“We Must Look To The Past To Know The Future” – George Santayana

The headlines in 2012 were all about looking to the future.

While there were some stories with immediate consequences, the effects of most of the headlines will only rear their heads in 2013 (at the earliest).  Change in the wind? Yes.  On the ground, not so much.

So what’s in store for Israel’s global nonprofit sector?  The following are nine of the top news stories of 2012 and their significance:

9. Charities  Advocate for Israel’s Nonprofit Sector in the Upcoming Elections

The end of November saw Manhigut Ezrachit [ICLA or Israel Civil Leadership Association in English] release a primer (Hebrew) on the contribution to Israel by its nonprofit sector.

The goal of the one-page summary was to educate citizens in the hopes that they would support candidates that expressed an interest in supporting, developing, and strengthening Israel’s voluntary sector.

While the effort didn’t seem to garner public support, it was defintely a step in the right direction and reminded me of the much more successful efforts in the United States.

This recent effort in Israel is very much in its infancy but with the election results showing that Israel is ready for a change, I’m very to interested to see if charities decide to band together and capitalize on it for the next elections.

8. Private-Philanthropy Database to be Initiated by the Statistic Bureau and Yad Hanadiv

While a Yearbook is  great for organizational statistics (see below number 4), it does nothing to analyze those that are actually doing the giving, the donors. Thus enters Yad Hanadiv (The Rothchild Foundation) and Israel Statistics Bureau who announced in late October (Hebrew) about a joint project to establish a database of giving statistics.

Currently, the numbers are gleaned from a hodgepodge of places, including: automatic reports generated from incoming money from foreign sources; data submitted by the Tax Authority on private and business donations; and various surveys done by private and government bodies.

The new initiative will gather data from three primary sources: data submitted by the Tax Authority on private and business donations (a previous contributor); information transferred from Guidestar Israel (see below number 4); and a survey to be conducted on 300 sample charities. Building the database will take a year from when they first pieces of information will be transmitted (approximately towards the end of 2013).

The new initiative database will:

• map donations from individuals and businesses, originating  from both within and outside Israel
• and will provide information on the sources, amounts, and destinations of the philanthropy received by Israeli charities.

It could be that the goal of this project is to mimic the Giving USA Report published yearly, whose vast data is used to “track reports of similar types of charity, train board members, assist in setting organizational strategy, identify funding gaps, and teach about current trends.”

With the continuous complaints about Israel’s lack of formal philanthropy, this is an important initiative indeed.

7. Acknowledgement that it’s Time to Explore New Organizational Structures for Charities 

Two announcements from the Israeli government signaled that the powers-at-be are realizing that charities come in all different shapes and sizes; something that other countries have known for quite some time.  (In America, the B Corporation and L3C legal entities are great examples.)

With traditional fundraising drying up, alternative funding sources and the entities that can support them are crucial.

In late November, The Third Sector Roundtable run by the Prime Minister’s Office expressed its support (Hebrew) for the creation of Socially-Minded Businesses in Israel.  The directive will provide the basis necessary for legislation, regulations, and a the fiscal structure necessary for the success of such an entity.  (Similar strides were recently made in the States when the IRS declared that social investments or PRI’s would be considered tax-deductible.)

This headline followed an earlier one in September that announced that the Israeli government had created an official Request for Information (RFI) on the establishment of a Social Entrepreneurship Fund.

As exciting as this sounds, with the recent Israeli elections and reports of overspending, deficit explosions, and subsequent looming budget cuts, all this great talk might be just that: talk.

6. Interior Ministry to Reward Local Authorities on Social Activities

Real change needs to come from within, despite the sometimes much-needed external push.

Misrad Hapnim (Israel’s Interior Ministry) announced (Hebrew) that they would give financial rewards to those Local Authorities that instituted social programs that meet eight predetermined criteria.  Officials were quick to point out that type of programming they are looking for is attainable even for smaller and more cash-strapped local authorities and wouldn’t require infusions of large capital.

In addition to changes how local governments approach and prioritize social programming (hopefully), this announcement will hopefully galvanize  charities into researching further ways to collaborate with the municipalities in which they operate.

Could this actually usher in a new era of government and charity collaboration?  (And yes, I’m ever the optimist.)

5. Midot: Acting More Like a Regulator than a Social Cause 

The Israeli nonprofit organization Midot made headlines a few times in 2012.

None more explosive than in September after its CEO in an interview with Haaretz / TheMarker, one of Israel’s leading business dailies, called the majority of Israel’s charities ineffective. The article was subsequently used to confirm the public’s worst fears in the countries’ nonprofits.

This story followed Midot’s pilot program with Israel’s Chashav Haklali (Hebrew) where Midot essentially served as the gatekeeper to the government’s coffers.  A program that many feared would be misused by the government as an excuse to refuse allocation of grants.

Manhigut Ezrachit [ICLA or Israel Civil Leadership Association in English] and the Hitarginut Hamankalim [The Organization of Nonprofit CEOs] banded together in September to issue a letter (Hebrew) defending against the claims of lack-of-effectiveness.   The letter was followed by a call for Midot to act more like a “social cause and less like a regulator.”

In the past years, Midot has made inroads with big companies and Israel’s elite (in addition to the government as was demonstrated above), convincing them of the organization’s critical mission.

Recent headlines seem to suggest that the organization’s effectiveness is not universally accepted.  Midot is at a fork-in-the-road and only time will tell which path they will choose and how Israel’s nonprofit sector will be affected accordingly.

4. Creation of Israel’s First Nonprofit Sector “Yearbook”

At the June Guidestar Israel conference, a “yearbook” (or Shnaton as its referred to in Hebrew) of Israel’s nonprofit sector was released.

Using the 12 internationally recognized nonprofit classifications (see pages 18-22), the report allows Israel to analyze its own sector, as well as, compare it to others around the globe.  The hard numbers (many of which were unattainable until now) shed light on many important statistics and were used by one reporter to combat the myth that high salaries are prevalent among Israel’s charities.

The yearbook released in June was Israel’s first.  Coming years will not only continue to deliver critical data but will provide the basis for trend-watching and true analysis.

More articles on the Yearbook can be found on NPTech’s (the organization that manages Guidestar Israel) site, here (Hebrew).  Don’t miss this one either: Aren’t You Tired of Suspecting Charity CEO’s? (Hebrew)

3. Supreme Court Rules that Charities Need to Pay Tax on Land Sales

The city of Ashkelon sold 53 plots of land to private individuals.  The city charged the individuals VAT (Value Added Tax) but didn’t transfer the VAT to the Tax Authority because it was granted a VAT  exemption by the Tax Authority — as most Israeli charities do.  Even though the exemption was granted to the municipality because of its “social” status, the Tax Authority claimed that the transaction was a  commercial and not social, thus not included in the exemption.

