while hiding every detail of the lives of those we serve?

Yes, protect people's privacy, get permission to use testimonials, etc., etc. You know the drill. But most donors want something beyond a tax deduction. They want a connection. They want a human face. They want a chance to empathize. Just like you do.

Speaking of storytelling... Video is a great way for your organization to share your stories, and the DoGooder Video Awards each year recognize great achievement in nonprofit video storytelling. If your organization has a video you're proud of, you have until March 22 to enter for this year's awards. Head to the DoGooder webpage to learn more.

We had a great turnout at yesterday's Basic Grant Proposal Writing workshop at Community Foundation Santa Cruz County. The group asked a lot of great questions, and we covered a lot of material. Exhausting, but in a good way!

At the end of the day, Community Foundation Communications Officer, Luis Chabolla, asked me to stick around and make a quick video for the Foundation's YouTube channel. Luis asked me for three quick grant writing tips in under two minutes. Here's the result:


The Three R's of Grant Writing:

Research - Stop sending proposals scatter-shot to every foundation in the book. Target your proposals to those foundations who are interested in your work. No matter what work your organization does, there's a foundation that is interested in it.

Relate - Yes, you need good strong data to make a case, and to report on your outcomes, but don't forget the story. Putting a face on those numbers is what makes your proposal relatable and memorable and puts signatures on checks.

Revise - Edit for clarity and brevity. Proofread and then do it again.

We all have dreams for the nonprofit sector: increased individual giving, more effective boards, simplified government grant applications, better trained staff... Well, one of my dreams for the sector is greater public understanding of the nuts and bolts of how nonprofits operate, and I've got an idea for implementing it: a reality TV show.

So far the only time real, community, grass-roots nonprofits have been seen on reality TV is on shows like the Secret Millionaire. Each week a different successful business person gets in touch with the broader community by masquerading as a "regular person." They wander the streets, find struggling community programs, and get involved. The programs are typically run on a shoe-string by a founder who never collects a salary, but keeps things going against all odds. At the end of the show, the millionaire reveals his or her true identity and writes a large check, saving the day.

This perpetuates many myths that harm the sector. First, that organizations do not need professional, paid management to be effective. Secondly, that all they need to continue operating is for a single major donor to magically show up on their doorstep. Third, and perhaps most detrimental, that an organization which has never had a budget greater than $25,000/year can suddenly accept a $50,000 donation without any capacity building assistance and maintain that level of service once that cash is spent.

My idea is a bit different. Picture Secret Millionaire meets Restaurant Impossible. Restaurant Impossible (like Kitchen Nightmares with Gordon Ramsey) features chef Robert Irvine traveling the country and fixing our restaurants one at a time. In each episode he enters a new restaurant and assesses the food, the cleanliness, the business practices, the decor, and the owner/manager's personal problems and has 48 hours to fix them all with the help of his small team. By the end of the show, the food is delicious, the service is excellent, the walls are painted, the feuding owners are in love again, and the rats have been vanquished from the kitchen.

So, now, I give you the pitch for my new series, Nonprofit Rescue! Here's how a typical episode will run:

In the opening scene I enter the office of a small, neighborhood family resource center. The program offerings are strong - brochures for parenting classes, rental assistance, health care referrals, senior meals, etc., are strewn around the lobby - but there is no receptionist to greet me as I enter, leaving me free to wander around. I find client files open on unattended desks, and finally stumble into the conference room where the board chair and the executive director are fiercely arguing about the budget and why donations are lagging. It's several minutes before they notice me.

Over the next few scenes I meet privately with staff and clients. Clients tell me this used to be a great resource for the community. Now they only come to get a bus pass (when available) so they can go to a different agency downtown where there is better case management and follow-up. Staff are demoralized by the constant fighting and several rounds of lay-offs.

I get to work on the issues with my team of expert consultants. The next scenes are hectic as we cut back and forth between a strategic planning session, a community town hall to find out what services are needed, one-on-one meetings with funders and local elected officials, and the removal (and smashing) of any donated PCs powered by an Intel 286 processor. Between these clips, the board chair and ED each privately complain about each other to the camera. I meet with them each to discuss their proper roles and expectations.

After the final break comes the big reveal of the "new" agency. It starts with board, staff, and community members standing on the street. Our designer pulls a rope that drops the tarp covering their new sign. A new logo is revealed that is warmer and more welcoming than the old one that people said reminded them of the signage at a Soviet prison. We enter and see a well-organized and staffed reception area. Once in the conference room, we give binders to all board and staff with the new Strategic Plan (including a strong, realistic Fund Development Plan), graphics guidelines, privacy policies, Board handbook with member agreements and expectations, and an updated Employee Handbook with clear personnel policies.

The ED and Board Chair are given a template for their monthly board meeting agenda and a simple format for a one-page dashboard report that includes all the pertinent data they need to watch to not fall behind on their goals. The ED and Board Chair embrace; there are tears in everybody's eyes. Consulting has saved another community nonprofit. I wish them well and move on to the next week's challenge.

