1. Chuck wrote:

Fund trustees,

Those of you who have been on the board for a few years know that we have a somewhat arcane process for giving grants.  As set forth in bylaws (q.v.) , the president maintains a roster of organizations which we know something about, and which may at some time have sent us literature and asked for money, or which we on our own initiative identified.  Any board member may suggest and/or review any organization, and if we determine that the goals of the organization are consistent with our own goals, then the board may vote them as eligible for grants.  If they are themselves 501c(3) organizations, we may declare them eligible for grants from our 501c(3) Special Endowment.  Whether or not they are 501c(3), we may vote them eligible for grants from the General Endowment.  And we have a long list of organizations which at some time in the past were voted as eligible, and remain eligible, but many of them don't really excite us very much.  It's fairly easy to be "eligible" by sharing one of our goals, but we have a broad range of stuff we think worthy, and we haven't recently gone off on a weekend retreat to figure out what we think is really important.  

What do we really care about?  At almost every meeting, the president asks board members to please find some organizations to review and make recommendations about, but in recent years nobody other than Paul and Bob have reviewed organizations, But the elephant in the room is that there are elephants and donkeys.  Especially in the realm of 501c(4)'s any advocacy group has some political implication.  Among the board members we range from libertarians to liberals, and while we all support most of the ideas that Walter, the Progressive, advocated, we disagree, 90 years later, on how they can be accomplished.  If I name an organization, I am implicitly suggesting not just that they are in line with some goal of the Fund, but some particular goal, among all possible concerns, which is important to ME and should be important to YOU, regardless of your stated politics.  That's a high hurdle.  Having not done that, in the past few years we tend to keep giving to a few organizations which represent the concerns of some of the older board members.  Good causes all:  literacy, rehabilitation of felons, and in general, services for the least fortunate, but in my view, some of these seem to be stopgaps, and don't represent new thinking about problems of the day demand special attention.  Our diversity of opinion should be a source of strength, but we haven't tried to mine it.  We don't know what we all agree on, unless somebody is first to suggest it

Last fall, I floated a proposal, mostly intended as a straw man, to change the bylaws so that the board would explicitly identify causes and concerns, relevant in this decade, and addressable thru action and advocacy.  I suggested a process for formally identifying the causes of the decade, and then, once we've identified them, identify organizations which target them.  We don't need a real vote, but we do need candid expressions.

My own:  

• educational reform, tending toward more parental choice and community-based decisions about curricula.  In Walter's era, the Progressives believed, I think rightly, that educated professionals could identify best practices, and from the national level, encourage state and local governments to adopt them.  But as the general populace is now better-educated, and national bureaucracy expanded, central standards become an impediment to improvement.  I support experiments in local control.  Some restrictions possibly necessary for those which explicitly promote a religion, but not preclude those where the approach to education has clear theological and spiritual roots
• criminal justice and penal system reform.  We have created an underclass of persons who do not conform well to societal expectations, cycle in and out of the justice system, wear scarlet letters or yellow shirts, have difficulty finding jobs, and become depressed and/or desperate   

Those are my suggestions. Since I encouraged my daughter Lee to join this board in order to advocate for her own causes, I now invite her to nominate and explain   Environmental Justice, and/or, maternity care choices, or any other cause  And I invite the rest of you to name and explain your causes

Chuck

2. Chuck had previously written:

fine print about the two endowments:

The goals of the Walter H. McClenon Fund are to advance social well-being generally, and more specifically educational and economic opportunities, freedom and civil liberties, and cooperation between groups which might potentially be hostile,  (more at http://www.mcclenonfund.org ) For tax purposes, the fund is divided into two parts,  The General Endowment is registered as a 501c(4) organization.  Those are the things at the heart of the current IRS controversy,  They are permitted to engage in "advocacy" for various causes, but not to engage in "politics" as such.  So we give grants to organizations which in turn actively engage in or advocate for the causes we support,  Contributions to 501c(4) organizations are not tax-deductible for the donor, but neither does the organization pay taxes on them.  They have come out of the donor's after-tax income, so in effect have already been taxed,  The organization is not required to report on its income or expenses.  Under the bylaws,the General Endowment shall reinvest some of it's earnings each year, not less than $1.00 nor more than one half of its income.