In October, Israel’s Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Tax Authority (Hebrew), in essence ruling that all charities will need to pay VAT (currently 17%) when they sell property they own.  Until then, it was a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that allowed those institutions that didn’t report tax they had collected as free from VAT payments to the Tax Authority.

In Israel, many organization received land from the government or from bequeaths — land that is not needed by the charity.  Many have already sold portions of their property, while most still maintain this “extra” real-estate.

The multitude of charities and other exempt organizations affected will now have to take VAT into consideration and rethink their plans.

2. One Year for the Tax Authority to Rethink Tax-Deductible Eligibility

Many people, including myself, have complained about the lack-of-clarity facing charities that are seeking tax-deductible status in Israel, known as Se’if [Paragraph] 46.

In addition to the basic requirements associated with applying to become a Mosad Tziburi [Public Institution], the Minister of Treasury prepares a recommendation to a Knesset sub-committee that must approve the organization’s request. The problem, as Prof. Nissan Limor pointed out, is that applicants do not know beforehand what is exactly required of them.  Furthermore, Limor notes that the procedures are gathered as guidelines that have not been incorporated into any legislation.

In August, Israel’s Supreme Court ruled (Hebrew) that the Treasury has one year in which to formulate clear criteria for receiving Se’if 46.

According to Guidestar’s Yearbook released in June of this year, only 12% (4,280 out of 34,398) of charities have  tax-deductible status.

It is hopeful that new, clearer guidelines will both encourage more charities to apply for tax-deductible status and give  those organizations struggling to get an approval the boost they need to finally be granted their well-deserved eligibility.

1. Corporations Authority Releases for First Time Instructions for Business Activities by Nonprofits

The world of nonprofit financing has been changing for a while, especially after the global economic. However, regulations here in Israel haven’t been keeping pace.  Actually, they’re trailing far behind.

But maybe not anymore?

A funding method making headlines in recent years is business related income generated by the nonprofit itself, as opposed to strict reliance on donations.

Maybe saving the best for last, Israel’s Corporations Authority (CA), which governs the Registrar of Charities, released in November (Hebrew) for the first time instructions for “business” activities by charities.  The guideline’s four sections cover:

1. How decisions should be reached
2. Relevant considerations concerning business activities
3. Collaboration with other nonprofit or for-profit entities
4. Restrictions of business activity

While not perfect, the guidelines are a work in progress.  More importantly, they are signal that the regulators are realizing that charities are multifaceted, complex, economic organisms and not simply operational sub-contractors.

- – - – - – - – - – - - – - – - – - – - – - -

I’ve got high hopes for 2013.  Looking forward to joining everyone for the ride.

What were your impressions? Which headline will reverberate the most for years to come?  Can you suggest a headline that wasn’t included in the list?

Tizku Lemitzvot,

Shuey

Thank you to the team at Zavit Hashlishit (@zavit3) headed by Eilat Navon that supplies me (and most of Israel) with the latest news affecting Israel’s nonprofit sector.  This list wouldn’t be possible without their hard work.

Disclaimer:  This blog houses my personal opinions and is for informational purposes only — not advice. As charity laws can be quite complex and ever-changing, please refer all questions to qualified and licensed professionals.  Read the full disclaimer.

In mid-October of this year, Israel’s Registrar of Charities issued “10 Golden Rules for Donors” (Hebrew).  While the document is meant as a guideline for  individuals, it holds immense value for the Israel’s charities, as well.

Here’s why:

Governments equate the tax-deductible rebate on donations to a donation by the government (via the tax authority) to the nonprofit sector as a whole.  In essence, the government views itself as a donor.  Israeli Charities, or amutot, can be sure that Israel’s Rasham Ha’amutot (Registrar of Charities), as an extension of the government, will be heeding its own advice when it vets charities for compliance.

Below are The 10 Golden Rules (in English) and its implications for nonprofits operating in Israel.  

THE 10 GOLDEN RULES FOR DONORS

1) Check the status of the amutah

“Visit the Rasham‘s site (Hebrew) to see if the charity actually exists and it’s current status (current, erased, or in the process of involvement).”

Charities:

The above site lists the charity’s name, status, registered address, and status of Nihul Takin for current and upcoming year. The site also allows people to search by name.

So…

Check the page from time to time to ensure that what appears is accurate; what you see, the donors see.  This is otherwise known as Reputation Management 101.  (More about this in rule #3.)

Additionally, it is advisable to test-search your organization by inputting its partial name or nickname.  This is a great way to observe the competition or help choose a unique name when registering your charity.

2) Confirm that the charity has a Nihul Takin [Certificate of Proper Management]

“The Nihul Takin is a certification issued by the Rasham every year to charities that fulfill the reporting requirements as dictated by the Registrar. Please note that in years when a charity was audited by the Registrar, the Nihul Takin is also a good judge that the organization’s activities are sound. As this is not the case in most years, donors are recommended to carry out their own investigations.”

Charities:

Withholding an organization’s Nihul Takin status is the Registrar’s most powerful and effective tool in its arsenal.   Organizations seeking a government grant or contract must have this status.  Additionally, many foreign funders will also only give to nonprofits that have a Nihul Takin.  (See previous post, Defining an Amutah.)

In simpler terms, having a Nihul Takin lets donors know that an objective third party — in this case  the Registrar and/or its sub-contractors — has reviewed a nonprofit’s activities.

Furthermore, the above website lists the date that the Nihul Takin was granted, meaning that viewers will know if an organization submitted their forms on time or were delinquent.

It is important to note that only charities that have two years of financial reports are eligible for the Nihul Takin.  The above site, however, will not list “not eligible” rather “none.”  Young organizations should proactively warn their constituents so current and potential donors aren’t left wondering why “their” organization is lacking this important certificate.

3) Check the charity on the site Guidestar Israel

“Guidestar Israel contains information from the Rasham [official] and other sources [less official]. The site contains financial and narrative reports, certifications, summaries of activities, and other relevant information on a charity.”

Charities

Moving onto Reputation Management 201.

Has your organization verified that the material listed on Guidestar Israel is accurate and up-to-date?  Organizations can obtain a login password to update and supplement the material that appears on the Guidestar site, including adding text in English.

