REVISED DRAFT NCR Comments on DO #21,
Donations and Fundraising
12-1-05
===============================================================
To: John Piltzecker,
From: Joe Lawler
This responds to the September 30, 2005 Memorandum to the National Leadership Council from: Deputy Chief, Office of Policy regarding Director's Order(DO) #21: Donations and Fundraising and its Reference Guide. Attached are consolidated comments from the Greater Washington National Parks and programs of the National Capital Region with our suggestions for Director's Order #21.
We appreciate your effort to revise the Director’s Order and the opportunity to comment on the document. We strongly support the re-writing of DO#21. Donations and fundraising—in particular the donor recognition aspect—have been an ongoing issue in most of our parks and we welcome additional and clearer guidance on the subject.
Should you have any questions or need clarification about these comments please contact me or Glenn Eugster of the Partnerships Office at (202)619-7492.
General
Overall it appears that many of the responsibilities for donations and fundraising are being delegated to park managers. Although we welcome the responsibility and flexibility you are providing to us we want to be sure that park managers are also being provided with a straightforward system, the tools, technical assistance and support to be able to make good decisions.
In the context of making sure that the new guidance helps to help us make us more effective with donations and fundraising, we urge you to revise this document to make sure that: 1) the new process for donations and fundraising is more streamlined and simplified; 2) appropriate headquarters supported training, technical assistance, consultations, and coordination is provided to help the parks implement the guidance; and 3) certain responsibilities that are most appropriately handled in headquarters, such as donor vetting, remain the responsibility of WASO.
Overall a number of our park managers are concerned that some of the responsibilities you are delegating assign park managers with tasks that are more appropriately carried out by headquarters. Park managers think that many parks would have difficulty with the requirements for close park-level involvement with fundraising as this document describes. While clearly some NPS oversight and involvement of partner fundraising is necessary, the practicalities at the park level should be carefully considered in such areas as “monitoring” (5.1.j; Undefined—to what level is this necessary?); determining if an entity is national or international in scope (6.1.3; Given the existence of large holding companies and chains of ownership from major corporations down to local businesses, how would parks determine this? Is it always meaningful?); determining if a company is using its NPS donations in ads in a different geographic market (6.1.3; How would we know if Target is advertising its support of the NPS/Wolf Trap in its ads in New York?), etc.
Section 1 Background and Purpose
The document lacks a focused discussion on why following this directive is important to the work of the NPS and our partners. Given the uneven implementation of the past directive it seems that the document needs to reinforce the importance of good donation and fundraising business practices to achieve quality assurance, financial management, resource protection, effective collaboration, and visitor goals.
Section 1.1 makes reference to NPS actively engaging the help of park-oriented charities. Our park and regional managers wondered whether that is an appropriate term and how it is defined. We believe that NPS also welcomes help from non-charities and would like you to revise the statement to reflect that.
In Section 1.2 the second to the last paragraph is a good description of why this guidance is important and should strengthen and positioned more prominently. It should also be serve to replace the third paragraph in this section.
Section 2 Authorities and Constraints
Regional managers expressed concern with the last sentence in this section. We want the directive to clarify what would happen if future authorizations exempt Director’s Order 21.
Section 3 Policies and Considerations
Park and regional managers suggest that the second paragraph of Section 3.2 be revised to indicate that…The NPS will not accept donations that impose an open-ended fundraising “challenge” to the NPS to match the donation….
In Section 3.4 Annual Reporting, it is unclear why this reporting is needed and how, and if, it will be used by headquarters. Park managers wonder what the purpose of this reporting requirement is and are concerned that some of this information might be also collected as part of the vetting process. Assuming that some annual reporting is a good business practice it would be helpful if the final directive recommend a process for reporting that avoids duplication with the vetting process and is simpler and more streamlined. For example, the Reference Guide should include a process and a form for annual reporting.