The Special Endowment of the fund is registered as a 501c(3) organization, a traditional "charitable" organization.  501c(3) organizations support the arts and culture, education, health, welfare and other stuff presumed to be for the public good.  Contributions to 501c(3) organizations are tax-deductible for the donor, and the organizations in turn are required to file with the IRS.  The McClenon Fund falls under the category of Family Foundations, and files a form 990-PF which we disclose our finances, "Where did it come from?  Where did it go?" The form would reveal if are are not really engaged in philanthropic activities, for example, if we are accumulating and not spending money (it's supposed to give at least 5% each year), lending money to family members, or employing ourselves as managers.  A family foundation pays tax on its income, at the rate of 1% or 2%.  

3. David wrote:

Relative to educational reform:

While I Generally support Chuck's comments, we have a development in our area that may not be that unusual. We happen to have a very good school system in some ways outstanding. It incompasses several areas of different economic privilege and historic racial background.

While by the majority's standards all have progressed very well and in fact those less privileged have progressed more than average. The school board members are currently elected at large.  Resulting in all of them coming from the most populous area, economic privileged, and possibly from a background of greater concern for education.

Recently one of the teachers with a minority background and a PHd, voiced a concern that despite growing up in the area and receiving an excellent education, she ways felt a lack of representation as there was no one "like her" on the school board nor for that matter was there anyone "like her" in charge of any of the schools.    

She proposes that the board members be elected from the various areas to increase the minority representation.

I have to admit a certain bias, in that the "people like me" have a good thing going and seemingly all are benefiting, but I also have to admit that if I were her, I also would want my minority represented.

There is a concern that there are a number of minorities and no matter what is done many will not be represented.  Secondly, some of the minorities in general for a variety of reasons do not or have not had a functional family to support in home study or development.

Thus what works for some may not work for all.

What to do?

4. Bob writes:

Chuck makes some interesting points. I will comment on a few of them.

First, the eligibility criteria are contained in a combination of the bylaws (Bylaw III, sections D through H) and the articles of incorporation (also known as the charter) (Article Six, sections C, F, and G). That combination is one of the factors that makes evaluation arcane. The language in the bylaws includes language that summarizes the language in the charter, and was introduced with the objective that a Trustee evaluating an organization would only have to look in one place rather than in two. However, in my opinion, with some criteria, the summary language in the bylaws is not an adequate replacement for the language in the charter. In particular, Bylaw 3F8 lacks both the force and the subtlety of Article Six, section G1, and Bylaw 3F5 lacks the detail of Section Six, section F5. In evaluating any organization, I have always referred to the charter language, and when a report by another trustee has referred to the bylaw language, I have always checked the charter language.

Second, more importantly, Chuck mentions that there are libertarian elephants and liberal donkeys. That is a useful distinction, but I will call attention to another distinction between Trustees and Trustees. There are Trustees who have particular causes, that are within the scope of the purpose and charter (and bylaws). There are also Trustees who do not have particular causes so much as favorite organizations, each of which may have an entirely different purpose than another of the same person’s favorite organizations. There are also Trustees who are fond of the quirky charm that the Board can contribute to any nominated organization for any reason, or for no reason except that it has already been nominated. The second and the third groups of Trustees sometimes overlap. Occasionally Trustees in the first group, with causes, overlap with those in the second group, with favorite organizations, or even the third group.

I think that Trustees in the two or three groups of mind-sets can usefully and constructively interact. Trustees with particular causes can advocate for organizations supporting those causes. Trustees with particular causes are asked to identify organizations supporting those causes and to evaluate them and get them nominated. (As I have mentioned before, we have a rule calling for what I call “reactive evaluation” of organizations that come up out of the woodwork requesting contributions. We can, if we wish, weaken or eliminate it. It is and will be possible and encouraged to do “proactive evaluation” of organizations.)

Trustees can be categorized on at least two dimensions. The first, and the more obvious one that Chuck mentions, is the difference between libertarian elephants and liberal donkeys. They will sometimes agree and sometimes disagree, and are more likely to disagree with regard to the lobbying that is permitted for 501(c)(4) organizations requesting contributions from the General Endowment. An equally useful one, which should not result in disagreement, is between Trustees with different objectives, the favoring of particular causes that are permitted by the charter, the favoring of particular organizations that are qualified under the charter, and the interest in the quirky charm of supporting qualifying organizations (seemingly) randomly.

