Foundation Diversity and Transparency Act

On January 23rd the California State Assembly passed AB624. If I did not print the actual copy of this misguided attempt at insuring equitable distribution of charity I am sure you would think I exaggerated the truth.

(ASSEMBLY THIRD READING, AB 624 (Coto),As Amended January 23, 2008)

1) Requires every private, corporate and public operating foundation with assets over $250 million to collect, among other things, the following information:
a) The racial, gender and sexual orientation composition of its board of directors;
b) The racial, gender and sexual orientation composition of the private foundation's staff;
c) The percentage of business contracts awarded to businesses owned by specified groups;
d) The number of grants and percentage of grant dollars awarded to organizations serving specified communities;
And,
e) The number of grants and percentage of grant dollars awarded to organizations where the grantee's board of directors and/or staff are members of specified groups.

When I first read this I assumed there must be something I misunderstood.  So I reread this section and read the remainder of the bill.

Sadly, I got it right the first time.  This bill requires any foundation with assets over $250 million to report the race, gender and sexual orientation of its board or directors and its staff.

I think race and gender are pretty clear. What about sexual orientation? Is this simply questioning whether I like boys or girls?  Or do they want more specific information such as my preference for hair color, body composition (I am very average preferring a .7 hip to waist ratio in my women), or sexual position?  And what do I put down if I like girls, for the most part, but dig that occasional romp with the guy I met a Crowbar that looks just like the policeman from The Village People?  But statistically I am only with him 12 out of 100 sexual experiences.  Does that qualify as gay, bi, or simply bad taste?

AB624 requires reporting business contracts awarded to specified groups but, unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) it does not define "a specified group."  It also demands the reporting of how much grant money is awarded to organizations serving "specified communities" without defining those either.

And then, the coup de grâce, the law requires the reporting of how much is given to organizations whose board is made up of that special, yet to be defined, specified groups.

So in other words, if your organization is fortunate enough to receive grant money from my foundation (if we were in California and had the magic $250M in assets), there will be a small price to pay. I will have to disclose on my web site that you are a member of a specified group…and you know who you are. 

Perhaps we can combine the mandatory reporting of sexual predators with the required reporting on the activities of the large charities.  The sharing of the data base could save time and money.  "Oh look, Frank, three doors down lives a guy who was just released from "Big Muddy" after serving his time for doing despicable things to a 3 year old girl.  But wait, worse than that, did you know that Marge from next door is a director of the local United Way AND enjoys long walks on the beach, reading, tennis, and the company of other women?  Now that's disgusting!"

As reported in The Wall Street Journal (February 4 2008, Page A18) "A Berkeley-based advocacy group called the Greenlining Institute hatched this idea because, allegedly, racial minorities aren't well enough represented in California policy debates. John Gamboa, Greenlining's executive director, blames foundations for failing to donate enough money to "minority-led" think tanks and community groups and businesses, and he hopes this legislation will "shame" them into giving more. What counts as a minority-led organization? According to Greenlining, the board and staff should both be more than 50% minority."

An editorial in the Mercury News (2/29/08) by John Gamboa stated, "While foundations were given tax-exempt status in order to serve the entire public good, their leadership has a history of focusing most of their attention on pet causes such as the opera and elite universities. The Hewlett Foundation, for example, gave Stanford University $400 million dollars. This grant is larger than Hewlett Foundation's giving to California Latino, African-American and Asian-American run non-profit organizations in the last decade.

Donating $400 million dollars to Stanford?  Bastards! Who do they think they are?  So they must be using their work to improve services for highly disadvantaged youth, their Neighborhood Improvement Initiative (in response to the accelerating deterioration of low income urban communities), and their efforts to improve public education in California as just a beard for their real love, funding the activities of subversive and elitist (is the combination possible?) organizations like Stanford University.

I also checked into the composition of Hewlett's board.  It is made up of 13 people composed of 3 woman and 10 men (2 of whom are Asians) and lord knows how many transsexuals, homosexuals, cross dressers and obsessive masturbators.  But we will find out soon enough thanks to AB 624.

Before I leave Hewlett behind, let me list some of their other highly biased discriminatory initiatives and grant recipients:

Establishing Links with China:  Carnegie Endowment for International Peace - Beijing Center

Working to Prevent Global Conflict:  International Crisis Group

Promoting Cooperation Between Israelis and Palestinians:  The PeaceWorks Foundation - OneVoice Initiative

Ensuring Education Access for All Americans:  Southern Education Foundation, Inc.

As I said, they are rat bastards - every one of them.

I have mentioned in previous entries I helped establish a foundation.  The Handi-Ramp Foundation's mission is to assist in providing accessibility products such as ramps and lifts to those that cannot afford them.  I am not unique.  Many private citizens have established foundations to aid a very specific group of people or causes such as wetland preservation, specific medical research, or, god forbid, promoting free market ideas.  As stated in the same Wall Street article:
"If donors are suddenly supposed to allocate grants by the color or sexual lifestyle of the grantee, that donor intent will be distorted at the very least. Presumably we want money for cancer research to support the most promising research ideas, not to be based on whether the labs have a rainbow coalition of PhDs. The goal is to cure cancer."
Finally, the bottom line is the bottom line. The real issue with this bizarre piece of legislation was well stated in an editorial found in the February 25th issue of The Weekly Standard.
"What AB 624 won't make any easier is charitable giving in California. The Washington, D.C.-based Philanthropy Roundtable, along with former Stanford law dean and NAACP lawyer Paul Brest, oppose the bill on the grounds that it will actually drive foundations out of the Golden State, as donors who do not want to expose grantees to the onerous reporting burden spend their money elsewhere. And how will California's minorities--and Californians generally--be served by that?"

Good question.

Scott

Note:
After I wrote the above entry there have been some changes to AB624. To be accurate I must report on them.
Since AB 624 was written AND approved by the California State Assembly, it has been amended.  Now, AB 624 does not require foundations to collect and disclose data regarding the sexual orientation of their foundation Board and staff, or their grantees or business contracts. Foundations still must collect and disclose data regarding the race, ethnicity and gender of their foundation Board, staff and their grantees and business contacts.

Now, AB 624 requires foundations to collect information on grants given to "minority communities, LGBT communities, predominantly low-income communities and other underrepresented communities." The previous version did not include "other underrepresented communities."

Comments

[phillip Jensen]

get used to it..the lefty dems who are about to take over our country have lots of similar "it takes a village" ideas just waiting to be foisted upon us!