Today's Greensboro News & Record had an article this morning on the ongoing struggle to get the Civil Rights Museum open.
The focus of the article appeared to be NC A&T's involvement in the fund raising process and the museum's attempts at corporate solicitation. Several years ago A&T effectively took control of at least the fundraising portion of the museum's operation and several members of its staff sit on the board. The CEO of the museum is also the Vice-President of Advancement of NC A&T.
I am full support of A&T using its staff to help the Civil Rights Museum succeed. Students at the University started the Sit-Ins and played a monumental part in the struggle for Civil Rights in America. Their involvement also has increased the professionalism of the operation, which until that time had been run inefficiently and suffered from the stigma of its founders. Without A&T, the museum would not be where it is today.
The GN&R used the state's public records law to examine the involvement of A&T personnel and also to examine its asks of major corporations. I am a fan of full disclosure, but I think that the GN&R should have left out the names of the corporations that are still considering making gifts. Corporate donations often take years to negotiate and pay out. Many factors also come into play. Giving just because it is the right thing to do has gone the way of the dodo with all the pressure to increase shareholder value and profitability. Gifts are also judged by their perception to the general public. Furthermore, companies do not like to be pressured for their gifts. By publishing the names of those asked, the GN&R is essentially putting a bull's eye on these corporations. If a company that has been asked for 5 million comes back with a gift of 1 million (which is still a very good gift!) they will end up looking cheap. And if circumstances make it impossible to do a gift at this time some will say the company does not support Civil Rights.
In the article, David Hoard declined to comment on one ask for fear it would harm negotiations. He is absolutely right for the reasons I listed above. It is just common courtesy to let individuals - and companies - make their decisions in peace. The News & Record has now quite possibly made it more difficult for the Civil Rights Museum's staff to get those donations.
Another part of the article I want to comment on is the sidebar breaking down certain corporate and foundation contributions. Some are marked as being part of Action Greensboro's gift. AG has solicited many companies for support of its projects. One by-product of this is that many area firms (and AG's parent foundations) have committed large parts (if not close to all) of their charitable budgets to Action Greensboro. Because of this, they have not been able to support other organization as much (or at all in some cases) because their funds have been diverted to AG. The charitable "pie" in Greensboro is only so big, and since its inception AG's slice has cut down the size of other worthy group's in town.
Sunday, August 07, 2005
Greensboro's Civil Rights Museum
3 comments:
Uh, no, the N&R has not made soliciting donations more difficult, if my 21+ years in the N.C. newspaper bidness are any guide. Corporations make decisions like this because they think the decisions will make them money, and publicity, or lack thereof, never enters into the equation in any meaningful way.
N.C. A&T created this problem when it blurred the distinctions between itself and the museum. Don't get me wrong: I think the museum would be a dead letter today if A&T had not done so. But that blurring provides both the legal and ethical justification for publishing the information, and the questions being raised by non-N&R people in the community who are interested in the museum's welfare provide not just a justification but, I would argue, a journalistic and moral imperative to publish the information.
But I'm not involved in the N&R's coverage and I'm speaking just for myself here. And, as always when I'm expressing pure opinion, I could be wrong.
I am all in favor of sunshine in regards to corporate recruitment, but I think it is in poor taste when it is a charitable contribution. It puts undue pressure on the donor in my opinion.
But if A&T had been better prepared and kept a separation between it and the museum, this might not have happened. I cannot blame the newspaper for doing its job.
GK
It's odd that the GN&R decided in the first place to make this a reportable item as most of us in development understand that until there is a gift, there is no news. As I said over in Michael's Corner, when we set a target for a prospect it may be changed dramatically by the time we make the ask. Working papers in development are not news or fact they are just ideas put to paper.
Finally and most importantly, I find it curious that A&T would allow those kind of working papers to be released with the figures partially erased. Does that call into question mamagement issues with the Museum?
Post a Comment