I agree that it is useful for Trustees to state what their causes are, if they have specific causes. Thank you, Chuck. I will review whether I have any specific causes, and, if so, will comment. I know that I have specific favorite organizations, but will have to pull together a list in the next few days.

Are there any questions? I hope that this discussion continues in the next week and a half before the meeting.

5. Chuck wrote:

I actually did not say that there are libertarian elephants and liberal donkeys.  I did use the libertarian/liberal contrast, and the elephant/donkey contrast, but I kept them apart not intending to imply parallelism or synonymity.  Indeed, my thinking is that we should put the animals out to pasture, and find commonality in ideas, rather than in what the herbivores consume and produce.

6. Paul wrote:

A Note for the Trustees

This is a fascinating “problem” for me. I usually feel that I am “too busy” to undertake a possibly useful and probably interesting task. The recent notes from Chuck and Bob have interested me. The W.H. McClenon Fund is very SPECIAL for me. As a child I was aware of the Fund and I overheard a few discussions between my parents while they were deciding on contributions to make. I don’t know whether I had any evaluative feelings about the Fund itself, and I did not know that my father had any thought of giving away its management. When he asked me whether I would become its custodian he had obviously skipped past my two older siblings. At the time it was obvious that Donald did not care much about politics and government; he was a RADIO person. And Barbara was a precocious HIPPIE; she was brought home from Grinnell to help her find out “What it is all about.” I was surprised, but I also felt flattered that I might be good enough to deserve that selection. Yes, I accepted the custodianship and promptly started my own search for a way to deal with the race relations problem of the U.S. I don’t remember details about that “mission,” except that I admired my Sister (Barbara) for actually going with mixed-race groups into restaurants along the highways between Washington and New York. (I was ready to think about sending money, but not to take the physical risk.) My own search did lead me (and the Fund) to support a program of the U.S. Department of Justice – a program to help ex-prisoners to develop reasonable lives. (Still an important and underfunded mission!) My relationship with the W.H. McClenon Fund has been an important part of my life, and I continue to be very interested in it. .

[material that is interesting but not directly relevant snipped]

The Fund’s by-laws and charter don’t deal with the administrative management of a potential recipient of a contribution, and I have felt comfortable (for my own philanthropy) with the Fund’s practices as prescribed in our Charter and by-laws, with one exception. The Fund’s By-law III (F) 8 was derived from the language in the Charter at Article Six, Part G (1), which is probably in the words of my father: “In no case are contributions to be made by the Fund for the purpose of preventing any change in economic, social, industrial, or political condition, no matter how undesirable such change may appear to be. This paragraph is to be given the broadest possible interpretation, and in no circumstance is any variation to be permitted from it to any extent whatever, except that where donations from the Fund have been made to assist in accomplishment of a particular object which becomes eventually established, donations may be made for a limited period thereafter (such as two years) for the purpose of preventing a return to the former condition.” Bob McClenon can explain better than I the derivation of the words of bylaw III (F8): “No contributions shall be made for: . . 8. Resistance to change (including most ‘ecology’ and ‘environmental’ groups.”

I find that I, personally, have mixed emotions on this point. I think that I can understand my father’s position in the early 1920’s. (Was the time of the first Russian (or Soviet) “Five Year Plan?”)I very much appreciate the earlier governments that preserved some parks and forests in the U.S.I find that I now hope to continue their ”preservation,” but I also realize that profit-seekers can think of more “productive” uses of the land. I have made contributions to groups who try to “protect” or “Preserve” those treasures. I am less sure about my own feelings when it comes to “preserving” endangered species, endangered languages, or cultures. There is something romantic about preserving remnants of the “good old days” of our grandparents, but I also tend to believe in a kind of Darwinian “progress.”

You already have plenty of things to talk about at the trustees meeting. If you want another I suggest that you talk about by-law III F 8.

Paul McC

7. Chuck wrote:

Let's make the year 1825.  Andrew Jackson ran for election as president in 1824, and although he had a plurality of the popular and electoral vote, the House of Representatives chose John Quincy Adams.  That is all behind us, but it's clear that Jackson is not going to go away, and is already planning his next campaign.  A major part of his platform has always been, and remains, removal of the "five civilized tribes" of Indians from the Southeast to land the U.S. had acquired in the Louisiana Purchase.  How do the Fund Trustees view this?  