There is also a perception, since the existing reporting requirements of the 1998 directive have not been implemented, that this directive places a brand new annual reporting requirement on parks. The failure to implement the 1998 reporting requirement contributes to the feeling that this reporting might not be needed.
Section 4 Delegation of Authority
Park managers are concerned about possible difficulties that may arise from the
changes proposed for park involvement with fundraising by partners that
are addressed in Section 4. With a large and legislatively-established partner such as the Wolf Trap Foundation, particularly one that sponsors and fundraises
for activities that are not directly related to the park, it may be
difficult to implement such changes such as NPS approvals of fundraising
campaigns, park monitoring of partner fundraising activities, park
“vetting” of donors, etc. The working relationship between the park and
the Foundation, as it has evolved over 30 years, has not included such
formal or detailed involvement by the park in these areas as this DO would
require. At a minimum the directive needs to address how existing fundraising partnerships, as compared to new partnerships, will be treated. Sensitivity to past successful philantorphic practices will help ensure that the directive is well-received by our partners.
Regional managers suggest that the last sentence in Section 4.2 be revised to read, Documentation of such delegation may be contained in a written fundraising agreement with partners.
Section 4.3 indicates that, all donations of $50,000 or more must be vetted….NCR managers have suggested a different approach for vetting which is explained in Section 6.
Regional managers suggest that the last sentence of Section 4.3.c. be changed to add.. or authorized to approve fundraising activities.
Regional managers suggest that terms used in Section 4.4., such as solicitations, campaigns, etc. be defined.
Regional managers suggest that the last sentence of Section 4.4.b. be revised to have delegated officials consult with the Associate Director for PIEVOR rather than the Director.
Section 5 Roles and Responsibilities
In this section the directive notes that fundraising support is typically undertaken by long-standing, park support groups. Our park and regional managers suggest that this statement be broadened since fundraising support is much more diversified than that statement indicates.
Regional managers suggest that the last sentence of the second paragraph in this section be revised to reflect the language in Section 1.1.a.
In Section 5.1 reference is made to “authorized” NPS employees. It would be useful to better describe what this term means. Perhaps an alternative is to identify the NPS person as the superintendent and let the manager authorize appropriate employees.
Park and regional managers suggest the following changes to the NPS roles and responsibilities described in 5.1.
Add or revise to reflect that parks must establish a donor recognition plan.
(d) Revise or delete where appropriate. Regional managers noted that this is public information.
(f) and (p) Revise, these appear duplicative.
(j) Revise to indicate that information materials..to be used by fundraising partners..must be reviewed prior to their distribution.
(q) Research to be sure we can single out third-parties
(t) Revise to clarify that NPS officials serving on a group are non-voting. Also, managers are interested in those groups not authorized?
(u) Consider deleting since this would have to be true to sign and agreement.
Park and regional managers suggest the following changes to the Fundraising Partners roles in Section 5.2.
(g) Revise to reflect that this is a park responsibility.
(h) Revise to make clearer. Perhaps this means.... should assist NPS with providing information for the vetting process.
Section 6 Donations
Section 6.1.3 describes vetting potential donors. Despite considerable efforts by many park, regional and headquarters offices, the current vetting process, which is referenced in the directive, is unclear, time consuming and somewhat cumbersome. The proposed directive suggests confusing multiple layers of requirements and responsibilities. Park and regional managers believe that it would be most helpful if the new directive would provide a clearer and simpler description and delegation of the vetting process.
Park managers are concerned that the process suggested in the DO will take a long time and will cause concerns and frustration with our fundraising partners. They are also concerned that the DO recommends continuing to vet small contributions; proposes to delegate headquarter responsibilities to the parks; largely relies on internet searches for vetting research; and does not coordinate the vetting process information with the information required for annual reporting.
We recommend that this section be revised to maintain a headquarters’ involvement in the vetting process. We recommend that headquarters establish a vetting clearinghouse to help with this process. We suggest that such a role is appropriate to ensure consistency and quality assurance between vetting done in all of the parks and the regions.
