DEAR EDITOR: Matt Richter's "The Nonprofit Motive" [April 27] is a misguided attempt to legitimize his personal animosity toward the board of Consolidated Works with a broader critique of nonprofit boards in general. His logic for blaming the recent spate of nonprofit closures on the "principal-agent problem," may look good on paper but most people working in the nonprofit world have a fair idea of why so many nonprofits have failed in recent years. The causes are much less dire than Mr. Richter's narrative would lead you to believe.
The commonly accepted explanation for the closures of the last five years or so goes something like this: During the late '90s, the tech boom created a lot of new rich people, particularly in and around Seattle. Some of those rich people gave lots of their new money to nonprofits. Some of those nonprofits expanded their operations to use the new money. Then the money disappeared. Most nonprofits recognized what was happening in time to save themselves; they froze COLA raises and new hiring and scaled back their operations. Some nonprofits didn't get the memo in time (or hoped to coast through the downturn) and there was a loud grinding crash during which theaters closed, human-services agencies collapsed, CEOs quit, accountants resigned in disgrace, and so on.
Richter's determination to use a selective interpretation of facts to reframe this phenomenon in the service of his personal agenda produces some curious omissions of fact. For example, he mentions that our state is one of the few "net exporters" of grant money. He implies that this is due to some systemic problem with how Washington's nonprofits function. What he fails to mention is that Washington counts two of the richest men in the world among its citizenry. OF COURSE we're a net exporter of grant money; the Gates Foundation is providing medical care to half of Africa.
After citing a laundry list of similarly decontextualized facts, Richter goes on to paint a monochrome portrait of how boards are dangerous to artists—but fails to describe what boards do for artists or why they have power.
Boards help nonprofits raise and, sometimes, manage money. In most cases that is their primary function. Consequently, many nonprofits want board members who either have money, so they can hook the organization up with their rich friends, or are skilled at managing money, so they can save the organization the overhead of hiring an accountant. That's why so many boards shift toward "those with corporate, legal, and institutional backgrounds"; the people in the organizations (artists or whoever) want the traction. The reason that boards have power is because they have a fiduciary obligation to the organization. If the nonprofit loses money or goes into debt because of negligence or misconduct, board members can be financially liable.
Obviously boards do hijack nonprofits. But if you want to make a living at something that doesn't generate a profit, you need a certain kind of person to connect you with money. That usually means people with corporate, legal, and institutional backgrounds. Those sorts of people can help you get half a million dollars to refurbish a warehouse into an arts center. They can underwrite your gallery. But they typically demand a degree of control in exchange for their help. And if they get it into their heads that you're fucking up the organization they helped you build, they might just fire you.
J. Norton
GET ON THE BUSEDITOR: Aw, Dan hates buses ["Bus Load," Dan Savage, April 27]. They're stinky. They get bogged down in traffic. Undesirable people ride them. They're just so... common. It's true, they're not glamorous like the Disneyland monorail, but guess what? They actually work. They go where you need to go, when you need to go there. Did the monorail ever promise that?
A bus transit system is flexible, scalable, and way more reliable than a silly monorail. For the amount of money that was going to be wasted on the Green Line (never mind the rest of the system), bus service in Seattle could be free, frequent, and comprehensive. All the money goes into moving people, not into expensive infrastructure like real estate, track, and stations.
I live in Ballard, half a mile from the proposed monorail line. The closest station would have been more than a mile away. The closest bus stop is, oh, 40 feet from my front door. The bus gets me downtown at least 10 minutes faster (yes, during rush hour) and closer to my destination than the monorail's projected service would have, not even considering the one-mile walk or ride to the monorail station. Why on earth would I ever ride the monorail? Because it's cute, shiny, and oh so trendy, with no "street lunatics" to spoil the quiet, odor-free ambiance of my ride?
Get over it. Rapid transit is a good idea, absolutely. The monorail was a bad idea that never should have gotten as far as it did.
Alan
More Letters:
THINK FASTER
DAN: It's not like The Seattle Times is alone in falling down on the job promoting cost-effective, energy-efficient, fast, safe, convenient, high-capacity, and congestion-proof grade-separated transit. The Stranger itself has been amazingly consistent in ignoring the best candidate for a transit system that could satisfy all these criteria for the past year, too, despite many communications describing it. Think monorail, but faster, more convenient, more energy-efficient, and (most important) less expensive: http://www.GetThereFast.org
John C. Todd, Jr.
THANK YOU
DEAR MR. SAVAGE: I've been "in bereavement" since the loss of the Green Line project six months ago, and the frequent fits of hypocrisy since heard and read in the local discussions of traffic, clean air, oil prices, transportation alternatives, disaster planning, urban planning, urban parks, urban design, tunnel design…it all just makes me think I'll never get over it. So, it was a huge relief, at last, to find my own conclusions and tone realized in your column, April 27, 2006.