C.         Contributions may be made:

1.         to projects for the promotion of cooperation between potentially hostile groups, especially between diverse national, racial, religious, sexual, or industrial groups;

5.         for activities likely to increase civil liberty or human freedom;

8.         to organizations working for the enactment of legislation in accordance with the objectives of the Fund, or to organizations providing information to voters for objectives in accordance with those of the Fund, or to other similar political or semi-political organizations, provided:

a.          that the Board, or the officer authorizing the contribution, is satisfied (i) that the leaders of such organizations are honestly striving to advance the welfare of the mass of the population or of some disadvantaged group, rather than of any (actually or potentially) privileged group, (ii) that the success of such organizations would tend to improve the general welfare, and (iii) that such contributions would not violate either the letter or the spirit of any political campaign financing act, corrupt practices act, or similar law; 

but Jackson is clearly attempting to bring about a "change in economic, social, industrial, or political conditions."  Are we prohibited from opposing it, and left only to build schools for the displaced Indians?

4.         for the expansion or equalization of educational opportunities, especially for their extension to persons at a special disadvantage;

Or, given that there has been much progress in recent years in the integration of Indians into the general society, and that said progress is still ongoing and needs continuing support, may we contribute to the legal defense fund which is to successfully argue the case of the Indians before the High Court?  Of course it turned out that resistance was futile -- is that the lesson to be drawn?  

Or is the point that, rather than merely "oppose change" and protect the status quo, the fund should be support alternative courses of changes?

chuck

8. Bob writes:

8.1 “Herbivores”

As to the herbivores, Chuck provided the dots, and I connected the dots, but I agree with his general philosophy that it is better to focus on commonality in ideas rather than differences. There is even commonality between herbivores, in that they all consume similar types of plant life or plant products (e.g., hay), and produce comparable waste products. We would do well to focus on commonality of purposes rather than differences, in part because discussion that focuses only on differences runs the risk of resembling dung.

8.2 Paul’s Questions and Comments on 6G1 and 3F8

Paul asks about Article Six, section G1, and Bylaw III, section F8. Bylaw III, sections C, F, and G were an effort to summarize the provisions of Article Six, sections C, F, and G. I didn’t write Bylaw III, sections C, F, and G. I did write Article Six, sections C, F, and G, mostly copying the wording used by Walter H. McClenon in 1924. Someone, probably Paul, wrote Bylaw III, sections C, F, and G, as a reasonable attempt to summarize Article Six, sections C, F, and G, so that a Trustee would only have to look in one document and not two. As I have noted above, I think that the summary was a reasonable experiment but was not fully successful, because summaries lack the detail and subtlety of sections F5 and G1 of Article Six.

To comment further on Article Six, section G1, and Bylaw III, section F8, the comment on ‘ecology’ and ‘environmental’ causes was inserted when Bylaw III, section F (and C and G) were added to the Bylaws, because in the 1980’s, appeals from environmental organizations were almost always oriented at preventing what they described as undesirable change, the destruction of natural environment, and very seldom at any longer-lasting reform. The Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act were already on the books. (Lobbying for the Clean Water Act or Clean Air Act would almost certainly have qualified as improving overall economic, social, and industrial conditions.) The appeals almost always focused on the harm that the organizations were seeking to prevent. I still think that it is true that too many environmental fund-raising appeals are of the nature of “Prevent this bad action”, rather than “Promote this reform”.

To go back to the origins of Article Six, section G1, I do not think that it was originally addressed with respect to conservation. In the early twentieth century, conservation was a Progressive movement. For instance, the creation of national parks was a positive change in overall conditions, not intended only to prevent the destruction of the park. Lee has argued, plausibly, that certain types of measures to promote environmental justice are intended to improve overall conditions rather than to prevent undesirable changes to overall conditions. I would in particular say that the creation of the national park system and the passage of the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act were positive changes, not opposition to undesirable change. The reference in Bylaw III, section F8, reflected the 1980’s, in which conservation organizations were usually negative, not the 1920’s.

