Ms. "Ethics Matter" Appointed to NANOE's Board of Governors

By Jim Anderson, CFRE

Ms. Ethics Matter's
NANOE "Press Release"

I was quoted today in an excellent article/expose published by the Chronicle of Philanthropy. The article,  "New Nonprofit Puts Money Over Mission and Ethics" was written by Timothy Sandoval regarding what many consider the unethical business practices and self-serving fundraising philosophies of an organization who calls themselves the "National Association of Nonprofit Organizations and Executives" (NANOE). In the article the "founder" of NANOE, Jimmy LaRose calls me a liar. I view that as an invitation to prove that my experience and my story are true.

In the article I explain what I view as deceptive and misleading business practices employed by NANOE. If you are or have ever been on a fundraising organization's mailing list you have likely received NANOE's "spam" communications or text messages proclaiming with grandiosity that you have been "nominated" for "appointment" to their "Board of Governors." Sounds pretty special, doesn't it? It's not. You haven't been "nominated." It appears they acquired your email address "somehow." I think that "acquisition" is very shady. But we'll save that for another blog.

Here's my proof that "you" were probably never "nominated" by anyone.

Tim at the Chronicle contacted me for an interview and I shared that I believe NANOE is in violation of the FTC's CAN-SPAM Act and that those flowery, flattering emails they send to "everyone" are intended to trick trusting fundraisers into believing that they have received a legitimate nomination to a prestigious board when in fact it's an automated process with no one actually nominating the recipient and no one looking at the submitted nominations before automatically sending the "Press Release" announcing their appointment to NANOE's "board of governors."

I explained that I have personally accepted multiple NANOE nominations that were NEVER OFFERED using fictitious names and new email addresses. I did so to test my assumptions that this was just a reprehensible, deceptive marketing tactic that was part of a broader money making scam attempting to mislead the unsuspecting. Like everyone, I hate spam. And, I really hate deceptive business practices and purposefully misleading marketing tactics.

Tim shared my story with Jimmy and asked if it was true that "anyone" could sign up with an email that had only existed for minutes and instantly be accepted as a member of NANOE's Board of Governors. Tim called me back two days ago on Tuesday, March 28th and told me Jimmy claimed that my story was impossible, nominations are specific to the individual and the button to accept "NANOE Nominations" had been removed "some time ago."

I knew that was untrue. I had already been "appointed" to their board of governors using a fictitious name and brand new email address. And I still had their web page open in my browser. I hadn't refreshed their page in a few days. The accept "NANOE Nominations" button was still on my screen. I told Tim what I saw on the website and sent him my earlier "Press Release" email proving that my "previously created" non-existent person had been appointed to NANOE's board of governors. (Yes, I am currently multiple NANOE "board of governor" appointees.)

Still... it bugged me that my personal experience was called "impossible." It bugged me that Jimmy was claiming his "pez dispenser" for board of governors appointments didn't exist. It annoyed me off that Jimmy was calling me a liar.

So, I did it again.

Photo #1 - When you click the "NANOE Nominations" button in the top left of the homepage, this is your first pop-up window. 

Minutes after ending my conversation with Tim, I returned to NANOE's homepage and repeated the process using the name "Ms. Ethics Matter." I had seen how they automatically spit out their "press releases" and I really wanted them to "appoint" "Ms. Ethics Matter" to their board of governors. For an organization that proclaims "Ethics + Accountability = Failed Practices," this is ironic isn't it? Jimmy claims his nominations are real and you cannot accept a nomination unless you had received an invitation. But, Jimmy is a liar. And Jimmy knows he is a liar. But liars don't care. They just lie about lying. Problem solved.

On multiple occasions I used a fictitious name, a fictitious company, an email I created only moments earlier and a phone number that amused me to accept a nomination that had never been offered. In the case of Ms. Ethics Matter, her phone number is the US Congressional Switchboard.*

Photo #2 - This is your second pop-up window. You can enter any name, phone number, or email. Don't worry "everybody" gets appointed to the NANOE "Board of Governors."

Photo #3 - This is your third pop-up window. Hurray! You have been "instantly" appointed to the NANOE Board of Governors. Ms. Ethics Matter received her email confirmation (Photos #4 and #5 below) 19 seconds after I clicked "submit."