It is also possible to upload a link to a fundraising site so that impressed individuals can donate directly from Guidestar.  Has your organization availed itself of this function?

Has your organization uploaded its logo for brand recognition?

4) Ask the amutah for details about the purpose and destination of your donation

“Do not hesitate to ask the receiving charity for details or for documentation regarding the intended purpose of the donation. Some of this information can be found in the yearly Narritive Report that the charity submits to the Registrar or in the Board protocols [meeting minutes] pertaining to the charity’s goals for that year.”

Charity:

Does your organization make it easy for donors to navigate its website?  Perhaps, creating a unique “landing” page for the specific drive; don’t make it hard for your donors to find the answers to the questions you know they are asking.

In general, what was considered good practice a few years ago is now the norm. Organizations should expect that would-be funders will conduct their own investigations and act accordingly.

5) When receiving a request for a donation by telephone, clarify before giving

“In the case of receiving a request by telephone, you can certainly ask the caller to either wait or to call back later so that you can properly check the request via the organization’s website or other  means.”

Charities:

Continuing on the previous point: Has your organization equipped its telephone staff with the proper background information to make the ask seem legitimate and answer basic questions?

6) Avoid donating to temporary kupot tzedekah [donation boxes or pushkas]

“It is best to avoid putting donations in these boxes, unless it is in a permanent location or well kept and connected to a organization you know well. Donation boxes are likely targets for theft or fraud. Regardless of familiarity with a particular organization or donation-box locale, it is best never to give large gifts via these pushkas.”

Charities:

The Registrar is essentially telling donors that those nonprofits that have temporary collection plates are not as careful with their funds — or else they wouldn’t collect money in ways susceptible to theft or fraud!

After all, these boxes are not monitored 24/7.  Certainly in today’s day and age, organizations can think of more efficient and safer ways to collect funds.

7) Request a receipt from the recipient for your donation

“A receipt is an essential tool for internal and external monitoring of the integrity of the organization. By law, a charity must offer a receipt for any donation. The receipt should minimally include the name of the amutah, the amutah’s registration number, and amount of the donation.”

Charities:

This is really ABCs of Israel charity management. If your organization isn’t providing receipts for every type of donation, I strongly suggest the manageent of the charity read the Nihul Takin, Israel’s guide for proper management of nonprofits. [Click for Hebrew & English versions of the Nihul Takin.]

8) Plan your donations

“If you donate regularly, once a year, at least, you should plan out your donations. This planning should include the total amount you plan on donation for the upcoming year, including the purposes of said donations so you can come to an informed decision on where you might want to give. If you have personal information about the activities of a favorite charity, or you were and have been pleasantly impressed by this nonprofit’s activities, there is preference for a contribution to this organization after the aforementioned tests have been executed.”

Charities:

Listen up and listen well: Nonprofits that help their donors create such a plan — even one that includes donations to other charities — are providing a much-needed service and proving added value.  Such an organization is engaging and connecting to its donors in a much more intrinsic and personal manner than by simply receiving a check.  This type organization will be remembered by the donor for a long time to come.

On a more basic level, this is why a nonprofit organization must invest in its branding. Does your charity clearly state its goal and how it plans to accomplish said goals? Do you make it easy for donors to understand how you fit into the social-service stratosphere?  Has your organization focused on causation to prove it is worthiness?

9) When necessary, view the charity’s file at the Registrar or request a copy of it on CD

“When necessary you can request to view an organization’s file at the office of the Registrar or to request a CD copy to be mailed to you, for a fee.”

Charities:

There is always a paper-trail.  Almost everything filed is available.  The exceptions are  documents or sections-of-documents that relate to board members or staff on a personal level.  Nuff said.

10) Report an organization’s improper or illegal activity

“If you notice something that seems wrong or illegal about the organization, please contact the offices of the Registrar of Charities by email at: RashamA@justice.gov.il. It is important to note that public inquiries are an integral ingredient used by the Rasham Ha’amutot to monitor the conduct of nonprofits and, thus, to ensure that donations are used for their intended purposes.”

Charities:

Scoff at constituents at your own risk.  Moreover, recent scandals have shown that wrongdoing was first noticed by Friends Of charities, those tasked with financially supporting the organization!

The above point includes staff, as well.  A recent lecture quoted an international report that the primary source of fraud detection in charities are internal tips.

To quote popular culture: you can run but you can’t hide.

I join Israel’s Registrar of Charities in wishing that a smarter donor and a more transparent sector will hopefully lead to greater participation and support of Israel’s charities.

What do you think: Good Rules to Live By or Too Oppressive?

Tizku Lemitzvot,

Shuey

Disclaimer:  This blog houses my personal opinions and is for informational purposes only — not advice. As charity laws can be quite complex and ever-changing, please refer all questions to qualified and licensed professionals. Read the full disclaimer.

Photo: Courtesy of Timo Studios (Flickr)

As was mentioned in my previous post, Israel’s OFFLINE Overhaul of its Nonprofit Sector (Guidestar Conference, Part 1), the June 26th Conference Organized by Guidestar Israel tantalized the attendants with many planned improvements within the government offices tasked with overseeing Isael’s nonprofit sector.

Even more monumental, though, are the changes that are taking place online.  Here we are seeing not only an upgrade in software, but in approach and analysis as well, whose rippling effects will be felt far beyond Israel’s shores.   

AN ONLINE TOOL FOR ISRAELI CHARITIES

Avi Shapira, CEO of NP Tech, the Public Benefit Company that develops and oversees Guidestar Israel and Techsoup Israel, stressed that his organization is aware of Guidestar’s important role in Israel’s nonprofit sector. Evidence of its increasingly crucial role, he said, is seen from the growing number of views of the site from abroad — even though the current version of Guidestar Israel is primarily available in Hebrew.

Shapira believes that Guidestar sits at a unique crossroads because it is a joint project between private and government entities. As such, he wishes that organizations would proactively use Guidestar as a Transparency tool. In this vein, Shapira believes that it is only natural that Guidestar should be the address to aggregate all available Government grants — a feature he believes will be integrated in approximately four months time. (Wow!)

Following up Mr. Shapira, was Benny Shlesinger, of NPTech, who is Guidestar Israel’s project manager. Benny opened that the new site can already be previewed at http://preview.guidestar.org.il.

ROBUST SEARCH FOR THE DONOR

The current site is available in English but only in a limited capacity. The new site, however, will exist in full in English and will incorporate English in its search functions, a feature that will allow international donors to more easily find organizations of interest. Additionally, increased search capabilities will also include the ability to search by organization type, a feature geared for the potential donor with a specific charitable goal in mind but is unaware of the players in that particular field.

