“Twiggy” and Nicola Forrest are the first Australasians to sign the Giving Pledge. They pledge to give away half of their fortune during their lifetime. You can read their actual pledge letter here. “Twiggy”, of course, is no stranger to controversy. There are more than a few who are vocal in opposition to his business activities and his views on indigenous issues. If you are one of the few who haven’t heard these debates (or have forgotten) it’s worth a read of this ABC Four Corners transcript. Or just scan some of the headlines compiled by Crikey.
Should we be grateful or should we be alarmed by the capacity of 115 or so mega rich signatories to the Pledge to intervene in national or global affairs? The Forrests propose to work with governments and other organizations to deal with issues related to aboriginal communities and to modern slavery. Bill and Melinda Gates already work with governments and NGOs across the world to deal with problems in education and health. Others on the list have similar broad reaching agenda.
Ought we to be concerned that individuals such as the Forrests and the Gateses have been able to accumulate mind boggling wealth and influence? Or ought we to recognize that the rich like death and taxes will be always with us?
I adopt the latter policy. It is not within my capacity to change the rules of global power and wealth. As fundraiser I can do my bit in a small corner of the philanthropic ecosystem. My small contribution is to encourage the very wealthy to think seriously about doing good.
The truth is that the very rich will continue, as they have done since the beginning of time in all cultures, to be philanthropic. There are varying schools of thought as to their motivations - religious belief, search for meaning, guilt? The one quality that potentially all have in common is what US sociologist Paul Schervish calls ‘hyperagency’ . In layperson terms this is self-belief and ability to get things done multiplied hundredfold.
So yes, I celebrate Twiggy and Nicola and all the others joining the Giving Pledge and the hundreds and thousands of other wealthy people who are philanthropic.
Footnote: There is an interesting debate on a similar issue here in the Gawker.com and Forbes.com blogs, ‘Do the Good Rich Exist’ and ‘Yes the Good Rich do exist’
It’s a common topic of conversation and it’s been given a recent new spark by a US survey of nonprofits by Compass Point . How come certain Directors of Development roles rotate so frequently?
“All too often, nonprofit organizations pin their hopes and dreams for fundraising on one person—namely, the development director. And, our survey data confirm that many of the fundraising challenges facing nonprofits today can be traced to high turnover and other problems in the development director position”.
Having been a director of development and having watched and work with many of you, some of the insights ring clearly. Unrealistic expectations, lack of resources, lack of engagement in fundraising by CEO and Board, a failure to understand process and methodologies of fundraising.
My worst experience of all of these at once was taking on a role attracted by a juicy target ( I was still young and eager to impress) only to discover that there was no agreed case for support, no identified prospects and not even a functioning database.
But hang on! Does the US experience, as reflected in the report really ring true of the Australasian environment? I am not sure that it does. I am not sure that the situation is nearly as stark here. Many of not the majority of the Directors of Development that I know has been in their roles for some time. Think around your colleagues.
Whilst some express frustration, a lot are committed to the challenges of their roles and achieving admirable results.
What do you think?