The real purpose of Article Six, section G1, as I recall discussions with the founder, was to prevent the use of Fund money to oppose reactionary or backward-looking movements. A proposal to sell the national parks to wealthy developers would be an example. So would have been a proposal to limit public education to six years. The fund could support expansion of the national parks or the improvement of public education.

I will try to explain the “such as two years” rule. That parenthetical phrase was not in the 1924 language. I inserted it into the 1976 language based on a discussion that I had with Walter H. McClenon in 1970 or 1971. His particular idea had been if the United States had nationalized an industry, such as railroads. The Fund could oppose privatization of railroads while the nationalization was still an active issue, like the current push by Republicans to repeal Obamacare, a recently implemented reform. However, if railroads had been nationalized in 1934 in the Thomas Administration, and then, in 1948, Republicans in Congress proposed that they be privatized, the Fund would not be permitted to lobby against their privatization, because then their privatization would merely be an undesirable change.

The one time that the “two years” rule actually was significant was in the 1980’s, and had to do with lobbying to prevent the reversal of Roe v. Wade. Pro-abortion-rights organizations were raising money to protect Roe against efforts to overturn it. Pro-abortion-rights advocates thought that reversal of Roe was undesirable change. The Fund was not permitted to contribute to organizations whose purpose was the preservation of Roe, which was by then status quo.

(Paul refers in passing to Soviet Five-Year Plans. The first Soviet Five-Year Plan was 1928-1933, and so Five-Year Plans were not an issue in the 1924 rules.)

8.3 Chuck’s Comment on 6G1

Chuck raises a very interesting question about how to the interpretation of Article Six, G1. (It doesn’t involve the Bylaws. The Bylaws do not have the philosophical consistency to be subject to time travel. The charter, like the Nobel Prizes, can do time travel, which is the basis for Shakespeare’s literature prize in 1612, and for Franklin’s physics prize in 1762.) I think that, if 6G1 is read in a vacuum, then the Fund would stand idly by while wrong was done.

I don’t think that 6G1 should be read in a vacuum. If it is, we really stand idly by. But Chuck also wrote: “Or is the point that, rather than merely ‘oppose change’ and protect the status quo, the fund should be support alternative courses of changes?” I think that the answer is yes. Other provisions also applied with respect to “Indian removal”. Chuck notes 6C1 and 6C5. I think that whether the Fund could have supported lobbying against “Indian removal” would depend in large part on whether the appeal was written as promoting cooperation between racial groups and defending the human rights of the Native Americans, or whether it was presented as opposing an undesirable change.

I think that 6G1 should be read as a prohibition against lobbying against, or otherwise working against, changes in status quo that are simply a matter of rolling back change that is seen as desirable. We cannot lobby simply against rolling back changes. The case that Chuck mentions involves an actual injustice, and so it may be different.

Lee: You and I and other Trustees previously discussed whether environmental remediation could be supported by the Fund. Can you please add to this discussion? I would like to see a good argument, that is not mine, that we should have opposed “Indian removal” in 1826. In the present, what sorts of environmental causes do you think that the Fund may and may not support?

8.4 More

I may ask more questions, or provide more comments. Then again, I might not.

9. Bob adds:

It occurs to me that some of the above discussion has to do largely with the 1980’s and 1990’s. To put that period of approximately two decades into perspective, there was a sort of ideological “crossing over” (chiasma) so that organizations that were commonly seen as “the left” or “liberal” (modern definition) or “progressive” (modern definition) were actually working to maintain status quo (which is conservative) rather than for further change. A great deal had been accomplished in the New Deal programs of the 1930s and the Great Society programs of the 1960s in terms of reduction of economic and social inequality and of environmental protection. In the 1980s and 1990s, the organizations and movements that had advocated those reforms were in the position of defending them, rather than seeking to expand them. The parenthetical clause in 3F8 reflects the fact that conservation and environmental organizations, in particular, were fighting against undesirable change in two related ways that violated 6G1. First, it is not a linguistic coincidence that ‘conservation’ and ‘conservative’ have the same root. Conservation is the movement to protect the natural environment, and conservatism is the political philosophy of protecting the status quo. Second, in the silver age of recently accomplished reforms, they were defending their recent gains rather than seeking to expand them.