Rather than the proposed vetting process, park and regional managers suggest that the headquarters be responsible for vetting all donations $25,000 or more. For amounts under $25,000 we suggest that the directive require that our donors and fundraising partners be required to provide NPS with a self-certification to assure that they are not in litigation with us, or would unfairly benefit from their philanthropy.
Our park managers noted that our understanding with your office is that you are committed to continue to assist us with vetting of all donations for the National Park Service Liaison to the White House. [ADD ANN SMITH’S INFO]
Park and regional managers would like the directive to clarify whether vetting is required for donations of real property, scenic or other types of easements, or in-kind services.
Within Section 6.1 regional and park managers would like the directive revised to better explain how an authorized employee should “weigh the totality of the circumstances from the perspective of a reasonable person with knowledge of relevant facts”.
Park and regional manager suggest that the heading for 6.1.1 be revised to delete the Department, given that this is a NPS directive. In addition, Section 6.1.a. notes that NPS employees maintain the integrity of the Department’s programs, yet it is not clear how those department programs have been delegated to NPS.
Regional managers suggest that the term “significant” in the first bullet of Section 6.1.b. be defined.
Regional managers suggest that Section 6.1.b. and c. be revised to be consistent.
Regional managers suggest that the second to last sentence in Section 6.1.4 be revised to indicate..all donations offered by a donor involved in litigation with the Department or its bureaus must be closely scrutinized.
Regional managers suggest that the terms sufficient, donated and short-and-long-term viability be defined in Section 6.2.b.
In Section 6.2. (a) Regional managers are uncomfortable with the idea of funding permanent full-time positions with donated funds and are not sure how this would work within existing personnel rules. They suggest that this be verified to be sure it is allowable.
Park managers suggest that P. 16, (b): should reference that chapter 9 is applicable here also.
Regional managers suggest that the heading for 6.3 be revised to In-Park Donations.
Regional managers would like the last sentence of the second paragraph in Section 6.3 to be revised to read… direct personal solicitation of park visitors by park employees is not permitted…. We would also like clarification as to whether this applies to Volunteers in the Parks.
In Section 6.3.1 Donation Boxes park managers suggest that the times and methods for collecting funds should be made consistent with NPS policies regarding with collection of monies within parks.
Regional managers suggest that the term concessioners be used in the first sentence of 6.3.4
Section 7 Cause-Related Corporate Campaigns
The second paragraph of this section addresses the need for integrity. Regional managers are concerned about how NPS can be expected to maintain the integrity of others.
Park managers would like to know, in Section 7.0 (c), if NPS can work with a corporation directly without a partner.
In Section 7.2 the acronym NPO is used for the first time but not defined.
In Section 7.2.1.4 park and regional managers are most interested in how the determination of a national or international campaign will be made in the Washington, DC metropolitan region given that we are a global city. With the Washington Post and cable television many activities are national and often international.
Section 8 Fundraising by Outside Entities
Park and regional managers believe that the proposal that requires fundraising agreements for amounts $2,500 or more must be changed. They feel that the threshold for requiring a written fundraising agreement should be increased from $2,500 to $25,000. It is unclear what the basis is for the proposed $2,500 level. Without this increase, the costs incurred by park staff to complete the agreement would likely outweigh the financial benefit of the funds raised. The lower amount also presents an undue burden on smaller, less organized groups that want to help on a smaller scale.
In Section 8.1 we believe that it might be useful to regroup the contents of the Fundraising Agreements and provide titles for many of these sections.
In this section regional managers noticed that the standard insurance provision has been omitted from the list of requirements. Park and regional managers believe that insurance should be included in all agreements, at a level determined by the park superintendent or regional program manager, which is appropriate for the tasks and activities. On numerous occasions park partners in NCR have been hindered by boiler-plate requirements for insurance regardless of partnering or fundraising activities. Research has revealed that there may not be a sound basis for the standard requirement for $2 million of insurance.