In the new site, Shlesinger continued, nonprofits can add even more details to their profile, including links to their social media personalities on the various networks. (Links to donation portals already exist in the current version). This enhanced profile brings with it improved navigation and color designation to make it easier to discern if the information shown originates from certified Government sources or from the charity itself.

STREAMLINED DATA OUTPUT & TIMELIER ANALYSIS

Thanks to recent efforts to bring Israel’s nonprofit online, important data on Israel’s nonprofit sector is available faster than it was in the past.

Additionally, the available data incorporates internationally recognized definitions and categories (see pgs 18-22) to enable the data to be used beyond Israel’s borders, giving the local sector a better understanding of how it fares in the global market and vice versa.

Utilizing this shorter turnaround, Prof. Nisan Limor, Chairman of NP Tech and one of Israel’s leading researchers into its nonprofit sector, presented findings from 2010.

While not the focus of this article, it is interesting to note some of the points that Prof. Limor stressed:

The whole notion of tax-deductible status is very problematic in Israel. The data shows that only 4,280 out of Israel’s approximately 35 thousand charities actually have tax-deductible status, known here in Israel as Sei’f 46a status. Limor pointed out that no other OECD country has charities appealing to parliament to get tax-deductible status. (I shared my own opinions regarding Se’if 46 in a previous piece.)

Tracking “ownership” of nonprofits is still difficult if not impossible. There are invariably charities that are managed by local municipalities, making them extensions of local government and not really charities for the sake of sector analysis. Who these are and how many is very much a mystery.

With all the outcries against “high” salaries in Israel’s nonprofit sector, the numbers show that being a nonprofit manager is no sure ticket to riches. By law, each organization must list its five highest paid employees (assuming they even have five staff members). The average of the five highest paid employees across the entire sector amounts to 8,777 NIS a month, which Limor notes is Israel’s average monthly salary. Even the average of all highest paid employees only amounted to a monthly salary of 12,593 NIS — and all this is before taxes. (No wonder so many directors leave to enter the private sector.) Again, certainly not the point of this piece, but worthy to note.

TAKE-AWAYS FROM THE OFFLINE & ONLINE IMMENENT CHANGES

Both the global and local nonprofit sectors are changing and the word Transparency seems to be an integral part of this metamorphosis.

While it is true that most of points mentioned in the Guidestar-Israel articles are predictions for the future as opposed to hard analysis of the past — and we all know what happens when you “assume” — we should consider ourselves lucky that at last week’s conference the various Government oversight bodies were kind enough to specify the application of Transparency. The exact date these changes will come into effect is of less importance that the fact that they eventually will. Case in Point: Guidestar Israel took six years but did eventually get off the ground.

Israel charities should consider implementing soon the suggestions “offered” at the Guidestar Israel Conference in order to be among the leaders of this change instead of lagging behind.

Tizku Lemitzvot,

Shuey

In case you missed: Israel’s OFFLINE Overhaul of its Nonprofit Sector (Guidestar Conference, Part 1)

Disclaimer: This blog houses my personal opinions and is for informational purposes only — not advice. As charity laws can be quite complex and ever-changing, please refer all questions to qualified and licensed professionals. Read the full disclaimer.

The June 26th Conference Organized by Guidestar Israel — a collaborative project of the Justice Department, Registrar of Corporations, Guidestar International, NP Tech, Joint Distribution Committee (JDC), and Yad Hanadiv (a.k.a. The Rothchild Foundation) — was June’s best prediction for “The Tomorrow of Jewish Philanthropy.”

In the global nonprofit sector there is much talk of cooperation and the need to combine forces to increase efficiency and cut costs, yet this synergy is hard to find. Guidestar Israel, in contrast, is actually doing it. Local charities, international organizations, private funds and government resources have all cooperated to bring the Guidestar Israel project into fruition. (And yes, it took over six years for the parties agree and get things off the ground, but we’ll choose not to focus on that for right now.)

Like many conferences, there was the good and the less good, but for those paid attention, there was also the surprising — announcements foretelling actual progress.

THE SECTOR MUST POLICE ITSELF

Advocate Alon Bachar, Director of Israel’s Corporations Authority, which oversees the Registrar of Charities and the Registrar of Companies, was quick to declare that transparency is the foundation of Israel’s nonprofit sector. Scandals, he continued, harm the sector as a whole. Thus, he concluded – and this is where things got interesting – self interest dictates that the nonprofit sector should police itself. (It would appear from his words that he considers himself and the Government office he represents to be card-carrying members of Israel’s nonprofit sector.)

Furthermore, Bachar blames the local nonprofit sector’s lack of transparency for Israel’s lack-luster standing in philanthropy as compared to other modern countries. This is a bold statement considering other experts have pointed fingers at lax Government tax incentives as the root of the problem or Israeli charities overall lack of strategic engagement with their constituents (my personal belief, which I elaborated in a previous post, “The Real Reason Israelis Don’t Donate to Charity“).

Bachar didn’t leave much to the imagination for those that were looking to understand the criterion upon which the Registrar inspects nonprofits. Bachar stressed that organizations should pay close attention to the Nihul Takin, as it explains “our priorities and how we evaluate charities.”

INFRASTUCTURE CHANGES IN THE REGISTRAR OF CHARITIES

The part of his speech that had the most practical application was Bachar’s announcement that the Registrar of Charities is adding services to increase its own transparency. In the past, Bachar explained, Israeli charities essentially had five addresses within the Registrar of Charities — including accounting, legal, managerial and compliance — where they could address their problems, seek answers, or submit reports. Two years of analysis determined this method to be less than effective and a decision was made to revamp the entire system.

As part of the Registrar’s overhaul, multidisciplinary staffs will be created to combine the five different needs into one address. Instead of five addresses, each charity will be assigned a team that will handle any and all of their requests. Furthermore, this new type of team will allow the Registrar to further specialize its staffs by discipline — whether it be sports, education, welfare, health, environment, religious etc — to better cater to nuance, experience, and trends of the different types of causes.

In a similar vein, Bachar’s Deputy Director, Advocate Avital Shreiber, announced that charities will soon also be labeled by size.  Shreiber acknowledged the difficulty of smaller organizations — many of whom function with no paid staff — to adequately file the multitude of government initiated paperwork.  Much like a system that has existed in the United States for a few years, “smaller” organizations will face scaleddown reports.  Shreiber added that it is even conceivable for their to be specialized reporting for the different philanthropic disciplines.

