If you guys remember, I was stunned that NPR's fundraising folks met with a alleged donor without much background work. Apparently I shouldn't have been. It happens all the time:
In the last few days, I've spoken with a half-dozen fundraising professionals about industry best practices for vetting new donors. Not one suggested that NPR should not have met with a prospective supporter.In fact, it is standard in the vetting process to meet and learn more about a potential donor's interests and how they might align with the organization's mission. But there were red flags that should have informed how Schiller and Liley behaved at the luncheon. [Liley is on paid administrative leave. A second O'Keefe audiotape of Liley phone calls dropped today.] When a call came in from a "Mr. Kasaam," from the Muslim Educational Action Center (MEAC) about making a grant, the development team did research."We ran the organization through the standard research databases but there were no records," said Jaime Porter, interim head of NPR's fundraising team, in an e-mail. "Therefore we could not determine a wealth assessment. It is standard procedure to look for an organization's total assets, types and amounts of other grants and the grant's recipients."That could have been Red Flag #1. But as Maehara, who has spent her career professionally fundraising, noted, "It's not uncommon to go to the meeting without any information. You go to lunch to learn more about the donor. It's not necessary to have a dossier 12-inches thick." Fundraisers do most of their research for the second meeting, she added.
MEAC also offered money to PBS and met with Brian J. Reddington, executive director of the PBS foundation. "Attempts to confirm the credentials of the organization proved unsatisfactory and communication was halted by PBS," said a PBS statement.
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to firstname.lastname@example.org.