Park and regional managers would like the second paragraph of Section 8.1 to be revised to read, “Fundraising agreements will be prepared by NPS park managers, in collaboration with NPS partners, for review by the Solicitor’s Office”.
Section 8.2 discusses fundraising feasibility studies. Park and regional managers are concerned that more often than not NPS does not have adequate expertise to be able review fundraising feasibility studies provided by partner organizations. We suggest that headquarters provide park managers with objective-third-party outside expertise to review feasibility studies on a request basis. This alternative was discussed during the Building Better Partnership Projects effort and could entail NPS headquarters retaining 3-5 private firms with expertise in this type of evaluation. Park managers and their partners would be able to select one of the firms to do an evaluation of the feasibility study.
In Section 8.5 park and regional managers wondered about the provision that fundraising costs should not exceed “20% of funds raised”. We suggest that this be revised to reflect 20% of the fundraising goal. That is, if the fundraising falls short of its goal the 20% of the goal will probably be expended.
Section 9 Construction—Partnership Construction Projects
Park and regional managers believe that the requirement for the mandatory process for the Development Advisory Board review should be raised to from $500,000 to one million dollars. We are concerned by the time and costs incurred by park and regional staff to complete the review and approval of small projects. The lower amount also presents an undue burden on smaller parks and park-partnerships.
Section 10 Donor Recognition
Park and regional managers feel that this section of the directive requires additional study and considerable re-design. Although we acknowledge the importance of donor recognition we are very concerned with the provisions of this section because of its emphasis on displays, name plaques, bricks, plates, and other permanent and material treatments to recognize philanthropy.
Our concerns reflect the Congressional direction NPS has received through the Commemorative Works Act. Our concerns also reflect the considerable and diverse experience with donor recognition in NCR.
Congress passed The Commemorative Works Act of 1986, 40 U.S.C. Chapter 89
Sec. 8905. which indicates “Within the District of Columbia and its environs the establishment of Commemorative Works is guided by the Commemorative Works Act (CWA). Although these are private construction projects erected by others on National Park land, each one must be separately authorized by Congress and are guided by the specific provisions of the CWA. Thus, they are not considered as partnership projects. The CWA specifically prohibits Donor Recognition on
Commemorative Works authorized by Congress in Washington, D.C. and its
environs.
Our park managers request the inclusion of the Commemorative Works Act in Section 10.1. Although we have agreed that these commemorative works are not partnership projects they do involve philanthropy. We think it would be helpful to NCR and others if the CWA language is inserted as the last paragraph of the introduction of this section.
Our experience reveals that it donor recognition is essential and there are a variety of non-permanent ways to acknowledge philanthropy. The second paragraph of this section of the guidance describes “other forms of recognition” and we suggest that these be elaborated on since they have been most successful in NCR and elsewhere.
We believe that most donors are comfortable with less material, non-permanent forms of recognition, and they do not wish to blemish park resources with personal or company branding. For example, over one-hundred Cherry trees around the Tidal Basin have been planted over the last decade using donated money. If each donor were to be recognized with a plaque the special qualities of the cultural landscape and visitor experience would be significantly diminished.
We believe that the directive must propose donor recognition that can be applied in all parks as well as in unique regions such as NCR with sensitive parks such as the National Mall and Memorial Parks, White House, and Wolf Trap. The approach needs to simultaneously meet the objectives of protecting park resources, assuring a high quality visitor experience, and acknowledging private stewardship.
We support the idea of requiring parks to develop a “Donor Recognition Plan.” We believe that common donor recognition standards—prepared by park managers and approved by the Regional Director that apply to single or multiple parks in a region, or across all of the regions, are essential to our donation and fundraising activities. We expect to develop a National Capital Region donor recognition plan, with guidelines that will adhere to the Commemorative Works Act, as well as provide park managers with the opportunity to refine the details of their park specific recognition plans.