Transparency, as Bachar defines it for the Registrar of Charities, is uploading information quicker so that it can be utilized in a timelier manner. Toward this end, he said, the Registrar is turning totally digital, with every form and appeal to be handled online. He also announced that the Nihul Takin will be updated soon and would probably only be released on the internet.

USE GUIDESTAR OR ELSE…

Bachar also encouraged amutot to take advantage of Guidestar Israel and upload as much information as possible — even more than is necessary — so as to increase transparency of the organization and the sector as a whole. While some might see this recommendation of Guidestar as mere self-promotion, it should be taken much more seriously considering these two statements:

Bachar’s claim that the Registrar of Charities will be increasing cooperation with various Government agencies, specifically the Tax Authority & Anti Money Laundering Compliance, so as to decrease overlap.

This declaration was preceded by statements from Dr. Guy Rotkopf, CEO of the Justice Ministry which overseas Bachar’s Registrar of Corporations, in which he boldly claimed that Israeli charities that choose not to participate in Guidestar Israel have something to hide.

Definitely hints of trends to come.

Tizku Lemitzvot,

Shuey

Don’t Miss the Next & Final Post in the Series: Israel’s ONLINE Overhaul of its Nonprofit Sector (Guidestar Conference, Part 2)

Disclaimer: This blog houses my personal opinions and is for informational purposes only — not advice. As charity laws can be quite complex and ever-changing, please refer all questions to qualified and licensed professionals. Read the full disclaimer.

After years of rumors, here-say, and unwritten code that outlawed the use of credit cards by Israeli nonprofit organizations, the newest version of the Nihul Takin [Certificate of Proper Management] from Israel’s Rasham Ha’amutot [Registrar of Charities] clearly permits the use of credit cards by Israeli charities…kind of.

Unfortunately, vague unwritten guidelines have now been replaced by confusing and unrealistic written rules. Progress?

So should your amutah [Israeli Charity] use a credit card? As no two charities are the same, that answer is best left to your organization’s board, accountant, and/or lawyer.

What I can do, however, is share the research I have done and practices I have witnessed from countless nonprofits, which will hopefully save your organization precious time. 

WHAT’S  THE PROBLEM WITH CREDIT CARDS?

Israel’s Registrar of Charities takes issue with credit cards, as written in the Nihul Takin:

“Use of credit cards by an amutah [Israeli Charity] constitutes a problem because it does not enable the signature of two authorized signatories as is required, and it therefore adversely affects control over the way in which the amutah’s funds are handled.” – Nihul Takin (See below for links to the full text.)

(In short, proper financial oversight is practiced when transaction are signed by at least two signatures, but a credit card transaction can be executed by just one person.)

HOW SHOULD MY AMUTAH USE ITS CREDIT CARD?

The Registrar acquiesced in its newest version of the Nihul Takin (the third and final draft was released in June of 2010) to the use of credit cards by Israeli charities.  Israel’s Registrar of Charities lists two options whose lack-of-clarity and wordiness, unfortunately, require me to translate its instructions and has led various experts unsure as to what to recommend:

Option #1

“A credit card that is limited to the amount permitted for use as petty cash, and uses it solely for permitted petty cash expenditure…which contains a restriction on the amount of a one-time item of expenditure (such as charged card) or a monthly limit of expenditure (such as a card with a credit facility limit of a small amount).” - Nihul Takin

Translation: A credit card can replace petty-cash, used for similar purposes.

Pro: Some consider this option to be the simplest and most straight forward because it allows for a credit in the organization’s existing bank account.

Con:  Regulations (specifically those issued by the Income Tax Authority) do not specify the proper types of petty cash expenditures nor the monthly limit for petty-cash, the optimal credit limit for this kind of card is hard to know.

Con: If the Registrar is still, indeed, worried about the possibility of executing transactions by a lone signatory, this solution doesn’t address this dilemma.

 Option #2

“A credit card, as to which the payment thereof is subject to the existence of a monetary balance in a designated account opened for the purpose of use of such a card. The use of a card of this type will be subject to transfer of funds to the designated account following a signed instruction by two authorized signatories of the amutah, for the purpose of a particular item of expenditure, noting the purpose of the transfer…for example in order to make payments that can only be made through the internet, payment of a fee to the Registrar, expenses incurred during travel abroad etc.” – Nihul Takin

Translation: Open a separate account that is designated strictly for credit card. The card’s limit will be backed by cash that will be transferred from the organization’s main account. The instruction to transfer the money that will serve as the card’s collateral will be signed by at least two people.

Pro: Even though the card is used by a single individual, the usage is pre-approved and the transfer of the collateral is authorized by the magic number of two.   Those in favor of this option feel that with two signatures approving the transfer, the amutah is better protected should its governance and financial practices be audited in the future.

Con: There is an additional headache and possible additional fees (depends on your bank) for opening/managing an additional account.

Con: The Registrar actually envisions a flexible card limit that will change according to the needs and approval of the organization.  Very few cards will actually allow this and the charity might find itself in the defensive position vis-a-vis the Registrar despite having the magic “two.”

Not only are some experts unsure as to which option is the best to recommend, other professionals actually advise not use a credit card at all.  As one lawyer put it, “This language is purposely confusing, telling me without a doubt that the Registrar really doesn’t want charities to use credit cards.”

And this lawyer is probably right.

Conversations I have had with lawyers and accountants hint that the Registrar of Charities only approved the use of credit cards by Israeli charities due to public pressure and that (not-so) deep down, it hasn’t changed its belief that a credit card is dangerous.

BUT THE SECTOR NEEDS MORE

This last suggestion, while not one of the options suggested by the Registrar, does play it safe.  The logic of that last lawyer is pretty sound, that is, except for one thing: today’s businesses NEED a credit card.  Internet purchases, certain standing orders, and corporate accounts — just to name a few — won’t accept another type of payment.

But maybe more importantly, by opting out of using a credit card, a charity is allowing the Registrar to dictate unfair and unrealistic business conditions that can cost the nonprofit valuable money and time.

(For example, take one client that is forced to shop at the local mini-mart because he can’t open a corporate account at a neighborhood supermarket since his lawyer recommended against using a credit card.)

Furthermore, if a credit card isn’t allowed for the organization then often employees or board members are forced to use their own personal cards.  Not only can this be an incredible burden on the individual that needs to be reimbursed (especially with bigger expenditures like airline tickets), but this method actually exhibits less control, transparency, and fiduciary responsibility than a credit card owned and managed by the charity.  (And I say this last point even knowing that the Registrar has accepted reimbursements as a valid payment method for years.)

