Monday, November 15, 2010
In a Boston Globe article, based on a Chronicle of Higher Education review of 2008 Forms 990, more than one in five presidents at 448 colleges and universities received $600,000 in compensation, with thirty receiving more than $1 million in total compensation in 2008. Although a majority of the compensation packages were executed prior to the full effect of the economic downturn, academic executives' compensation is expected to rise in the coming years due to the supply and demand of top talent. Because of IRS changes to the Form 990 requiring compensation data to be reported on a calendar year rather than fiscal year basis, a true comparison to prior years is not achievable because of overlap in the reporting.
The results of the Chronicle's survey trigger differing opinions. On one hand, the president of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities argues that the compensation packages are warranted because of the increased demands placed on college presidents. On the other hand, the president of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education contends that increased chief executive compensation and tuition diminishes "public confidence in higher education."
According to the website of the Association of Fundraising Professionals, today, November 15, is the 25th annual National Philanthropy Day. Per the Association, today is a "special day set aside to recognize and pay tribute to the great contributions that philanthropy—and those people active in the philanthropic community—have made to our lives, our communities and our world." More than 125 communities and 50,000 people around the world are expected to participate in events and celebrations.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Philanthropy News Digest today reported that the Borchard Foundation Center on Law and Aging is inviting applications for its 2010-2011 Academic Research Grant Program. According to the Digest, the program "is intended to further scholarship about new or improved public policies, laws, and/or programs that will enhance the quality of life for the elderly (including those who are poor or otherwise isolated by lack of education, language, culture, disability, or other barriers)."
The Digest continues:
The center expects grantees to meet the objectives of the grant program through individual or collaborative research projects that analyze and recommend changes in one or more important existing public policies, laws, and/or programs relating to the elderly; or anticipate the need for and recommend new public policies, laws, and/or programs for the elderly necessitated by changes in the number and demographics of the country's and the world's elderly populations, by advances in science and technology, by changes in the healthcare system, or by other developments. Each grant recipient is required to publish an article on the subject of their research in a first-rate journal.
[In the past,] scholars in the fields of health, law, medicine, and sociology have been awarded grants. The program is open to all interested and qualified legal, health sciences, social sciences, and gerontology scholars and professionals. Two or more individuals in the same institution or different institutions may submit a collaborative proposal. Grant recipients must be U.S. citizens or legal residents of the U.S. and must be affiliated with a U.S.-based institution or organization.
The grant program annually awards up to four one-year grants of $20,000 each.
Application materials are available at the Borchard Foundation Web site.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
The International Society for Third Sector Research (ISTR) has issued a call for contributions. Here is the text of the CFC.
Call for Contributions
ISTR 9th International Conference
"Facing Crises:Challenges and Opportunities Confronting the Third Sector and Civil Society"
The International Society for Third-Sector Research (ISTR) is pleased to announce that the Call for Contributions for the 9th International Conference is published on our website (www.istr.org/conferences/istanbul/). The conference will be held at Kadir Has University in Istanbul, Turkey, on July 7-10, 2010.
The Call is currently available in English and Spanish; Arabic, Chinese, German and French languages will be added in the very near future.
The deadline for submissions is October 19, 2009.
For more information, see the ISTRwebsite at: www.istr.org/conferences/istanbul/
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
I am pleased to announce that my friend, co-author, co-blogger, classmate and colleague, Professor Darryll Keith Jones of Stetson University College of Law will be joining the faculty of Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University (FAMU) College of Law next academic year as Professor and Associate Dean of Faculty Development. As many of you know, Darryll is a prolific scholar, dedicated teacher and a fountain of knowledge. I know that Darryll and his wife, Karla, are very excited by this move and I encourage you to join me in congratulating him on this magnificent accomplishment. FAMU will be lucky to have Darryll given his prior experience as Academic Dean at Pittsburgh and his stellar scholarly record in the areas of tax law and nonprofit law. Go Darryll!!