We believe that donor recognition plans will also address the belief that some NCR park managers have that by leaving in-park display, plaque and plate decisions to superintendents makes them vulnerable to pressure from a constituent who wants to put a plaque on donated items.
Given that most parks do not have donor recognition plans, and examples of best practices are rare, park and regional managers would like headquarters to help park superintendents develop the capacity to prepare these important documents. We suggest that headquarters take swift action to provide training on the development of donor recognition plans and make available examples of approved donor recognition plans. Our sense is that to have a good donor recognition policy we need to reach agreement on what good donor recognition is. Best practice examples will help us reach that agreement.
Overall we believe that the guidance in Section 10 is ambiguous and confusing regarding the temporary vs. permanent nature of donor recognition. While Section 10.3 emphasizes the temporary nature of donor recognition walls and plaques
(they should be designed so that they can be “added and removed with
relative ease”), Section 10.6 allows donor recognition on bricks and
paving materials. These materials are potentially quite permanent in
nature. For example, walkways, brick walls, etc. are considered permanent assets tracked in FMSS.
Section 10 is very specific regarding the differences between where donor
names alone can be used, as opposed to names along with corporate logos
and name scripts. For example, logos can be used on electronic displays
at computerized interpretive kiosks, but not on interpretive waysides,
etc. While specificity to this level of detail may be helpful, we also
need the reasoning and philosophy underlying these distinctions, which is
not discussed. Why electronic displays but not fixed displays, for
example? Given that no Director’s Order can cover all situations and that
parks will need to make interpretations of the DO as situations arise, a
broad discussion outlining the reasoning of why logos are appropriate in
some places but not others are critical.
In Section 10.2 Credit Lines and Logos we suggest changing the recognition language requirement to read, “through the courtesy of “rather than “through the contribution of’…”
In Section 10.3 we are concerned about use of the term “longer term”. Because it is undefined it implies in perpetuity. Certainly that cannot be the case and
We suggest that this be defined as up to 10 years. NCR has had success
in Georgetown with the up-to-ten-year limitation which, in our judgment, is
appropriate for the National Park System.
Perhaps the most troubling portion of this section is “donor recognition through benches, bricks or paving materials, plaques maybe allowed…” These permanent forms of recognition simply do not belong in units of the National Park System.
This is especially true in an outdoor setting. Moreover, past experience with individual donros and large corporations reveals, time and time again, that these forms of recognition are not essential.
Park and program managers disagree with naming opportunities for buildings and elements in the landscape for which the park was established. The disclaimer in the second paragraph on page 28 is no comfort for the criteria that these devices should not “compete for attention” is very subjective. Our managers shouldn’t be put in this situation. We recommend deletion of both the first and second paragraphs on page 28.
If you go forward with the use of commemorative bricks and benches, we suggest that different language be included. Such language should indicate that these commemorative bricks and benches should be consistent with and not contravene any “Desired Future Condition” specified in the General Management Plan or other approved partner planning document.
In Section 10.6 In-Park Displays, Name Plaques, and Plates we suggest that where possible preference should be given to providing donor recognition displays indoors in administrative or concessions space rather than outdoors in high intensity public use areas.
In this section the word “duration” also needs definition. Without guidance to our decision makers in the Service we will regret the precedents set by
some creative managers who are eager to land a donation. We suggest
this should be set for no more than ten years as well.
We are not comfortable with the proposal that would allow rooms within
park facilities to be named for or by donors. It is hard to reconcile a
“FedEx Room” in a park facility (allowable under 10.6) with the stated NPS
policy that parks be free of commercialism, advertising and marketing
(Section 10.2). Also, we feel that it will be difficult to define “room,”
or to keep “room” confined to a strictly interior or small space. It’s
easy to envision pressure here at parks such as Wolf Trap, for example, to name such spaces as the Filene Center stage, the Children’s Theatre-in-the-Woods,
the various decks, etc.
