When Recognition Gets Complicated

It seems that stewardship, at its highest levels, is getting more complicated. In my mind, since the beginning of my career, I never recognized it is this challenging.

A recent Chronicle of Philanthropy column by Benjamin Soskis highlights the challenge. In the column, the author speaks to the recent conversations regarding the Sackler family and the many naming opportunities that have been granted them based on their generous contributions. The problem is the Sackler family owned a majority of Purdue pharmaceuticals…the maker of OxyContin. The same company that settled a multibillion-dollar lawsuit for fraud, hurting communities, creating addicts, and other like injustices.

The Sackler family has given hundreds of millions of dollars to various nonprofits, many of whom have named buildings, departments, chairs, and other items in honor of the family. Now the question becomes “should the names remain?” How far has the controversy gone? In the settlement discussions, in the state of Massachusetts, the Attorney General of the state wants a prohibition on the family being able to put their name on any particular building or program or anything else for a period of five years. It’s the first provision I’ve ever seen like this.

Adding to the issues such as the Sackler situation, there is the recent vote by the county government in the San Francisco Bay area condemning the naming of the county hospital for the Zuckerberg‘s after they (Mark and his wife) made a gift of $75 million.…. political intrigue in the middle of philanthropy.

I’ve been an advocate for a “morality clause” in gift agreements since the start of my career. A basic clause allows the organization to remove a name if there’s negative publicity related to a donor. But this goes further.

Politics are entering into these discussions. People’s political perspectives are entering the board rooms of nonprofits. And that is fine. But there could be consequences. As Giving USA has shown us over the last decade, a small number of donors are giving larger sums of money. Organizations, and their boards, are going to have to decide if the donations are worth the political consternation that comes with some naming opportunities…even if it hurts the mission of the organization with less necessary revenue from larger donors.