Monday, March 9, 2009
The American Law Institute with host on Friday and Saturday, March 13 and 14, 2009, in Philadelphia meetings of the advisers and members consultative group for its Project on Principles of the Law of Nonprofit Organizations Law. The Reporter for this project is the all-knowing (at least on the subject of nonprofit law) immediate past chair of the AALS Section on Nonprofit and Philanthropy Law, Professor Evelyn Brody. To see a description of the project, click on the project's website. At the meeting on Friday, the subjects of discussion will be "Relationship Between the Charity and the State" and "Supervision and Enforcement."
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
The March issue of the International Journal of Civil Society Law (IJCL) Newsletter has some very interesting reports on individual freedoms in civil society as they relate to nonprofits, including: citizenship and freedom of information, freedom of association, freedom of expression and freedom of religion. To see the March issue of the IJCL Newsletter, go to http://www.iccsl.org/pubs/09-03_IJCSL-N.pdf
Friday, February 20, 2009
For those of you who are full-time law professors at AALS member or fee-paid law schools, you should have received an email this week asking you to update your information for the next edition of the AALS Directory of Law Teachers. Near the end of your registration process, you will be asked to select the sections that you would like to join. If you visit this list, I urge you to join the newly established AALS Section on Nonprofit and Philanthropy Law. This is very important because a larger section means more support for this subject area as a discrete discipline in law. To update your AALS Directory of Law Teachers information and register for the Nonprofit and Philanthropy Law Section, go to http://www.aals.org/dlt/. If you need your username and password for the registration process, contact the AALS at 202-296-8851. For information on the new AALS Nonprofit and Philanthropy Law website, go here.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
At January's AALS Annual Meeting section program of the AALS Section on Nonprofit and Philanthropy Law, section secretary Norman Silber (Hofstra) announced the launch of a new section website. the website is located at www.nonprof.org. Check it out! If you are a section member, you should email Norman Silber for the user name and password needed to access the site. If you are not a section member, you should contact the AALS office in Washington (www.aals.org) for information on how to sign up to join the section.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Call for Papers
Philanthropy Law in the 21st Century
October 23, 2009
The American College of Trust and Estate Counsel’s Legal Education Committee is organizing the third in a series of academic symposia financially supported by the ACTEC Foundation. The next symposium, Philanthropy Law in the 21st Century, will be held at Chicago Kent Law School on October 23, 2009.
The symposium will be organized around three panels, and the preliminary plan is to have one panel on donor issues, one on management issues, and one on tax issues. Because the three topics overlap somewhat, the Legal Education Committee will organize papers into panels after it reviews the proposals.
If you would like to be considered for one of the panels, please submit an abstract of your paper to Anne-Marie Rhodes by email (her address is firstname.lastname@example.org by February 2, 2009. The Committee will notify individuals chosen to participate in the symposium by email by March 1, 2009. If you are chosen to present a paper, you will be asked to submit a draft by September 1, 2009. Drafts will be circulated to the panelists prior to the date of the symposium and abstracts will be provided to all symposium attendees. You will also be asked to agree to publish your final paper in a special symposium edition of the Chicago-Kent Law Review.