*Photo #1a - This is the original screen shot in this series of three photos. I took the second screen shot (above) minutes later after repositioning the homepage for a cleaner background. 

After being appointed to the NANOE board of governors AGAIN, only 19 seconds after clicking "submit," I sent the time stamped confirmation email "Press Release" and time stamped screen captures to Tim, AGAIN. This was two days ago as you can see in the photos. Tim called me back yesterday, Wednesday morning and told me Jimmy claimed I fabricated the story. He claimed I edited an earlier "legitimate" press release and that I photo shopped the screen captures.

Really? Really...who are you going to believe "me" or your lying eyes?

Here is Ms. Ethics Matter's congratulatory "press release" trumpeting her successful appointment to the prestigious NANOE Board of Directors.

Photo #4 - Ms. Ethics Matter received this congratulatory "press release" 19 seconds after I clicked submit.

Photo #5 - Jimmy claimed I used an old, "legitimate" confirmation email and edited it so I opened the address detail to prove it's authenticity.

Because of Jimmy's claims I had "fabricated" this whole story, Tim asked me to prove to him I was telling the truth AGAIN while he was on the phone with me. So yesterday, Wednesday morning, I took a screen capture of their homepage with the "NANOE Nominations" button and the pop-up window which appears when you click the button. I sent this to Tim immediately while still on the phone. My computer clock is visible on screen, and the photo is time-stamped proving the date. Tim said "That looks like proof to me."

Photo #6 - Screen capture of the NANOE homepage yesterday with the "NANOE Nominations" button in the upper left corner.

When I tried to move to the next screen to accept another non-existent nomination, we learned the link had finally been disabled sometime in the last 24 hours after Tim had shared with Jimmy that Ms. "Ethics Matter" had just been appointed to NANOE's board of governors.

It remains to be seen if we'll all keep getting "nominated" to NANOE's board. But the "pez dispenser" button for board of governors appointments is gone. With the button having magically disappeared, I'm not sure how you would accept your nomination that no one ever made. But on the bright side, I guess that means Jimmy's claim that "it's impossible" to do what I did, over and over again, is true. Finally.

-----

If you would like to consider membership in a reputable, ethical fundraising association here are a few places to learn more. (I am not compensated in any way by any of the following organizations.)

Association of Fundraising Professionals

Arlington, Virginia, US

Association for Healthcare Philanthropy
Falls Church, Virginia, US

Council for Advancement and Support of Education
(Multiple International Locations)

Fundraising Institute Australia

Chatswood, NSW

The Resource Alliance

London, UK

*If you do call the Congressional Switchboard at 202-224-3121, ask to speak to your representative about an issue important to you. Maybe stricter enforcement of the anti-spam CAN-SPAM Act and other FTC violations.

Mission First: Why Philanthropy is About Mission, not Money

Lowell Observatory
Discovery Channel Telescope
Photo: Dr. Michael West

"We're seeing things that no one's ever seen before." 

--Dr. Deirdre Hunter, Astronomer

I had the privilege of spending the majority of two days at Lowell Observatory as they unveiled the conceptual vision of the "next frontier," so to speak, of their research, learning and community engagement. As a former director of development for the Observatory (where they discovered Pluto), and a current donor, I'm very proud of Lowell. They have made groundbreaking discoveries for over a century, but even with that pedigree, the project that was discussed was thrilling.

You may wonder, is it a new telescope? No, they did that already with the Discovery Channel Telescope.

Is it a new building? Well, that might be part of the project, but not yet.

This project is about conducting transformational research to inspire people to change their view of science, the world and the universe.

This has been the unchanging mission of Lowell Observatory for 123 years. While it's not the stereotypical nonprofit cause of "children and puppies," it is inspiring to many amateur astronomers, scientists, educators, history buffs, and families who are curious about our little blue dot's place.

While there are still questions about the project, I can already see that this vision is capturing people's imagination. I can also see this project capturing the imagination and passion of current and future donors in a big and inspiring way.

