… are the elections. As well we know. So I’m avoiding the results for now, but sticking with the theme. Here are just a couple interesting articles on the intersection of 11/02/10 and the non-profit world. Moreover, how do you think the election outcomes will affect our work? Should our work in the community ever change with our representation? And to what extent can or should we work alongside our governments, local and federal?
Election Will Bring Changes to Congressional Oversight – As of last Friday, the Chronicle of Philanthropy was predicting an overall “less aggressive approach to charity regulation in the Senate.” In particular, were Sen. Hatch (R-Utah) to assume Sen. Grassley’s (R-Iowa) role on the Finance Committee, he could well take a “less confrontational approach to non-profit regulation.” In a Republican-majority House, “chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee, which oversees nonprofits through its responsibility for tax issues, is expected to move from Sander M. Levin [D-Michigan] to Dave Camp [R-Michigan] … some philanthropy experts say that is good news because Rep. Camp has a history of working well with the non-profit world in his state.” As for limits on social programs and tax breaks for charitable gifts? That remains to be seen. Read the full article here and check out these opinions from experts in the field.
Obama’s step No. 1 after the midterms? — The Post posed this question yesterday to its leadership panel: “Like US presidents, military and non-profit leaders often face the equivalent of “midterm elections” in which they and their strategies are subject to an initial market test or performance evaluation. What’s the first thing President Obama, or any leader, should do or say when confronted with unambiguously negative results?” Professor Howard Gardener from the Harvard Graduate School of Education, suggests that the President “indicate the major messages that he has discerned,” “indicate what he will do differently,” and then “put together a team of advisers with special expertise in addressing those concerns.” While Michael Useem, Director of the Center for Leadership and Change Management at the Wharton School, simply states that “there is no better avenue for swift strengthening of one’s leadership than to uncompromisingly review the immediate past.”
What would you do?