All symposium speakers will be reimbursed for their travel expenses (airfare and the cost of ground transportation and hotel) courtesy of an ACTEC Foundation grant. Speakers will also be invited to a Speakers’ Dinner on Thursday night, and breakfast and lunch will be provided to both speakers and attendees on Friday.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Now that (most) of the election results are in, it is an appropriate time to consider how an Obama presidency might affect nonprofits. Perhaps one of the most prominent aspects of the Bush presidency with respect to nonprofits has been the current Administration's efforts to expand government funding available for religious organizations, spearheaded by the White House office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, although some criticized whether those efforts were more symbolic than substantive. According to President-Elect Obama's campaign website, he plans to have a similar although somewhat differently focused effort. As part of his Administration's service initiative, President Obama states he will create a "Social Investment Fund Network" that will "use federal seed money to leverage private sector funding." He also promises to create a new agency within the existing Corporation for National And Community Service (home of AmeriCorps, Senior Corps, and other service-promoting programs) which would be "dedicated to building the capacity and effectiveness of the nonprofit sector." Whether these promises turn into significant efforts, particularly in the tight-budget environment the federal government will face for at least the next couple of years, we will have to wait to see, although perhaps some hope can be found in the fact that Senator Obama has perhaps a greater degree of familiarity with nonprofits from his community organizing and other past efforts than the typical new President.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Though we are a young journal at a young institution, the Charleston Law Review has enjoyed the privilege of publishing some of our nation’s leading thinkers and has earned a reputation as being a professional publication that authors have enjoyed working with. In its second volume, for example, the Charleston Law Review garnered national recognition for publishing Senator and Democratic Presidential Nominee Barack Obama and hosting a punitive damages symposium that featured leading thinkers such as Professor Anthony Sebok of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Professor Neil Vidmar of Duke Law School, Professor Keith Hylton of Boston University Law School, and Professor Mike Rustad of Suffolk University Law School. The symposium volume also included noted practitioners Ms. Elizabeth Cabraser and Mr. Victor Schwartz. In its general issues, Charleston Law Review also published notable scholars such as Professor Walter Murphy of Princeton University and Professor John Yoo of University of California Berkeley Law School.
Submissions preferred by August 20th, but will be accepted after that date if space remains unfilled. For further information on the Charleston Law Review, please contact Editor-in-Chief Katie Fowler via email at email@example.com or via telephone at 803-309-5421.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Here are Comments by the American College of Parliamentary Lawyers to the January 2008 Exposure Draft of the Model Nonprofit Corporation Act.
Thanks to Professor Karla Simon for providing this to us.
As we blogged in April of this year, the June 1, 2008, deadline for comments on the ABA Business Law Section's January 2008 Exposure Draft of the Model Nonprofit Corporations Act. Below is the Call for comments. You can view the exposure draft on the ABA website: Part 1 and Part 2. If you have comments that you have or will make concerning the January 2008 exposure draft, please send them along to us so that we can post on the blog.
Dear Committee Members:
I am pleased to announce that the January 2008 Exposure Draft of the Model Nonprofit Corporations Act (MNCA) is now posted on the Section of Business Law website, on the Nonprofit Corporations Committee homepage http://www.abanet.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=CL580000). The Task Force to Revise the Model Nonprofit Corporation Act is soliciting comments on this draft and will consider any comments received at the June, 2008 meeting of the Task Force. Any additional comments that any committee member would like the Task Force to consider should be sent to the Reporter for the Task Force, Bill Clark at firstname.lastname@example.org, with a copy to the Chair of the Task Force, Liz Moody, at email@example.com and to me, as Chair of the Nonprofit Corporations Committee, at firstname.lastname@example.org.
The Nonprofit Corporations Committee will accept additional comments on the Act until June 1, 2008. The Task Force will meet on June 14 to review and discuss comments, and will thereafter produce a final version that, upon review and approval by Committee Leadership, will be posted to the Committee website on or before July 31. That version will be considered approved by the Committee unless the Committee Chair receives, before August 8, 2008, a significant number of comments from Committee members expressing new and material concerns of a nature such that, in the opinion of the Committee Chair, further study is required.
Once the new Model Act is finalized, a new subcommittee of the Nonprofit Corporations Committee will be organized to continue to review, consider amendments to and update annotations for the Model Act -- similar to the continuous review process followed by the Committee on Corporate Laws for the Model Business Corporations Act. This subcommittee will be open to all Committee members.