This proposed new project is big. (Like "brontosaurus big," according to Dr. Jeffrey Hall, Director of Lowell Observatory.) And it will require a lot of money. But the thing is, we didn't talk that much about money.

Mission always comes first.

Dr. Hall aptly noted to the board, "We have made the error in the past of putting money first." That approach shook the core of Lowell Observatory's culture and even threatened the financial viability of the organization. "If you want to know why we do what we do, go speak to a high school class, and connect with a young person who wants your card afterward to follow up [about scientific study]," Dr. Hall added. "That's why we do what we do." By refocusing on their mission over the last several years, Lowell Observatory is poised to be the most successful in its history.

There are some people, however, who would argue that this approach is flawed. You've heard the old saying, "No money, no mission." But now there is an organization that believes that money should be the prime focus.

In an article published by the Chronicle of Philanthropy, "New Nonprofit Puts Money Over Mission and Ethics," the National Association of Nonprofit Organizations and Executives claims that they are for "nonprofit executives who know money is more important than mission." The founder is also quoted as saying, "they’ll say: ‘Jimmy, if we do what Nanoe is saying, we’ll have to stop serving kids.’ And you know what I say? I say, ‘Stop serving kids.’"

That approach is wrong. 

James Langley, founder and principal of Langley Innovations, and consultant to Lowell Observatory, astutely said, "Philanthropists are those who live below their means for the good of others." This applies to any philanthropist, regardless of their capacity to give. Whether the person is donating $10 or $10 million, they have made decisions to give up something to support your mission.

Do you think those philanthropists are interested in living below their means just to contribute to your coffers? If you "stop serving kids," why do you even exist?

This is a guess, but I think if you map out the difficult times for Lowell Observatory over a 123 year span, you'll discover that the times when the institution was most threatened was when money took precedence over mission. And the times when it has thrived was when its mission was a singular focus.

W. Lowell Putnam IV, the Observatory's current trustee, also said this: "Whatever we do, we cannot violate people's trust and the integrity of the institution." Lowell Observatory is clearly united in the belief that existing as a nonprofit organization is a privilege. It is their responsibility to be accountable to the donors--the investors--who give.

So do you want your organization to focus on ethics, accountability and your mission, or is money more important to you?


***
Disclosure: Jim Anderson was interviewed for the article by Timothy Sandoval with the Chronicle of Philanthropy. I was not. I thank Lowell Observatory and Langley Innovations for letting me participate in their meetings; these are my opinions and not theirs.

Defend the Underdogs of Public Media

Jim and I and our friends at WSSB in Orangeburg, SC

Since the November 2016 election, people in public and community media have been speculating about the future of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). This agency provides funding for public and community stations throughout the country through its Community Service Grant program and other special funding initiatives for infrastructure and collaborative projects.

Now, the Trump administration has announced its first pass budget that, to little surprise, zeroes out funding for the CPB, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the National Endowment for the Humanities.

I could go on about the politics of the elimination of funding. But not now. What I want to address is the very real impact of this potential loss on small, rural and minority stations.

First, an apology to my larger market station colleagues. I respect you and what you are doing to provide educational service to your communities. You invest local resources in Ready to Learn programs. You have some of the largest, and most under-resourced, teams of journalists in the country. You engage community leaders in civil discussion about local issues as wide ranging as racial profiling and restaurant reviews.

You will be fine.

CPB funding, for many large or medium size market stations, has become an increasingly small portion of their budgets. These stations may have survived elimination of other funding sources, such as state funding. Some have even explored what it might mean to withdraw from the Community Service Grant program. And I can confidently say that larger market stations have rallied their audiences to provide higher levels of voluntary support.

Some of my colleagues who have worked with only major market stations agree that eliminating funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is a bad idea, but they are being practical. We can consolidate. We can raise the difference.

That's why I'm not really worried about you. I'm worried about the stations who can't do that.

The small but mighty KAWC team, 2016
(Steven Hennig is missing because he was taking the picture)

We work and have worked with small, rural and minority stations. We work with KAWC Colorado River Public Media, based in Yuma, Arizona, which provides two noncommercial programming streams to rural Arizona, including local coverage of real life on the border from a four person news team, and the only news service to some areas where cell phones still don't work.

