First, let me tell you how excited I am that Dr. John Bardo has been named President of Wichita State University.  While I have appreciated and respected WSU’s President of 13 years Dr. Don Beggs, I am eager to have a president who can build on Don’s legacy—and frankly, shake the barrel.  He’ll have a big job to do.  Fort Hays State’s enrollment is at 11,000 and WSU’s is still at 14,000.  That’s a problem!  I don’t want to start getting wires crossed for the retired Western Carolina’s Chancellor’s tenure, so all I am going to say is he is my man to build WSU into the largest and most important university in Kansas.  Oops!  I understand that sometimes, my endorsement isn’t helpful, and I don’t want to screw anything up for him.  But I just can’t help myself here.  I just want to see him take this opportunity and make it fly.

Next, my fraternity brother and friend, Ed Hammond is completing 25 years as president of Fort Hays State University.  I am very proud that Fort Hays was one of the first contracts Hartsook Companies had almost 25 years ago.  We worked with Dr. Larry Miller, who was the fundraising Vice President at Hays just as Dr. Ed Hammond  was coming on.  I need a separate blog to tell you how this man has changed this sleepy western Kansas college, but he has raised money and created the third largest college in Kansas.

There is an important role in every state for colleges – urban, traditional, rural, private and community colleges.  It will be fun to see how the fresh energy of new leadership shapes Fort Hayes and Wichita State in Kansas.  You know I will find a fundraising story or two to share as I watch these stories unfold.

I have taken a couple of months off from writing my blog.  Some of you have asked about my health, attitude, etc.  I assure you all is fine.  It took a violation of donor intent, now over 350 years old to awaken my writing about philanthropy again.

I find myself a bit frustrated with how philanthropy, fundraising and nonprofits are being characterized and managed today.  My pronouncements over a year ago about the threats on the charitable deduction are becoming more real every day.  Meanwhile, many nonprofit leaders are surprised that the promises of “it won’t happen” continue to be wiped away.

My instinct that fundraisers and nonprofits  want to raise money get brushed aside in an argument about why rich people have money and have the right to say where it goes.

Now this issue has reared its head in Ipswichip, Massachusetts 350 years later.

I have written and spoken about fulfilling donor intent for years.  Read the article, think about William Payne and what the best ways to fulfill his intent are.  Was his intent to preserve the land or help the school?  Did he believe the best way to preserve the schools was to preserve the land?  Have the trustees of the land trust operated appropriately? And by the way, who is in charge of watching this?  Politically ambitious attorney generals?

What would you decide about this matter and more importantly, why?

It’s not a matter of what you or any other person would have done if you were William Payne.  Even from the grave, it is about what he wanted.

That’s why it’s called donor intent.

Believe me, you don’t want THE LECTURE.

Here is the nice version.

As an eager young fundraiser working for Washburn University, I didn’t know that I wasn’t supposed to work on December 31.  So I was there.

A law graduate of the University, John Shamberg, had told me all year long that he was going to gift some land to his synagogue, his private K-12 School and Washburn Law School.  I didn’t think much about it other than I remembered his promise.

On December 31, John called me.  He told me a story that has made millions of dollars for institutions all over the world.  Typical of lawyers, he had put off his gift of land until the very last minute.  His 40 acres was on the outskirts of Kansas City - 119th and Blackbaud Road – and it was worth $450,000.  His intention was for each institution to get $150,000.

Guess what?  When he called the synagogue, no one answered.  When he called the K-12 School, again no one answered.  When he called Washburn, Bob answered.  John, who has since passed away, said, “Bob, you just won the jackpot!”

Washburn got the land.  Not that we didn’t have to work for it.  I had to go to John’s office; there was paperwork that had to be filed.  It was New Year’s Eve and the Register of Deeds had closed, so we couldn’t file the transfer.  Those of you close to the law will understand - we had to go to the property and claim it.  Our Dean, Carl Monk, came to Kansas City from Topeka and he, John and I went to this then remote location.

John and Carl went to the center of the property, where John said, in his loudest voice, “I declare that this property has been given by me, John Shamberg, to Washburn University Law School and its Dean, Carl Monk.”

Carl then moved to the center of the space and announced to no one, “I, Carl Monk, Dean of the Washburn Law School accept and receive this land on behalf of the School.”

We then all had a glass of wine and celebrated.

Well, Washburn kept that land for many years and sold it for nearly $4 million a couple of years ago. Not a bad gift, John.

When I was a fundraising staff person, that story kept me by the phone at the end of the year for my entire career.  Bob, who owned a manhole company, called and gave $47,000 in closely held stock.  Frank and Patsy made a million dollar payment on their pledge.  Sylvia finally decided it was time to endow that opera scholarship and wrote a check for $100,000.

Every year, something happened and it still does.

Well, you don’t know when, you don’t know how, you don’t know why.  But if you are my client, I will be calling to see if you nonprofits are open and ready to accept an end of the year gift.

Trust me, it might be worthwhile to be in.  There’s a good chance your John Shamberg will call.

Dan is the “go to” resource for an understanding of government regulation of both the fundraiser and the fundraising professional in America. I first met Dan at a Blackbaud joint-sponsored program in DC last year.  After the first of the year, I need to write a blog on Dan’s view of regulation and how nonprofits need to manage it.  Like they have so often, our students at Avila get to talk to the prominent people of our profession. Dan is one of them.

Usually, by the second paragraph I’ve gotten to my point.  Let’s get to Dan’s point.

The charitable deduction is at risk.  Readers here know that while we are obviously against such a move, we are at least talking about it, unlike so many that put their collective heads in the sand.