Also, in the 1990s, there was some debate about whether an Article Six, section C5, organization, the American Civil Liberties Union, was primarily defending its previous legal victories of the 1960s and 1970s rather than continuing to seek to expand civil liberties or human freedom.

I will note in passing that there has been a great deal of widening of economic inequality in the early twenty-first century, and probably the late twentieth century, in the United States. All of the reduction of inequality of the Great Society and some of the reduction of inequality of the New Deal have been undone. That is not relevant to discussion of 6G1 and 3F8, because activities to reduce economic inequality would fall within the scope of Article Six, sections C1, C4, C8, and C9.

The parenthetical clause in 3F8 was written in the 1980s and reflected the situation at the time. It is probably no longer applicable in the early twenty-first century.

10. Lee wrote:

I have very little time to write right now and I do want to eventually send in more thoughts. 

Overall, I feel really confused by this clause. What does it mean to prevent a change when things are always changing? Preventing who from making a change to what of what kind.

For example, a group I work with called the Earth Quaker Action Team campaigns to end mountain top removal strip mining. They are doing so by pressuring PNC bank to end its investments in companies that practice this kind of mining. Is EQAT resisting change- the changes in mountain scape- or are they creating change- by asking PNC to move its money? 

A second example- Bryn Mawr recently shut down a house for living that was reserved for the head members of the black and latina cultural groups. Would donating to a group that was asking the administration to give it back be creating or resisting change? The admin made a change on campus to close the house due to fiscal issues but the cultural groups want a change in policy to make sure decsions are not just made based off the monetary line. 

This clause seems very arbitrary to me because I think that both sides of any issue are always pushing to make some kind of change. 

11. Bob writes:

Lee: Is the clause that you consider confusing and arbitrary Bylaw III, section F8, or Article Six, section G1? If it is the former, then my advice is to ignore it. It is a less-than-satisfactory attempt to summarize Article Six, section G1. I don’t consider Article Six, section G1, to be confusing or arbitrary, although it is sometimes difficult to apply.

Lee: You write: “This clause seems very arbitrary to me because I think that both sides of any issue are always pushing to make some kind of change.” I disagree. Very often, in my experience, one side on an issue is “digging in” with the primary, sometimes only, objective of maintaining the status quo. As I explained above, after a reform has been implemented, there is often a movement to undo it. The most current example is Republican efforts to roll back Obamacare. The Democrats are not pushing to expand it, but to preserve it. For the General Endowment to fund lobbying to oppose repeal would violate 6G1. (It would also be unnecessary spending, because the Republican effort at repeal is a pointless doomed cause, because they will not be able to get the two-thirds votes in both houses of Congress to pass repeal over Mr. Obama’s veto, but that is beside the point.) Another example, of longer-standing recent history, is efforts by the abortion-rights movement to prevent reversal of Roe v. Wade. The abortion-rights movement is, in this context, seeking to prevent change, not to expand access to abortion or provide some other service. (The fact that I would like to see Roe reversed is not important.) As I mentioned above, one of the reasons for 6G1 was so that if socialists in the US had nationalized an industry (e.g., railroads) and moderates then had a Congressional majority and advocated privatization, the Fund would not support lobbying against privatization. The socialists would not then have been lobbying for change, such as further nationalization, but against the change of privatization or de-nationalization. In my opinion, on some issues, one side is seeking change and the other side is opposing change. Since the Fund is on “the left”, seeking improvement of the condition of those people who are at a disadvantage, this situation is likely to happen if there had been a “leftist” or “progressive” or “liberal” national mood, that implemented reforms, and it then gave way to a “rightist” or “conservative” mood, and the “rightists” or “conservatives” seek to reverse the changes that the Fund saw as reforms and that the conservatives see as unwise.

The difficulty of interpreting 6G1 is in deciding whether a particular objective is primarily oriented at preventing change, typically by preventing the reversal of a gain, or at some larger objective.

Lee provides two examples. The first has to do with trying to end mountaintop removal mining. That one is difficult. I think that lobbying the Pennsylvania (or West Virginia) legislature to pass a law forbidding mountaintop removal would be permitted, as working for a change in industrial conditions. Asking PNC to end its investment in the companies is not as clear. It has aspects of “corporate shaming”, which I have usually considered to be an ill-advised way to accomplish change. I think that my conclusion would be that putting pressure on PNC was not against 6G1, and therefore deserved to be considered, but should not be supported anyway, because “corporate shaming” is an ineffective tactic, and the wiser course would be to lobby the state to pass a law against mountaintop removal.