We work with KGHR Navajo Public Radio, based at Greyhills Academy High School in Tuba City, Arizona, on the Navajo Nation, which serves as a community information board, sharing news about health fairs, home maintenance, public safety and other basic services that might otherwise go unnoticed.

We have worked in the past with KUYI Hopi Radio, licensed to The Hopi Foundation, one of the pioneers in Native American public media, which provides programming in the Hopi language and contributes to the protection and growth of the Hopi culture.

For all three of these stations, their CPB grant is a significant portion of their budget. It pays for programming that connects these remote communities to the rest of the world. It helps cover staff that keep the station running and provide a local voice. These stations are running with the bare minimum of staff to keep them going; the grant does not cover “fluff.”

In addition, these stations are not in communities with high resources. The idea of having the local audience bear the full cost is not realistic for these smaller stations. For instance, in a project funded by the CPB through Greater Public, we worked with four African-American licensed stations to try to build their local capacity for fundraising. Could we give these stations the tools to raise more money?

The answer, as you might expect, was “yes and no.” The stations did, to varying degrees, increase the amount of money raised, but not to the level of doubling or tripling their revenue. The communities that they served simply did not have the financial capacity to increase their giving dramatically. If faced with the loss of their CPB grant, they might be able to cut some expenses and generate a little more revenue, but not enough to continue.

So that begs the question...why do we need these small stations anyway? Wouldn't it be more efficient to just merge them into another larger station? Doesn't the internet provide the services these stations do? Couldn't we just have a national feed of NPR and PBS and call it done?

What would we lose if these small, rural and minority stations went away?

We lose the voices of these communities in national discussion. It doesn't work to ask people from these communities to go someplace else to share their opinions: that automatically makes them an outsider and immediately changes the nature of the conversation. We need to speak with people where they live to get their real perspectives.

We lose the connection within rural and small communities. Stations help residents in their communities stay connected. Particularly in radio, the station is often the only way to communicate with the whole community, not just about local events, but also about emergency situations. And the suggestion that everyone can get what they need through the internet? Well, internet access is not as universal as many in larger communities think, and what happens during a crisis when local internet might be down? In recent floods and hurricanes in the southeast, often the public radio or television station was the only source for updates.

We lose sight of issues that face people who live outside of metro areas. Let's face it: problems are different in major cities than they are in small towns and rural areas. For example, we are still dealing with getting cell phone service to some of these communities, when people in big cities complain about not having free WiFi. Stations have the ability to have issues moved to a larger stage that are simply foreign to metro audiences.

We lose the stories and rich histories of diverse cultures. You can't simply send a correspondent into a community for a day or two and expect them to understand the culture and way of life. There are so many stories that can only be crafted over time, and by someone who is a part of life there.

And we begin to ignore small, rural and minority communities and the issues that are important to them. By saying, “really, only large markets can have this service,” you tell people that they are not worth having a voice.

A colleague suggested that threats to federal support to public broadcasting might be a good thing for us. Like with the ACLU, the Southern Poverty Law Center, Planned Parenthood, and others, perhaps this is an opportunity for the public to rally and provide unprecedented levels of support. I worry that stations that really need the funding will not have the ability to access it.

Annie Lin (my mom), Mr. Rogers and me, circa 1971.
 I've been a public media supporter for a long time.

There will be much more discussion about this issue in the coming days, and, like in previous battles, I expect that many people will voice their support for public media. If you would like to do so, please visit Protect My Public Media to add your story. Also, contact your Representative and Senators regarding your position.

And find your local station and support them. They need all the help they can get.

---

We have worked with so many stations that deserve your support, but a special shout out to KAWC Colorado River Public Media, KGHR Navajo Public Radio, KUYI Hopi Radio, KXCI Tucson, Arizona Public Media, Arizona PBS, WSSB Orangeburg, WSNC Winston-Salem, WUVS Muskegon, KBBG Waterloo, Mountain Lake PBS, WGVU Grand Rapids, KCOS El Paso, Houston Public Media, KPFA Berkeley, WBAI New York, KNPB Reno, KUAC Fairbanks, and Wisconsin Public Television.