Cynthia R. Rowland Chair, Nonprofit Corporations Committee, ABA Business Law Section One Ferry Building, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94111-4213 Tel: (415) 772-5747 Fax: (415)989-1663 email@example.com
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
On May 12, 2008, the University of Oregon School of Law announced on its website that a contributing editor to this blog, Professor Susan Gary, has been named Orlando J. and Marian H. Hollis Professor. Here is the announcement:
Susan Gary, an expert on trust and estate law and the current Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, has been named an Orlando J. and Marian H. Hollis Professor. Professor Gary's research examines the way inheritance laws apply to changing family structures, regulation of nonprofit organizations, and use of mediation in estate planning and probate. She currently serves as reporter for the Uniform Management of Institutional Funds Act.
Many congratulations Susan!
Monday, April 21, 2008
A few weeks ago, I was on a rant regarding my disbelief in true "altruism" as a motivator for charitable giving. A few readers legitimately took me to task for suggesting that conservatives give more than liberals because they have more to feel guilty about or that giving is ultimately a self-serving act, regardless of one's political leanings. One reader stereotypically assume me to be a liberal merely because I dared take a jab a conservatives (as if conservative never criticize each other). But if you want to see a real rant, check out The Cactus Tax Proposal, Part 2: Eliminate the Tax Deductions for Charity. Here is a snippett:
Additionally . . . acts of charity are not truly acts of charity. If I donate money to an organization, and in exchange, they slap my name on the side of a building, and have a dinner in my honor, is it really charity? Or is such behavior merely seeking adulation, and an opportunity to attend yet another event on the social season schedule?
I still think true altruism has nothing to do with charitable donations -- at least not when the giver claims a deduction at the end of the year -- but I would not eliminate the deduction. The "Angry Bear" (the author of the linked opinion) and others view the world through economic lenses and so the argument goes thusly: (1) there is no real altruism, (2) altruistic acts are therefore undersupplied by the market, (3) altruistic acts generate public goods, (4) it makes sense, therefore to subsidize -- though not necessarily via the tax code -- altruism that is insufficiently found in the market place that so many law and economic types dictate our daily behavior. That is, the argument that there is no altruism ultimately proves the need for government subsidy and a deduction is one such subsidy. The argument against the existence of true altruism does not prove that the charitable contribution deduction should be eliminated.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Former Fightin' Gator President John V. Lombardi posted this provocative opinion to his Reality Check Blog (I would have just linked to it but I couldn't figure out how). Ok, I can live with keeping March Madness and D-I football tax exempt, but we should at least pay the players a fraction of what the coaches get. Lombardi, by the way, was President when Spurrier first won a national title for my beloved Gators (who, after back to back March Madness triumphs, will not appear this year).
Taxing the Sports Factory
By John V. Lombardi
Since at least the early 20th century, it has been fashionable to attack college athletics as distorting the priorities of American colleges and universities, and there is often much evidence to support the attacks. The difficulty in taking these challenges seriously is that they are often unclear about the context within which college athletics functions and undervalue the significance of the constituencies that support this part of the American collegiate enterprise. The latest issue involves the question of whether the increasing amount of giving to college athletics represents a shift of donor interest from academic enterprise. While it is surely true that athletic giving is increasing it is not necessarily true that it comes at the expense of academic giving, which is also on the rise. To accept this premise, we would need to be sure that those who give to athletics would, in the absence of a tax break or an athletic program, give substantially to academic activities. While evidence on giving patterns is not always entirely conclusive, what we do have appears to indicate that athletic and academic donors are substantially different groups. That is, most of the big donors to athletics do not give much to academics and most of the big donors to academics do not give much to athletics.
This reflects the fact that donors can do what they want with their money. If they want to give it to a political candidate, a church, an international charity, a scholarship fund, and endowed chair, or a college football team, it is their choice and reflects their values. The notion that we, in the university or in the government, can dramatically shift these preferences is charming but not realistic as anyone who has spent time fundraising knows. The donor’s preferences are what matter. They surely like the tax break when it’s relevant and they like matching funds for academic gifts provided by many states, but a matching program for academic gifts does not make an athletic donor decide to give an endowed chair rather than an endow a football scholarship. It might persuade a donor to give an endowed chair to one of their alma maters that has a matching program rather than to another alma mater that does not.
