 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Sign up to receive PND e-newsletters. |
|
| |
|
| A different perspective
Posted by Wise Guy   on 10/19/2009, 10:47 am, in reply to "Re: Board members' information"
I think anticipating donors' wants and reasonably protecting their privacy is of high value. Some donors may not know they can opt to be anonymous, some may later wish they had. Not all donors want their names broadcasted, with sums given, so they can be hit up again and again, I cannot comprehend why a prospective funder truly needs actual names of actual major givers & sums donated. Some donor peers get upset when they learn peer donor B only gave them $2000 for pet charity, yet gave $5000 to another peer's pet cause. It may not be sacred or secret where they work. But it may deserve discretion. Once discretion is gone, it's gone. Some nonprofit causes are controversial and so some donors discreet: gay rights, mental health, whistleblowers, religion, abortion, etc. Unless funders audit your finances, they'll have to take on trust you did get a,b,c from x,y,z. Or they can read your audit and assume numbers are valid.
I think using initials or summing up and giving an average gift size for a class of donations is justifiable. You might find savvy funders respect your approach to donor relationships. Applicants need to demonstrate viability, a base of support, satisfying financial statements, fundraising potential or success, and maybe the blessing of a few big name donors. Dropping or sharing sensitive donor names can be done in other ways: verbally, by citing a few "public" donors, by who sits on your Board or advisory group or host committee.
|
| |