Park and regional managers suggest that Section 10.7.1 be revised to recognize that NPS Sponsored and Co-sponsored Events in portions of NCR are guided by Public Laws. Congress has passed Public Law 108-108, 108th Congress. Section 145. <<NOTE: 16 USC 1a-1 note.>> of The Act states:
“None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other Act, hereafter enacted, may be used to permit the use of the National Mall for a special event, unless the permit expressly prohibits the erection, placement, or use of structures and signs bearing commercial advertising. The Secretary may allow for recognition of sponsors of special events: Provided, That the size and form of the recognition shall be consistent with the special nature and sanctity of the Mall and any lettering or design identifying the sponsor shall be no larger than one-third the size of the lettering or design identifying the special event. In approving special events, the Secretary shall ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that public use of, and access to the Mall is not restricted. For purposes of this section, the term ``special event'' shall have the meaning given to it by section 7.96(g)(1)(ii) of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations”.
Park and regional managers suggest that the current language be modified to indicate that, Distribution of free product or sample products is permitted out of the general view of the public at events co-sponsored by the NPS and only if the prepackaged item directly relates to the theme of the event or is consumable at the event.
Reference Guide
Park and regional program managers applaud your effort to complete the Reference Guide. Since the original Director’s Order was published in 1998 there have been numerous requests for the document and the guidance it is intended to provide. Once completed the guide will be a valuable assistance tool.
With regard to completing the Reference Guide, we will look forward to reviewing other sections as they are finished especially Section 10.
In Section 9, which outlines the Partnership Construction Project process, the process is delineated in 5 phases on page 86. The second phase is “project definition”. However, on page 88 the term changes to “programming phase”. We recommend “project definition” as the better term.
We believe that some of the guidelines for items to be achieved during
phase 2 will be difficult to accomplish on large projects and some
flexibility should be allowed. For instance, obtaining an approved
conceptual design and seeking permits for approvals from other agencies
seems premature here. That is, these steps require funds that may need to
be raised as part of the partnership. Further, these steps are beyond
“project definition”. Thus, we recommend moving steps 12 and 13 to
the “development phase”.
In addition, we suggest the following edits.
- P. 27, 10.4: “bases” should be “basis”; “impliedly” should be∙
“implied”;” authority authorizing”???
- P. 29, 10.7.1.: last paragraph: delete “product” from first sentence, to read “free or sample products”
- P. 30, 10.7.2.: delete “products” from second paragraph, to read “free or sample products”
- P. 35, 1.3: add “#” sign after “Order” for each.
- P. 40, Does the Director’s letter really say “derailed”? third paragraph – first sentence – add a period after “program”.
- P. 57, 8.1, last paragraph: change “raised” to “raise”.
- P. 59, first full sentence: change “statue” to “statute”; change “Solicitors” to “Solicitor’s”.
- P. 61, paragraph beginning with “Facts, …”, Second sentence, “agreement.” should be “agreements.”
- P. 63, 17, change “pre-approval” to “pre-approve”
Overall Edits
The document would benefit from a thorough and close editing, particularly for clarity and redundancy. Of particular note for clarity problems are Section 6.1.2 (we missed the point of much of this paragraph), and Section 7.2.1 on Proud Partner exclusivity. Redundancy is a problem throughout the document,
particularly within Section 8. The language stating that the park may not
portray Congress or the NPS as having failed to meet its financial
responsibilities is repeated verbatim in sections 2.3, 3.2, and 8.1—surely
a DO does not need to state a policy but once to make it effective.
Cross-referencing should be double checked as well: Section 10.2
references additional information about logos as being in Section 7
(Cause-Related Corporate Campaigns), but we could find nothing there.
In addition, we suggest the following edits.
- “NPS” or “the NPS” are used, should be consistent throughout the document
- “moneys” or “monies” are used, should be consistent throughout the document
- P. 10, Section 5, 1st paragraph: missing period after “NPS”
- P. 25, last paragraph, change “adequately maintaining” to “adequately maintain”.