The second has to do with shutting down a house that was reserved for the leaders of the African-American and Hispanic cultural groups. I think that funding an effort to put pressure on the university to keep the house open would violate 6G1, because the real purpose would be to oppose undesirable change. An effort to provide alternate housing for the leaders of the African-American and Hispanic cultural groups could be supported. (Whether the leaders of those cultural or ethnic groups are entitled to special housing is a different question.)

I don’t think that the clause is confusing or arbitrary. Very often, one side is not seeking change, but is seeking to hold previous gains. It is a difficult provision to decide in many cases, but I don’t think that it is confusing or arbitrary.

Lee: Do you have any further thoughts? Does anyone else have any further thoughts?

12. Lee wrote:

I'd like to propose a third example. A major city puts out a call to casinos, inviting bids for a site on the river. The neighborhood organization near the proposed site, fearing increased crime and traffic and diminished ecological health of the waterfront that would come from the project, starts a campaign to resist a casino being built in their area. Instead of simply trying to push the casino onto another neighborhood, they begin to lobby the government to change city zoning so casinos are not allowed within 1000 ft of residences, schools or churches. Is this organization attempting to create or resist change? 

Bob wrote:

Another example, of longer-standing recent history, is efforts by the abortion-rights movement to prevent reversal of Roe v. Wade.  The abortion-rights movement is, in this context, seeking to prevent change, not to expand access to abortion or provide some other service. 

To me this has an issue of scale. The fund could simultaneously support an organization looking to overturn roe v wade at a national level, while also funding lobbying to include abortion rights in state legislation (as is happening in NY? (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/abortion-law-n-y-women-article-1.1370931). Is that right?

I've heard this clause has often been applied in a way that stops the fund from giving to environmental preservation. To create a national park there are plenty of changes to be made- the land title transfers to the state, folks are hired to take care of it, facilities are built, there is a change in the use and nature of the land to insure that it will not be developed. I certainly see creation of a park as a sort of social and economic change. I don't necessarily advocate for preservationist issues, but I do want to understand how the clause can consistently be applied. 

Could you also explain more clearly the original intent and purpose of it? Why was Walter McClenon concerned about giving to groups that were perhaps resisting change- even changes he would see as beneficial. Why frame it in this way?

13. Bob writes:

I will begin at the end. “Why was Walter McClenon concerned about giving to groups that were perhaps resisting change?” A major reason has to do with the rhythm of history and the inconsistency of progress. Judeo-Christian scholarship, since ancient times, has not believed that there is a linear progression to history. Walter McClenon was a scholar and a Christian, and he knew that progress is inconsistent. A generation of progress may be followed by a generation of stagnation, and decades of reform may be followed by decades of backlash. The idea that there is a linear progression to history is Muslim or Marxist, or may reflect an oversimplification of the subtlety of Judeo-Christian thought.

There will be periods when the organizations supported by the Fund make advances, followed by periods when the mood becomes more conservative, and those organizations that made the advances “dig in” to defend the advances. The Fund should not be supporting the “digging in”, because then it would become conservative rather than progressive. If the national mood does not support further advances in those areas, the Fund should find some other way to advance its Article Three mission, rather than simply fighting to preserve the status quo that it helped achieve earlier. That is why Article Six, section G1, prohibits resistance to change, because its founder, wisely, did not want it to be fighting to preserve old advances, but to make new ones.

Lee wrote: “I've heard this clause has often been applied in a way that stops the fund from giving to environmental preservation.” That interpretation was correct in the 1980’s and 1990’s, when appeals from environmental organizations often had a shrill quality to them of “Stop this damage!” or “Halt that pollution!” I agree with Lee that the creation of a national park is a social and cultural change. It is not clear to me whether it is the sort of change that can be supported under any of the subsections of Article Six, chapter C, but it is not prohibited by Article Six, section G1. Also, I do not think that the Fund lobbied in favor of passage of the Clean Water Acts and the Clean Air Acts, but I think that lobbying in favor of those laws would have been appropriate. They improved the social and industrial condition of the people of the United States. However, subsequent appeals for better enforcement of those laws had the quality of defending existing reforms, not of achieving anything new. The parenthetical clause to Bylaw III, section F8 reflects the usual agenda of environmental organizations in the 1980’s. We should pay minimal attention to it, and should focus on Article Six, section G1.