Instead of being intimidated by the Registrar’s awkward wording, I would like to see charities push back, using the cards in a responsible and financially-smart manner — and defending this usage should ever and whenever it be called into question.  Only by showing the Registrar the impractical nature of the current guidelines can Israel’s nonprofit sector garner enough public support to force the Registrar of Charities to rewrite these inadequate “suggestions.”

Tizku Lemitzvot,

Shuey

Disclaimer: This blog houses my personal opinions and is for informational purposes only — not advice. As charity laws can be quite complex and ever-changing, please refer all questions to qualified and licensed professionals. Read the full disclaimer.

The Nihul Takin: For a link to an English version of the Nihul Takin can be found on the Registrar’s website here or can be directly downloaded from my site here (the relevant paragraphs about a credit card are on page 34).  The Hebrew version is also available from my site here (with the relevant paragraphs on the bottom of page 25).  To learn more about the document and why it is a must-read for anyone thinking of joining the board of an Israeli charity, please read my previous post, “Israel’s Nihul Takin Manual Now Available in English!.”  Links to the Nihul Takin are in that post, as well.

Life Before the Update: If you’re wondering what Israel’s Registrar of Charities’ response used to be, you can read one of my earliest posts from July 2009, “Can My Israeli Nonprofit Have a Credit Card?”

Photo Credit: “Credit Card Debt” by DebtCovered

English-Speaking nonprofit executives in Israel have reason to celebrate. As of this week, Israel’s Rasham Ha’amutot [Registrar of Charities] has uploaded to its website the manual of the Nihul Takin in English!

The importance of the Nihul Takin [The Certificate of Proper Management] as described in the manual’s introduction: “the Certification of Proper Management has turned into a precondition for Amutot who wish to enjoy the benefit of State support or to provide services to the State.”

Readers can expect to find in the manual “the main topics in relation to management of Amutot [Israeli Charities] as well as answers to the most prevalent questions on the subject of proper management.”  

(More information on the Nihul Takin can be found in a previous post, Defining an Israel Charity.)

The new translation will allow many more nonprofits and those that work in Israel’s nonprofit sector to be aware of their responsibilities. It is my hope that less Israeli nonprofits will get into trouble and more charities will glean concrete tips that can be used to govern themselves better.

A link to the English version can be found on the Registrar’s website here or can be directly downloaded from my site here.  The Hebrew version is also available from my site here.

Please note: The files here and links in this post are up-to-date as May 5, 2011.

Tizku Lemitzvot,

Shuey

Photo Credit: “Welcome to England” by garethjmsaunders

I am donning my Superman cape (doesn’t everyone have one?) in the hopes of accomplishing the near-impossible task of setting the record straight on what could potentially be a turning-point for Israeli charities.

Since early January of this year, the topic of Funding from Foreign Governments to Israeli NGO’s (Non-Governmental Organization) has been making headlines. Two ideas to promote Transparency, though, in very different contexts — a proposal put forth in January and a bill approved in February — have politicians, nonprofits, and European Governments lamenting the destruction of democracy and human-rights in Israel.

However, the pursuant rhetoric, innuendos, politicking, and here-say makes it near impossible to filter out fact from fiction and to distinguish these two very different initiatives.  

JUST THE FACTS, MA’AM

January 5, 2011 – The House Committee of the Knesset (Israel’s Parliament) proposes establishing a Parliamentary Panel of Inquiry into “left-wing” Israeli organizations that allegedly participate in “delegitimization campaigns again Israel Defense Forces soldiers.” (Ha’aretz)

February 21, 2011 – The Knesset gave final approval to a bill that “requires nonprofit organizations to report which foreign entities contribute to them, whether governmental or government supported.” (Ha’aretz)

Some background:
The Bill was submitted in 2010 way before the Proposal to establish Knesset panels to probe left-wing groups. After passing its first reading (bills need to pass three readings to become law), the Bill lost momentum, finding itself in cryogenic-stasis. A number of months later as the controversy surrounding the Panel Proposal heated up, the Bill got a “push” in late January of 2011, quickly passing both its second and third readings in February. The day after the Bill was passed, the Proposal for the Parliamentary Panel fizzled out, its proponents having asked for the vote to be postponed (effectively shelving the matter entirely).

To summarize:
Parliamentary Panel of Inquiry of only left-wing organizations doesn’t exist.
Bill requiring all nonprofits to report foreign-governmental funding does exist.

REACTIONS: SLANDER & CONFUSION

Immediately after the introduction of the Panel Proposal in early January, critics quickly labeled it anti-democratic, comparing it to the investigations initiated by Joseph McCarthy against Communists in the United States during the 1940′s and 50′s.

These claims of witch-hunting were subsequently hurled onto the Bill, as well, seemingly because both the Proposal and the Bill were within a short time of each other and both dealt with Transparency. The ensuing result was the distortion of the vast differences between the two ideas and in some cases, confusing the pubic into thinking that the two were one-and-the-same.  And I’m not referring to the unknowing masses either – even newspapers and government officials were intentionally or inadvertently grouping the two together.

(See Appendix B below for specific examples.)

THE MOST IRONIC PART IS…

On February 21st when the Bill was approved, a Member of Parliament who had voted against it “criticized the government for becoming increasingly McCarthyist.” And he wasn’t the Bill’s only opponent, not by a long shot.

But here is the punch-line: The Israeli Government hasn’t become increasingly McCarthyist (if a law pertaining to all nonprofits can even be labeled as such). The requirement for charities to report on foreign-governmental funding has existed for years!

Ofer Katz, a lawyer and expert in Israeli nonprofits who participated in Knesset discussions about the bill, said as much in a recent radio interview: February’s bill represents “nothing new.”

A careful review of the Law of Charities [Chok Ha’amutot], Paragraph 36a, shows the pre-existing stipulations:

Charities — with a yearly turnover of more than 300,000 NIS and whom have received at least a combined 20,000 NIS from foreign governments — must state in their financial statements the (1) name of the foreign government or governmental entity (2) amount of the donation (3) purpose or objective of the donation and (4) if applicable, the conditions of the donation.

SURELY, THE LAW MUST ADD SOMETHING NEW!

While not as earth-shattering as some would have us believe, the new law does introduce additional reporting measures.