So, what do you think? Do any of you have any connections at the A&E network to help me set up a meeting? Or, maybe, it's just a dream...

Dear friends, today's blog is not about nonprofit management, but, in a way, it is about leadership. My first and most important mentor in leadership, my father, passed away, surrounded by family, on Sunday, December 9, 2012.

Irwin B. Goldstein was born in January, 1929, in Boston, Massachusetts. After graduating from high school, he joined the Army, then went on to Bentley College on the G.I. bill where he earned a certificate in accounting. In 1950 he got his first job in the record business, never expecting it would be his life's work. Forty-three years later, in 1993, he retired as a Senior Vice President of Warner-Elektra-Atlantic Distributing Corp.

The music business also introduced Irwin to the love of his life. He first saw Judi, then working for a classical music radio station, at a Boston Hi-Fi show in late 1954. They were engaged two weeks after their first date and married six months later. They have three sons (I am the youngest).

Irwin and Judi, were also dedicated volunteers, working to raise money for cancer research and treatment through the Music Industry Chapter for the City of Hope. For many years of that, he served as the treasurer of their chapter.

He is survived, missed, and loved by his wife of 57 years, Judith, sons Stephen, D. Miles, and Kenneth, daughters in law-in-law Jennifer, Michelle, and Leslie, six grandchildren, two great-grandchildren, his younger brother and sister, nieces, nephews, cousins, and countless more who all wished that he was their Dad.

One question that's always likely to come up when I teach a workshop on fund development is, "How do you define a major donor?" People ask this to determine some sort of line in how to thank and care for their donors; where to set the bar in setting aside one group of donors for "special treatment."

If that's their goal, then the answer really depends on the size of the organization, and how well-developed and successful their individual giving program is. For some organizations "major" may be those who give gifts over $25,000 or even $50,000, while for others it may be any donor who gives more than $500 or $1,000.

But one thing I try to explain to those I teach, coach, or advise, is that it is important to personally thank every donor, and that every gift - no matter how large or small - has the potential to be major to that donor. The person who is struggling themselves, but makes a personal sacrifice to send you $25 deserves at least as much thanks as the rich person who writes a much larger check to lower their tax liability.

I was reminded of this recently when my wife and I were invited to a special donor reception at our alma mater. When we opened the invitation, we looked at each other to ask, "How much did you send them!?" My wife is a public school teacher and I am a consultant to small, local nonprofits. We are not rich by any stretch, and our donations are not at all what a large university would ordinarily consider "major." We thought a mistake may have been made, but we RSVP'd anyway and went to the reception.

It was no mistake that we were on the list. There was no dollar cut-off for this thank you event. What had happened was that we had designated our gift this year to a new endowed chair in honor of one my wife's favorite professors. All early supporters at the fund's launch were invited, regardless of the size of the gift.

We attended with no more than 50 other local alumni, professors, and university staff at the Chancellor's house for a lovely afternoon with delicious snacks, wine, and a few short speeches, thank yous, and a performance from a current student. At no point during the event was there any hint of an ask. There was no fundraising that day, only thanking those who had already given.

As one who is more used to (and comfortable) doing the thanking, it was a pleasant change to be on the other side, and inspirational to see how well a large organization like a major university could do in creating an intimate and personal thank you event for donors at all levels.

How personal are your organization's thank yous? Do you have a cut-off for those who get a personal response versus those who get a form letter? When was the last time you reviewed your major gift and thank you policies?

I can pretty much guarantee that following that reception all of our annual alumni gifts will be going to this particular fund. The gifts may be small, but as long as they are appreciated, they will continue.

The common sense advice that is frequently given about social media is to keep your personal and professional identities completely separate. Much like the age-old saw about not discussing religion or politics at social gatherings, this is meant to avoid controversy, and, more to the point, not give any work associates reason to disagree with you (or terminate your job, etc.).

I've generally followed this advice, with separate blogs and distinct Twitter identities for the personal and professional. I try to keep my Facebook "friends" to only social contacts and my LinkedIn "connections" to only professionals (doesn't always work out that way). I've not gone out of my way to completely hide one identity from the other, but I've been reasonably careful about not deliberately mixing the two.

But, really, what have I got to hide? I'm not a recent college graduate with pictures of wild parties filling my personal social media streams. There are no illegal or immoral activities shared on my personal streams (although, there are some that are fattening). If alcohol is mentioned or pictured, it's most likely in reference to a visit to one of my state's many world-class wineries. The only possible area of controversy is the political.

Then, yesterday, following news of the death of George McGovern, I wondered why I am not more overtly political on this blog. The political is an essential element of the nonprofit sector. Political decisions drive the demand for social services, the results of elections can effect the flow of grant money into the nonprofit sector. And, this coming Presidential election could possibly have a major impact on the tax deductibility of the individual donations we depend on for support.

So, let me make one thing perfectly clear to any readers who may not have already figured this out: I am a liberal. Sometimes I use the euphemism "progressive," but I don't hide from the L word. Liberalism is not just a guide to how I vote, but a key to who I am. Liberal values and ethics permeate my being, and flow through my veins. It comes from my family upbringing, it comes from my religious background, it comes from my education (BA in Politics, Master of Public Policy & Administration), and it comes from my life experiences. It's not likely to be changed by a 30 second attack ad.