I will comment briefly on Lee’s scenario about a casino. First, in general, the Fund should be wary of supporting neighborhood organizations of homeowners, both because of Article Six, section G1, and Article Six, section G2, favoring an economically privileged group (homeowners). The original 1924 language, in view of which 6G2 should be understood, was even more specific, as IIE2 referred to “property-owners as such”. I think that the casino scenario has a number of arguments why the Fund should just stay out of the argument, not supporting any side, and no solid reason based on any section of Article Six, chapter C, why the Fund should contribute.

I respectfully disagree with Lee’s argument that both sides on any issue are pushing to make some sort of change. Often one side is supporting the status quo. If the other side is pushing for positive change, we can support it. If the other side is pushing to roll back previous changes, we should not support either side. If the focus of an organization or its appeal is primarily oriented to preserving the status quo or to resisting change, even if the change is seen as undesirable, we should not support the organization.

Do these further comments clarify the matter of Article Six, section G1?

14. Lee wrote:

I'm finding the lack of terms for political positions, ideologies and movements in American politics to be frustrating in this discussion. "Progressive" and "Conservative" can mean many different ideas and it seems to me that the same words are being applied in different ways.

Bob: The Fund should not be supporting the “digging in”, because then it would become conservative rather than progressive.

In this example, the ideology of whatever cause (perhaps union labor laws) is still an ideal or progressivism. Although it may be unable to currently make progressive change because it must be on the defensive position to maintain whatever gains ad been made in the past. I think I'm coming to understand that the fund sees it a matter of strategy to not support causes that are having to be on the defensive at that moment (therefore a cause must both be progressive ideologically and also must be working to make progressive change--two separate ideas of progressive). I'm still not sure I agree with the strategy, but I can see it.

I do not believe that in every single issue both sides are seeking to make change in the moment. What I mean is that it is that in some occasions there are not always "offensive" and "defensive" teams- they may be working at different scales, or one side may be using offense as a defense (as in my casino example). I find these issues to be the most interesting.

15. Chuck wrote:

I concur with Lee's distillation.

16. Kathy wrote:

I think we should listen closely to Lee. In my opinion, the greatest thing about the Fund is, as someone else recently pointed out, to introduce younger generations of McClenons to philanthropy. As such, we should ensure that the experience for those younger folks is engaging, rewarding, and fun. I would be in favor of greatly simplifying the bylaws and the process for everything from evaluating organizations to the election process for trustees. I think the addition of Lee and other “younger” trustees has resulted in more substantive discussion about the Fund that we have ever had before (at least during my tenure). I’m in favor of making whatever changes will result in Lee and others of her cousins becoming enthusiastic about the Fund so that it will survive long after we older trustees are all gone.

17. Bob writes:

I am not in favor of “greatly simplifying” the bylaws. I would be glad to consider simplification of the bylaws and of processes. I do not think that the charter should be simplified. In particular, I do not think that Article Six, sections C, F, and G, should be simplified. They are mostly a 1976 restatement of 1924 language that has passed the test of time.

I agree with Lee that terminology must be used carefully and has varied over time, and can be obscure. At one point, I referred to “liberal” (modern definition) and “progressive” (modern definition), but it might be better to be more precise than using vague labels.

Lee’s summary that a cause must meet two standards at once to be supported by the Fund is correct. First, it must have a vision of improving the condition of the people of the United States or the world, especially those people who are at a disadvantage. (That is a “progressive” agenda, modern definition, as originally defined by a progressive, original definition.) Second, the organization must be seeking to advance that agenda rather than defending previous gains of that agenda. I agree with Lee that a cause that has “dug in” to defend previous gains still has a progressive agenda in the long run, but our strategy is to support organizations that are progressive both in the short run and the long run. Article Six, section G1, does limit what we can support. It was meant to do that.

In other words, I agree with Chuck’s agreement with Lee.

- - Bob McClenon