Dan told a story that is an old fable, but is pertinent in this context.  If you think about breakfast (I am on Weight Watchers, so I think about breakfast all the time) there are two major players in your eggs and bacon: the chicken and the pig.  The chicken is involved; but the pig is committed.  That is literally “skin in the game.”

Well, for the charitable deduction, we as fundraisers have skin in the game.  Thank you, Center on Philanthropy and others who have done analysis of the impact of the President’s tax increase on wealthy people by changing the tax deduction.

They report that about one billion will be lost in the first year and a couple or more in subsequent years.  That has been characterized in the nonprofit media as modest.  Where were those headlines when giving went down in 2008 and 2009?  You would have thought the world was coming to an end when giving went down the same percentages.

My point isn’t to take sides here.  No, wait . . . I am taking sides.  We allow our political leaders on both sides to begin to erode the charitable deduction, and it is a slippery slope to reduced philanthropy in America.

And more important it is naive to be giving up on the deduction loss so early in the debate.  One writer with the Nonprofit Quarterly commented, “Since the loss is so modest, is it worth the fight?”  As a former lobbyist, I submit that in these early days of a serious debate, that position is a strange one for us to take.

Those who say we should take our share of the cuts are forgetting that the burden of our society is being passed on to the nonprofit world by the government cuts that are taking place.

Finally, this is going to go on for the election year.  I don’t see this change occurring before the election and if it did, it won’t impact until 2014.  But headlines announcing the deduction has been saved are over stated and premature.

For a couple of days, I’m going to “stick my head in the sand” and enjoy the holidays.  But I won’t stay there, and I hope you don’t either.  We have a powerful voice on this and other issues.  Let’s use it in 2012.

Holidays give me time to ponder.  I’m sure some of the Hartsook staff wish I wouldn’t think so much because I have a reputation of making more work for everyone.  But this Thanksgiving, I didn’t think of more we needed to do to grow philanthropy.  Instead, I was in a very reflective frame of mind.  I thought of three who are not merely making a difference in growing philanthropy, but who have reached “legend” status.

You know Hartsook Institutes gives the Growing Philanthropy Award to individuals and institutions that demonstrate fundraising success through innovation and creativity.  You have read their names, you have seen the announcements, and some of you have even been present when we gave the awards.

Just for a moment, I invite you to look at the back story of three of the legends who received the awards with lessons that can help us emulate them and grow philanthropy.

Most recently, Roger Lowe, retired Senior Vice President of Wichita State University, received the award.  Some of you may have thought, “CFO’s are usually pains in the neck to fundraisers, dismissing estate designations, discounting pledge values, and wanting only unrestricted money and money they can ‘book.’”  Right?

Well, Roger is different.  He does not impede the fundraiser; rather, he tries to remove obstacles so money can be raised.  Imagine!  Let’s say you have a restricted gift to do a project, but not quite enough.  Roger searches for ways to legitimately use other funds to help reach the goal.  Or what if your CEO wants you to raise money for a project that isn’t very flashy. Roger jumps in, looking at alternatives.  To him, where the money comes from isn’t as important as getting the project done. Roger is a rare breed of CFO.  He is a rare problem solver and a good fundraisers greatest ally.

Next, Harvesters, Kansas City’s Food Bank’s Karen Haren and Joanna Sebelien took an idea of creating broadly restricted targets – Initiatives – of Child Hunger, Family Feeding, Nutrition, and Senior Feeding to present their case.  Instead of whining about hunger, they demonstrated how they were going to solve a problem.  It was not a public relations stunt when they brought their CFO (another good CFO model) to the same table and worked on an Initiative Budget for the entire organization.  They presented the cost of each program from a comprehensive point of view.

As a result, they have grown annual fundraising from $2 million a year to $14 million in six years.  Their own national organization gave them an award for this, then didn’t follow their example.  While they’re having a big year in fundraising, they are laying off people because they didn’t do the budget relieving part of the strategy.   They didn’t understand that it’s not a gimmick.  It’s real, dedicated organizational change.

Finally, our own Chair in Fundraising, at Indiana University, and his colleague, Jen Shang gave us the research on bequest pledging.  Among the findings is a simple, transformative idea that everyone can make a bequest just as they can an annual fund gift.  This 2008 research is slowing catching on.  We have three bequest pledging organizations in which the numbers are fantastic all over.  In less than 10 months, Tulsa Boys Home asked each of their 44 board members to give through a bequest.  Only one turned them down and they have nearly $5 million committed in six months.

As a national organization, The Heritage Foundation has the challenge of communicating with their donors through direct response and then following up.  Asking for bequests, they have closed 221 bequests this year valued at over $20 million, almost three times the average of previous years.

Finally, the Humane Society of Greater Kansas City is in a campaign but has discovered the inclination of their membership to give has raised $5 million in bequests just from their Board of twelve.  In the Sargeant/Shang research you’ll learn that an agency is 17 times more likely to get an estate gift if they ask.

At Wichita State University, thirty million dollars was raised from 276 donors as a result of the Bequest Giving Strategy; over $75 million in fundraising growth because an organization was thinking from the donor’s point of view and established a partnership with the CFO instead of focusing on the competition.  This innovation changed the direction of a university.

Some may dismiss this as just another series of random stories and situations.  No, each of these was as a result of a strategy to grow philanthropy in America and in the world.

What is different here is that we observed, watched and recognized with the Growing Philanthropy Award, that each model of behavior can change fundraising in the world.

This past holiday, that’s what I thought about.  It was a great a Thanksgiving.