My liberalism is why I have made my career in the nonprofit sector. It is liberalism that keeps me dedicated to making the provision of social services efficient, effective, and possible. It is liberalism that makes me a better consultant, more interested in looking for ways nonprofits can better serve our communities than ways to extend my contract and increase my income. Without a conscious choice to live my liberalism, I would more likely have made a career in media or the entertainment industry, and made quite a bit more money. Oh well.

George McGovern's Quixotic campaign for President in 1972 was also part of the background and education that made me a liberal. Yesterday I wrote more about that on my personal blog, here: George McGovern: Acts of Faith

Let me make one more personal, political confession: I am not a Democrat. I was, from when I was able to register to vote in 1979 till about 1995. I was registered as a Green briefly after that, but have been happily DTS ("Decline to State") since. I describe myself as "left-of-center, independent." No one party or candidate owns my vote or can expect it without first earning it.

That said, my final point here is this: The Nonprofit Consultant Blog proudly supports and endorses Barack Obama for a second term as President of the United Sates.

I believe that this President, while far from perfect, has shown dedication to the issues we work on as a sector, and that he deeply cares about the people who we serve. Meanwhile Mitt Romney's private remarks to donors about "the 47%" have disqualified him from consideration by anybody who has dedicated their career to helping those on the lower side of the economic ladder.

We need to give President Obama another term to continue the progress that he has made. Further, we need to help him by removing the obstructionist Tea Party Republicans from Congress. I am an independent, who has regularly split my vote, but this year it is vital to elect a straight Democratic ticket. I hope you will join me.

Yesterday I had the opportunity to present an introductory workshop on social media to a few of my colleagues in the Fund Builders Alliance. We covered some of the basics of what social media is and is not, got into the how-tos and whys of facebook, twitter, linkedin, and blogging, and briefly went over the variety of other services available (pinterest, storify, g+, ...). It's always a great day when you can get together with a group of professionals that you respect and teach them something new. (And thank you to Karen and Leadership Monterey Peninsula for use of the conference room!)

Here's the thing though. Although I was pleased to present this workshop, and although I do offer social media planning and coaching services, I'm always hesitant to use the title "social media expert." As I told the group yesterday, "At the end of this session you will all be social media experts, for about three hours." Social media is such a constantly changing and evolving ecosystem that I believe it is a continual learning effort. Fortunately, I am fascinated by it and enjoy that effort. But I still realize that there is always more to learn.

I've been playing around with online communities in my personal life for nearly twenty years now. On a professional level, I got involved with nonprofit online discussions as a member of HandsNet around 1996. A few years later, I wound up working for HandsNet as the Director of Online Community Development. Since then I've continued to be an early adopter of many new platforms, including blogger, facebook, youtube, and twitter. But "expert"? ...

I hope to continue to learn and fascinated by social media, and I hope to continue to bring that experience and enthusiasm to my colleagues and clients in the nonprofit sector. But if you ever catch me using the title "Social Media Expert" please splash a cold glass of water in my face. Just try not to splash my iPhone, thank you.

Oh, and if you'd like a copy of my powerpoint slides from yesterday's presentation, just send me an email (contact info in the "about the consultant" section of this blog).

The "It" referred to in the title of this post is Social Media. And the problem is nonprofits who are under the impression that Twitter, Facebook, etc., are just about marketing. They think that it's just fine if their postings consist of nothing more than a sales pitch (or, in the nonprofit case, a donation pitch).

Nonprofits can be forgiven, somewhat, for thinking that way. After all, using the news feeds from many local small businesses as examples, that's what we frequently see. But there's a huge difference between, say, a local burger joint and a local food pantry.

Think like a consumer of social media: what benefit do you get from following either of these streams?

The local burger joint can get away with not being social on social media. If I subscribe/follow/like them, the benefit is clear: cheap food. Finding out what's on special, getting that coupon code, learning today's location of the food truck. If I'm getting any of that, I really don't care if they engage in conversation, or provide any information other than saving me a buck on good food.

But what added value do I get from subscribing/following/liking the local nonprofit food pantry? Being asked for yet another donation on an hourly basis? Where's that "unlike" button?

No, nonprofits don't have the luxury of using social media just as another advertising outlet. We have to use it correctly. We have to be social on social media. We have to constantly put our audience's needs ahead of our own.

Subscribe/follow/like others, and engage them in conversation about your area of expertise. Answer questions about your organization, its mission, and the issues that your programs address. Tell about your successes as well as your challenges. Thank your supporters and show how much they're appreciated. Find out what your audience wants to hear from you, and then provide it regularly and clearly.

Sure, you can mention where to donate, or plug your upcoming events or volunteer opportunities. But not every time you sit down to tap out an update. To get (and keep) followers - and turn them into donors later on - you need to figure out your value added proposition. Otherwise, it's just a lot of spam.

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.

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.