Manifesto 3.0: Being True to Your Values

There is an oft quoted story about the child and the starfish. You probably know the one. The abridged version goes like this:

A man came across a child walking on the beach, upon which thousands of starfish had washed. The child was picking up the starfish that were still living, and throwing them back in the water, because if they stayed on the beach, the starfish would surely die. The man observed this for some time, and eventually approached.

"What are you doing?"

"I am saving the starfish," he replied.

“Little boy, why are you doing this? Look at this beach! You can’t save all these starfish. You can’t begin to make a difference!”

The boy bent down, picked up another starfish, and hurled it as far as he could into the ocean. Then he looked up at the man and replied, “Well, it mattered to that one."

What I have only recently learned is that this story is adapted from a longer story called "The Star Thrower," by Loren Eiseley. In the longer essay, there is an important resolution:

On a point of land, I found the star thrower...I spoke once, briefly. "I understand," I said. "Call me another thrower." Only then I allowed myself to think, he is not alone any longer. After us, there will be others....For a moment, we cast on an infinite beach together."

So why is this story important to us?

Jim and I frequently reflect on those rare people in our lives who are truly, deeply genuine. These are people who, regardless of what is happening to them, or to people they care about, or to situations around them, are true to their values, loyal to people who are important to them, and honest in what they say. These are not people who waver: they are our rocks, our foundation. Our star throwers.

The star throwers of our lives tend to be underappreciated. They may be quieter than others, more introspective or introverted, yet they are always there, ready with a helping hand, a kind gesture, or an insightful observation.

But it is one thing to tell people that you admire their traits. It's quite another thing to emulate them.

Over the last several months, Jim and I have felt a need to express the values of GoalBusters more overtly. While we've never been shrinking violets about this (see the GoalBusters Manifesto), we also know that we need to clearly define where we stand.

When we participated in the Women's March on Washington, we knew we were taking a step.

Even though we work with many different organizations, with people of many perspectives, political beliefs and spiritual callings, they all have one thing in common--they are part of communities who struggle to have a voice. Whether it's a small public radio station covering border issues far from major cities, or a health care institution trying to provide comprehensive service in a rural community, or an education organization providing advancement opportunity to those who haven't had it before, these are charities that are, in many respects, trying to do the impossible.

So, I dedicate the GoalBusters Manifesto 3.0 to our friends who are trying to do the impossible. To our Star Throwers.

---

The Manifesto 3.0
updated March 7, 2017 (aka the tenth anniversary of Liberation Day)

At GoalBusters, philanthropy, and fundraising, is not about money. Yes, money is involved, and we help our clients raise money and do more with the resources they have. But fundamentally, the obligation of the charitable sector is to make the world a better place, and to lift up the people and beings living in it.

Fundraising is not about "shoveling coal into a machine." Your purpose has to matter to the communities you serve. You have to care about more than yourself. It comes down to the root of the word philanthropy: it means love of humankind.

Therefore, we work with causes that we personally believe in. When we work with a client, we throw our hearts and souls into the organization. Ultimately, we can't fake that. Causes that we personally support include public and community media, education, healthcare for the underserved, diverse communities, arts and cultural programs, progressive causes, social justice, social services, and our professional associations.

We also work with teams that are passionate--about the cause, about learning, about improving, about making the world a better place--because if you're not committed to your cause, why should anyone else be?

Finally, we work with people who are committed to the highest standards of ethics and professional practice. And don't just give that lip service—actually live it.

---

Call me another thrower.

This post is dedicated to Vernon Kahe.

Thanks also to our team, Annagreta Jacobson, Elta Foster, J.C. Patrick, Justin Anderson, Matthew Ferris and Dennis Gilliam for supporting and uplifting us every day, and to Bill and Matthew Ferris for allowing me to throw my whole self into GoalBusters. And of course, thanks to Jim Anderson for, well, everything. On March 7, 2007 (aka Liberation Day), Jim and I took a leap of faith that GoalBusters (founded as Ferris Consulting in March 2001) could be a real full-time gig, and now, ten years later, it is much more than that--it is our life's work. We have the privilege of meeting incredible fundraising professionals around the world and the honor of serving organizations that live the Manifesto.