1. Charities are now required to report foreign-governmental funding four times a year, within a week of the closing of each quarter (in addition to the yearly report in its financial statement).
2. The reporting requirement isn’t dependant upon yearly turnover or aggregate amount of donations. Any organization that receives any amount.
3. If the foreign grant was for a printed ad — billboard, flyer, newspaper, magazine etc. — the ad must state the source of the funding.
4. Everything that is required to appear in the quarterly report, must also be clearly and easily found on the charity’s website.

OBJECTIVE vs SUBJECTIVE

The collapse of the Knesset the Panel of Inquiry was a good thing.

Rules and stipulations of charities should be objective and established by a strict set of criteria.  These conditions can then be used to select relevant charities.  When one of the Proposal’s initiators immediately declared a list of “left-wing” nonprofits that should be examined, the objectivity of the Proposal was called into question.

Furthermore, an adhoc committee isn’t the place for this debate, but rather laws established by Israel’s Parliament (Knesset) and the Registrar of Charities (Rasham Ha’amutot).

(For a more detailed analysis, please see “NGO Inquiry Committee Has Wrong Focus, Framework” by Jason Edelstein and Prof. Gerald Steinberg of NGO Monitor.)

WHY DO WE NEED THIS NEW BILL?

Israel’s charitable-waters are a little murky.

Israel allows political advocacy groups to be considered charities and for their donations to be tax-exempt.  In America, for example, donations to political advocacy groups (designated as “c4″ organizations) are not tax-exempt and, as such, other tax-exempt charities are not allowed to forward monies to these 501(c)4 organizations.

Before February’s adoption of the new bill, the only place where one could find details about foreign funding was in an organization’s financial statements and reporting to the Registrar of Charities.  There was a large consensus that the Public was not seeing this information.

Generally, countries interact and influence each other through diplomacy.  Not so with Israel’s nonprofits.  The bill is aimed at NGOs that are advocacy and education nonprofits that are receiving grants from foreign governments.  This financial support is bypassing the diplomatic arena and is appearing in the guise of homegrown nonprofit organizations; thereby, allowing these foreign powers to push their own agendas in a much more unassuming manner.

The new bill forces charities to be more transparent on their printed media so that those seeing the content of these billboards, advertisements, and websites can get a clearer picture of whose interests are being represented.

Additionally, nonprofits that receive foreign-government funding will now report these donations quarterly, instead of yearly; thus, allowing the Israeli Government to react much faster should the need arise.

(For a more detailed argument, please read, “Transparency for NGOs is not Anti-Democratic” by Prof. Gerald Steinberg of NGO Monitor.)

CONSEQUENCES FOR THE FUTURE

The claim that the new law was made to single out government funding — while leaving other types of foreign-funding untouched — is correct.

Dissidents, though, should not be so quick to judge the unfairness of the new Bill.  Yes, the Knesset passed a law only about foreign-government funding, but this is because the foundations for the extra reporting-measures were already in place in the preexisting, previously mentioned paragraph of the Law of Charities.

However, the true significance of the Bill, what makes it a potential turning-point for Israel’s nonprofit sector, is that it lays the groundwork for further transparency measures for all types of foreign-funding.

How’s that for democratic?

Tizku Lemitzvot,

Shuey

Disclaimer: This blog expresses my own personal opinions and is for informational purposes only, not advice.  As charity laws can be quite complex and ever-changing, please refer all questions to qualified and licensed professionals. Read the full disclaimer.

Photo Credit: “Flags” by RambergMediaImages

Appendix A: Additional Recommended Reading

The President and staff of NGO Monitor (Amuta for NGO Responsibility) have written various reports and op-eds in the previous years that are dead-on.

1. “NGO Inquiry Committee Has Wrong Focus, Framework” by Jason Edelstein, Communications Director of NGO Monitor, and Prof. Gerald Steinberg, President of NGO Monitor. January 12, 2011 in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
2. “Transparency for NGOs is not Anti-Democratic” by Prof. Gerald Steinberg, President of NGO Monitor. February 23, 2011 in Ha’aretz.
3. “Manipulating the Marketplace of Ideas” by Prof. Gerald Steinberg, President of NGO Monitor. November 2009 in Ha’aretz.
4. ”Resetting Europe-Israel Relations” by Prof. Gerald Steinberg, President of NGO Monitor. June 2010 in The Jerusalem Post.
5. “Europe’s Hidden Hand” June 2008 Report by NGO Monitor.

Appendix B: Examples of Inadvertent or Intentional Misrepresentation

1. In the March 25th weekend-edition of Ha’aretz, an author wrote that “Peace Now [a left-wing organization] is on the brink of a parliamentary investigation.” As the Proposal has been shelved, the author’s wording is incorrect.
2. Ha’aretz headline on February 22nd read “Knesset Passes Bill to Make Israeli NGOs Report Foreign Contributors.”  In reality and as detailed previously, the Bill didn’t “make” NGOs report anything, this requirement already existed. The new Bill only adds additional reporting measures.
3. In the above article, on the day the bill was passed a government official asked: “Why is money from the Netherlands’ government, by definition, dangerous, but money from radical evangelist organizations permitted?”  By using the word “permitted,” this minister is misrepresenting the true nature of the new bill.  February’s bill only relates to transparency and reporting; it does not touch upon what is permitted or not allowed. (Not to mention, money from the Netherlands’ Government is permitted anyway.)

Click here to return to the article “The Most Ironic Part Is…”

The phone number is clearly listed on its site, yet no one answers when I call.

It is a complaint I have heard from Israeli nonprofits and one that I recently verified — repeatedly.  So the question remains, how can someone get in touch with Israel’s Registrar of Charities [Rasham Ha'amutot]?

And make no mistake about it, reaching this office is crucial for those looking for general information, to change their by-laws, or simply see if a nonprofit’s file is available at the main office.

I was ecstatic — nearly giddy, even — when a colleague of mine shed some light on this question just today.  Treat the office like you would a lawyer: everything should be given in writing.  The Office, it seems, works best on goood, old fashioned A4 paper.

While faxing is the easiest, it is hard to confirm that the fax has indeed arrived (after all, you have to call).  The other way is to send an email with a scanned letter as an attachment; it serves the same purpose only arriving securely at the near instantaneous speed of modern technology.

However, the truly best way to reach the Registrar, suggests Arnie Draiman, a philanthropic consultant specializing in smaller nonprofits, is to go there in person.  He describes the personnel working there as “nice, courteous, helpful, and efficient. Though it’s still a government office, going there in person is 1,000 times better than calling, faxing or emailing.” I’ve been to the office and agree wholeheartedly with Arnie’s assessment. (So much so that I updated the post with this last paragraph 18 hours after its original upload — thanks Arnie!)