The public benefit of the tax break for college athletics is more complicated than our belief in the value of sports in our universities. If we want to eliminate expensive competitive intercollegiate sports from our colleges and universities, the issue of a tax break won’t make much difference. It will just raise the cost of the enterprise, and since most college sports programs (with the exception of maybe the top ten BCS football schools) run a deficit, the increased cost will fall back on institutional budgets. We can say that money- losing intercollegiate sports programs are a bad thing, but our constituencies (whether at elite private colleges or mega football factories) love their sports.
At the same time, there are many items that big time sports programs do, paid for by their donors, that do not qualify for tax breaks. When donors give money to a sports program, they only get the tax break associated with the gift portion, not the portion that buys a ticket to the game or pays for a meal or provides a team jacket. The rules require that the institution deduct all the products and services that directly benefit the donor, recognizing that these things are commercial transactions, while the gift to the athletic program that sustains its expenses in support of student-athletes and the costs of the non-revenue sports, as well as the losses of football in most institutions, does help the academic enterprise and is deserving of a tax break. These rules may need to be improved, tightened, or otherwise changed to make giving to college sports more expensive to the donors. While this may well affect some donors, the truth is that the people who give in the many-million dollar category (athletic gifts that provoke the most outrage) almost always do not need and cannot use the tax break because they have already used up every imaginable tax dodge available to the rich and super rich. In talking with major donors and extolling the opportunity for a tax break as the result of a gift, many will tell me, “that’s nice, but I can’t use that tax break and I’ll just give the money because I want to help.”
Attempting to fix what’s believed to be wrong with college sports by manipulating tax policies is likely to produce many unintended consequences, harm the smallest and most vulnerable sports programs at colleges and universities, and have almost no impact at all on the mega sports programs that offend many observers. If these mega programs are a bad thing, we should take them on and fix them directly rather than try to sneak in a fix that won’t work via the tax code. Mega college athletics is indeed a remarkable American invention, it reflects the decisions of academic administrators and governing boards at almost all colleges and universities for over a century. It prospers because for the most part we (our faculty, our staff, our alumni, our legislators, our trustees, our students, and our many other constituencies) want it. We could easily change it, IF MOST OF US WANTED TO CHANGE IT. All protestations to the contrary, we, the colleges and universities of America and our friends and supporters, do not want to change it. What we really want is to imitate the best (often the most expensive) programs in America by winning games and championships.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
I ran across an interesting, late 90's era document from the Cato Insitute entitled "Restoring Civil Society." What fascinated me about it is the notion that big government and vibrant civil society are somewhat mutually exclusive. It reads like a 90's era Newt style manifesto; it makes some provocative points. Here is an excerpt from the full document:
The Condition of Civil Society
Restoring civil society is a moral imperative. There is no more important issue on the political agenda today. The picture, however, is not an entirely bleak one, for the retreat of civil society in the face of advancing political society has been uneven. In some areas, civil society has even advanced, as political society has been restrained and pushed back; notable examples are the partial but progressive deregulation in recent decades of telecommunications, which has opened up so many opportunities for people to communicate and form new communities, and of financial services, which has allowed individuals and families greater control over their own investments. Despite all the advances of political society in recent decades, America still has a vigorous and robust civil society that provides employment for nearly 130 million persons, generates $7.5 trillion in annual production, and brings forth technological innovation on a daily basis. And charity and mutual aid are also growing in civil society; Americans gave $125 billion to private charities last year, and mutual aid organizations from Alcoholics Anonymous to the Promise Keepers to shelters for battered women offer mutual support to help individuals become stronger and more virtuous and to resist the temptations of irresponsible or self-destructive behavior.
The overall thrust of the document is that "political society" or government sponsored efforts to deal with social problems and inequalities are bad, grass roots movements to do the same are good. I wonder if it is really just a sophisticated and disguised argument against redistributive policies.