In March I heard a UBC professor's presentation at Town Hall. Consulting for KC Metro, his research revealed that walking is good, auto pollution bad…oh, yes, and he was also able to document that taking the bus at peak hours was four times longer than driving. Perhaps the KC Metro personnel in the audience were the only ones who did not already know this. In April, of course, we not only got a pep talk from Al Gore, praising our mayor for his leadership in Kyoto awareness (Responding to a Seattle Channel caller, wanting to know what, beyond awareness, he would actually do to clean the air in Seattle, Mayor Nickels said first on his plan of attack are lawnmowers.), we also heard Brazilian urban-planner/designer, Jaime Lerner, whose stimulating and inspirational transit ideas were wasted on an audience, for whom what was really needed was his mayoral and gubernatorial expertise on how to elect officials who follow through and step up to the implementation phase, who won't sit on their hands, waiting for the next law suit or election to make a grassroots project go away, until a city daily can come out with bogus "$11 BILLION!!!" headlines.
On the other hand, funding huge transit projects is so costly - while all a highly educated (or schooled, anyway) city such as Seattle really needs is a few consultants or designers, now and then; nothing wrong with a little R & D for its own sake; we're Seattle, we enjoy reading and lectures and discussions. The three gentlemen mentioned above should not take it personally, should they return in six or even ten years to find nothing changed – except more cars.
Of course, the Green Line was the salvation for Seattle Center, whose sanctity was lauded throughout the transit agreement debates a few years ago. But, I don't remember any mention back then of a "new vision" for Seattle Center or that it had run its usefulness.
So, the Council Members and Mayor, thumbing their respective noses at the monorail voters last year, plus the present day lining up, elbowing in, behind Virginia Anderson's resignation, of op-eds, in-passings, and hints about a new Un-Seattle Center, make it pretty clear there exists some Seattle plan or vision, short- or long-ranged, that the grassroots Monorail Project interrupted.
Okay, given that many of us are not a developer or banker or Seattle aristocrat, and say we're unable to run for an elected office and at least get in the loop, could we at least be told what the vision is? Could there be some trail, paper or money, which identifies the decision makers? Could THE STRANGER find this trail and share with the rest of us?
Bob Hollowell
SERIOUSLY DUMB
EDITOR: Usually you run fairly decent articles on public policy, but Richter's article on the putative failure of the non-profit business model was obviously the product of someone trying to be provocative without the requisite knowledge, data and analytical skills. Article is heavy with errors in fact and analysis. Where were the editors on that one?
Donald Summers
UTILIZE IS A FANCY WORD FOR USE
EDITOR: Matt brings up some great points about the fundamental brokenness of the nonprofit structure. His idea of utilizing a for-profit entity as a shield and funding vehicle for founding members of an organization is quite interesting. Once again, however, private industry has beaten the do-gooders to the punch. ExxonMobil, for one, utilizes a variant of this by operating its IT division as a wholly owned, not-for-profit subsidiary (although for tax reasons, not for control reasons).
Chris Cole
BENEVOLENCE OF THE BUTCHER
STRANGER: In regards to the idea of nonprofits incorporated into for-profits, Volkswagon had a "Force of Good" program where they went around in new beetles and fed volunteers and hungry people. While this program had a charitable aim, it was of course an alternative marketing strategy to sell cars. Similarly a for-profit theater shows plays with the ultimate goal of making money from drinks and food. If these programs are given an economic incentive (even though they already serve to help make money) it would be impossible for any real non-profit to co-exist. And do not expect any corporations to use this new opportunity to help rather than make money. Corporations like Volkswagon would be able to get economic incentives for their latest marketing strategies. Corporations would move money in and out of 'non-profit' programs that do not directly make money, and entirely exploit the system. While it may be difficult for non-profits to survive, do not make it more difficult. Anyway I would much rather live from the benevolence of the butcher, brewer, and baker.
Aaron P
YES, RICHTER!
EDITOR: Thanks to Matt Richter for correctly diagnosing the disease suffered by nonprofits, and for suggesting a cure. The environmental movement here is so greatly undermined by the timid boards of its powerful nonprofits that among my activist friends 501c(3) status is rightly seen as the kiss of death. Witness the big official enviro support for construction of a highway tunnel through the downtown waterfront, an item completely at odds with the agendas of organizations like People For Puget Sound, for instance. But they and other nominally environmental orgs support the project. This is standard practice in the topsy-turvy nonprofit world. The monorail movement may have failed due to lying politicians' backroom deals and a shallow, cowardly media, but it only made the progress it did because for so long the movement was in the hands of a few people, free to speak strongly. In order to do their work, the two orgs I have served as Executive Director had to either dissolve (Yes For Seattle) or have their principals break away (Friends of the Monorail) to continue their organization's original aim. When my business partner and I started our very public-sounding Cascadia Film Collective to make great films in the Northwest, we did so privately because we knew art can't be made by a committee. Hopefully the cures prescribed by Mr. Richter will make unwavering public service possible with a little less hazardous self-sacrifice and financial risk than is now required. For now, courage to the progressive, right-thinking independent young artists, activists, planners and developers out there who aren't afraid to make a profit. When you cash in you'll deserve every penny, and your good works will be enabled to continue.
Grant Cogswell
GET BEHIND MCDERMOTT
EDITOR: Regarding "Not So Free Speech," April 27: Thanks for you're your recognition of Congressman Jim McDermott's tenacious fight to protect the First Amendment—and his ongoing contribution to The Stranger's own health and well-being. Remember that please should you be tempted again to suggest he be replaced.
Beverly Marcus