The contact information for the Registrar is:

• Beit Hate’omim, 15 Kanfei Nesharim St. Jerusalem
• Phone: 02-654-6600
• Fax: 02-654-6683
• Email: RashamA@justice.gov.il

This and other information can be found on the Registrar’s website:

• http://www.justice.gov.il/MOJHeb/RashamAmutot/

Happy Hunting,

Shuey

“The Office of the Prime Minister invites nonprofit organizations, companies from the business sector that donate to the public or the third sector, and businessmen that work in the fields of philanthropy, to apply for participation in the roundtable.”

No, King Arthur hasn’t been reborn nor are we in Camelot. Heck, we’re not even in Kansas.  What this is, though, is a serious attempt by the Israel Government and a number of foundations that operate in Israel to increase the cooperation, strength, and transparency of Israel’s nonprofit sector.

The initiative was started in February 2008, during Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s tenure.  There are 30 members, headed by the Prime Minister himself, from the public, business, and nonprofit sectors.  The Hebrew nonprofit-news website Zavit Shalosh, quoting information from the PM Office, summarizes the roundtable as follows:

The purpose of the interdisciplinary conversation, as established in the policy document of the Government of Israel are:

• Strengthening the cooperation and support in the relationship framework between the public, business, and third sectors.
• Maintenance of a framework for discussion and conversation that is based on a culture of understanding, cooperation and agreement.
• Advancement of public purposes in different sectors, through interdisciplinary means.

In plain English (or more accurately, in plain Hebrew) the goal of the roundtable is to pool resources and allow for interdisciplinary cooperation.  After all:

1. Charities are serving the people that the government is sworn to protect and provide for,
2. The private and business sectors already invest time and money in charitable institutions and
3. The private and business sectors can lend their expertise and experience to nonprofit organizations.

Zavit Shalosh explains that in the end of 2009, a third of the round table will be rotating out, as was the agreed upon plan to ensure an ever-widening conversation and continued reinvigoration.  Any organization, company, or professional that is involved with philanthropy can present their candidacy.  It should be noted that an appointment awarded to an organization or company can only be filled by the Director/CEO, except in the case of private businessmen.  It is stressed that members of the roundtable are expected to participate in at least four meetings throughout the year

The approval process and integration of the applicants will be done through an advisory panel to the Roundtable according to the predefined and existing procedures.

Further details can be found on the forms of the framework and also on the site of the roundtable on the internet site of the Department of Regulation Planning at the Prime Minister’s Office, at the following address: www.pmo.gov.il/civilsociety

Requests to join the roundtable can be sent to Mrs. Elisheva Dror until January 20th, 2010 by email to ticnun@pmo.gov.il, by fax to (02) 670-6131, or by mail to Department of Regulation Planning, Prime Minister’s Office, 3 Kaplan Street, Jerusalem.

Additional Resources:

• The Office of the Prime Minister has posted additional background and history on the Roundtable in Hebrew.
• On the website of Sheatufim, one of the main initiators of the initiative, in Hebrew and in English (please note that the English is not a direct translation of the Hebrew).
• For a more current overview of the initiative, one can read PM Netanyahu’s Roundtable Update in English.

Tizku LeMitzvot [May you continue to merit doing good deeds],

Shuey

For years we have been witnessing charitable institutions hiring business executives in order to increase fundraising or professionalize the organization.  I remember the big news when the President of Columbia University, George Rupp, accepted the presidency of the International Relief Committee in 2002.  Some of us alumni were bewildered by the move — leaving the private sector for the public sector, unheard of!?!?  However, what seemed like an isolated incident then, was actually indicative of many nonprofit organizations.

But is the reverse true?  Are the corporate and public sectors luring away nonprofit executives in the hope of improving their social standing and/or activities?

The corporate sector seems to have caught on to the trend that charity is in style.  Many organizations in the United States and in Israel donate a percentage of their profits to charitable causes.  In some professions, like banking in the United States, there are laws demanding as such.  Here in Israel, every serious bank has a page on their website entitled “BaKehila,” [in the community] that details the bank’s charitable efforts.

I would like, though, to leave the corporate sector aside for the moment.  What sparked this post was really my experience vis-à-vis the public sector, more specifically the Israeli Government.

I think that all too often we have seen nonprofit giants and social innovators (even before such lingo became commonplace) jump ship to a position in some form of the government, leaving their non-profit life behind.  Once in the public sector, the constituents – myself included – quickly lose faith in these leaders when seeing them in action. Sometimes, even to the point that their past deeds and accomplishments are completely forgotten.

Why can’t these past directors and founders of nonprofits continue to work for the common good while simultaneously holding public office?

Thus, I was pleasantly surprised — almost giddy even — when I read about two would-be laws brought forth by former nonprofit lay leaders who are currently members of The Knesset [Israel's Parliament].  The Hebrew nonprofit support site, Zavit Shalosh [The Third Perspective], reported last month the following:

• MK [Member of Knesset] Ilan Ghilon, board chairman and youth coordinator for various amutot [Israel nonprofit organization] from 1986 through 1995, put forth a change in the law that would allow children under the age of 15 to volunteer with nonprofit organizations.  The goal of the law is to allow children above the age of 12 to use their free time (which they have plenty of) productively, volunteering their time and growing from the experience gained from helping the less fortunate (in all of its myriad forms).
• MK Zeev Bielski, head of the Jewish Agency from 2005-2009, put forth a change to the law that would grant new immigrants and other less fortunate groups the opportunity to apply for free legal help from volunteers who are experts in the relevant law fields through an initiative (aptly) called “Certified Volunteer Advocates.” The goal of the addendum is to allow these underprivileged plaintiffs level the playing field with the defendants — generally companies and business owners that can afford to be represented in small claims courts with paid professionals.

The two updates by themselves are not earth-shattering.  However, I do think they represent thoughtful initiatives that will actually help nonprofit organizations and the people that require their services.

I have always been a believer that if you are willing to criticize then you should be willing to praise.  My hat goes off to these two members of parliament.  Call me an optimist, naïve, or just plain foolish, but, all in all, I think it’s an encouraging sign:  The passion is still alive, nonprofit executives can enter the public sector AND work for the common good.

Tizku LeMitzvot [May you continue to merit doing good deeds],

Shuey

P.S.  Know of any other examples?  Please share.