Planned Giving’s Real Problems

To the Editor:

My article elicited reaction and it should have (“Why Planned Giving Is in Big Trouble,” March 20). Unfortunately, it appears to be something other than my ideas or words to which the reaction is directed.

Tom Cullinan says I am “naive” to think that “NCPG is culpable for ethical lapses of people working in the field.” True enough, NCPG isn’t responsible for that. But I didn’t say it was; simply that the group does a lousy job of educating its members on ethics. He says my argument that “planned-giving practitioners are part of a profession” is “specious.” I said the opposite, that I wish planned giving could be a profession.

Bob Sharpe, referring to the disclosure required by law for most planned gifts, says that the law makes much of my concern moot. Many people search for ethical answers in the law, not taking into account that ethics is the stuff not governed by the law practiced before the courts. It’s governed by a higher law, and it’s a lot less codified. As important, the disclosure requirement provides no guidance as to what needs to be disclosed; it’s up to the charity. Bob also says I offer a “utopian vision.” Well, why not? We’ve got a problem, so why can’t we fix it?

Ed McBride said I “castigate a whole profession as being woefully unfit ethically.” No, I don’t. Nowhere did I say — nor do I feel — that NCPG or the whole of the profession is unethical. This is key: There’s a big gap between not paying enough attention to ethics as a profession and acting unethically. NCPG is in that gap, and it ought to move ahead.

Chris Yates, NCPG’s president — and for whom, as is true for all of those who responded, I have a great deal of respect but not enough awe to sidestep forthright honesty — while attempting to dispel what he feels are misleading and erroneous contentions, explains that the mission of NCPG calls for “quality” in gifts. By this, I infer, we are to imagine that ethics is so inherent in the process that it need not be mentioned in the NCPG mission statement. This is a large leap.

The observation that the model standards are a “guiding light” skirts the issue of how dim the light is, as it does not speak to the real topic of the need for ethics to be addressed effectively. Pasting an ethical question on the Web page with an obvious answer is not the equal of addressing an ethical dilemma. It fills space, and, while the weight of that space might be interpreted as substance, it is still empty of thought.

Understanding the process, and not just the answers, makes the difference in ethics. Presenters on ethics (the ones I’ve heard) don’t talk about process; they just toss out ethical questions while the audience members anxiously hope they have the “right” answer. Without an education on the process, without valid as well as contrasting points of view, who could possibly expect to arrive at a legitimate response to a truly ethical dilemma?

I find it curious that no one acknowledged that he thinks NCPG could improve. Apparently, it’s perfect. Circling the wagons may make people feel safer, but it won’t make the problem go away. As uncomfortable as the piece was to read, however, it was written with a deep love for philanthropy and a sincere hope that one of its important membership associations will do more in ethics.

I well know that the reaction born of discomfort is the cost of dancing on limbs, even valid ones, without the support of public opinion. We still have miles to go before this “profession” looks at ethics with any intellectual vigor. I can only hope that the discussion finds higher ground.

Douglas E. White
Partner
North Common Associates
Washington

***

To the Editor:

Throughout my career I’ve had the privilege of learning from people who now find themselves on both sides of this debate (Opinion Article on “Planned Giving Was ‘Erroneous,” Letters to the Editor,” April 17). There is, however, an apparent disconnect in the recent discussion that should be examined.

On the one hand, the Model Standards of Practice state that gift planners should recognize the primacy of philanthropic motivation, provide a full and accurate explanation of the tax implications of a planned gift, strive for high degrees of competence and professionalism, provide a donor with a full description and an accurate representation of any proposed planned gift, and comply with both the letter and spirit of all applicable federal and state regulations. These are noble and appropriate standards, to be sure.

At the same time, however, the National Committee on Planned Giving has chosen not to specify a minimum educational requirement that would help ensure that its members are prepared to recognize and achieve such appropriate standards.

Does this not represent an important oversight, if not an ethical dilemma? In the absence of such an educational requirement, what level of confidence should the donors have in our collective ability to achieve the Model Standards of Practice?

NCPG continues to serve the gift-planning community in very important ways, and many of us (and the organizations we serve) benefit tremendously from our participation. Unfortunately, the tenor of the recent conversation suggests something akin to an ethical “witch hunt,” which is neither healthy nor appropriate.

Perhaps we can set aside the vitriol of recent weeks, and focus instead on the important connection between basic education and one’s ability to achieve the Model Standards of Practice. Strengthening this link would serve both gift planners and our donors very well.

William A. Albrecht
Board Member
Colorado Planned Giving Roundtable
Denver