The Moral Hazard of Institutions and What We Can Do

[CV75]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Financial accountability is a moral principle, and for it to be exercised there must be transparency. 

 

If organizational financial accountability falls within the parameters of your church's moral system and this system defines and penalizes infractions, I guess you could assert that. But I don't assert such a thing for our Church.

[ttribe]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

If organizational financial accountability falls within the parameters of your church's moral system and this system defines and penalizes infractions, I guess you could assert that. But I don't assert such a thing for our Church.

The National Council of Non-Profits disagrees with you: https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/running-nonprofit/ethics-accountability/financial-transparency-and-public-disclosure-requirements
 

So does the Global Institute of Church Management: https://gicm.org/2021/03/virtue-financial-transparency/

 

These are but two among many examples from a simple Google of the phrase - "Financial transparency as a moral obligation"

It seems "God's One True Church" (tm) lags behind other churches and non-profit organizations in terms of embracing its moral and ethical obligations on finances. In fact, in terms of thought leadership in this area, I couldn't find a single example of an LDS-sourced article even discussing the topic.

[CV75]

17 minutes ago, ttribe said:

The National Council of Non-Profits disagrees with you: https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/running-nonprofit/ethics-accountability/financial-transparency-and-public-disclosure-requirements
 

So does the Global Institute of Church Management: https://gicm.org/2021/03/virtue-financial-transparency/

 

These are but two among many examples from a simple Google of the phrase - "Financial transparency as a moral obligation"

It seems "God's One True Church" (tm) lags behind other churches and non-profit organizations in terms of embracing its moral and ethical obligations on finances. In fact, in terms of thought leadership in this area, I couldn't find a single example of an LDS-sourced article even discussing the topic.

So many disagree, and so many agree. So many Google options!

[smac97]

8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Financial accountability is a moral principle,

The Church has an Auditing Department provides some financial oversight and accountability.  From its 2022 report:

Quote

Dear Brethren: Directed by revelation, as recorded in section 120 of the Doctrine and Covenants, the Council on the Disposition of the Tithes—composed of the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and the Presiding Bishopric—authorizes the expenditure of Church funds. Church entities disburse funds in accordance with approved budgets, policies, and procedures.

Church Auditing, which consists of credentialed professionals and is independent of all other Church departments and entities, has responsibility to perform audits for the purpose of providing reasonable assurance regarding contributions received, expenditures made, and safeguarding of Church assets.

Based upon audits performed, Church Auditing is of the opinion that, in all material respects, contributions received, expenditures made, and assets of the Church for the year 2022 have been recorded and administered in accordance with Church-approved budgets, accounting practices, and policies. The Church follows the practices taught to its members of living within a budget, avoiding debt, and saving against a time of need.

Respectfully submitted,

Church Auditing Department

Jared B. Larson

Managing Director

I think that most reasonably-informed members understand and appreciate that the Church is doing what it has been teaching us to do: live within its means, set aside reserve funds, plan for the future, etc.  And also that setting aside reserve funds and planning for the future does not mean simply stuffing money in a metaphorical mattress, but instead involves prudent use and investment of such funds.  The Parable of the Talents not only lauds such prudent use by the "good and faithful servant{s}," but also condemns the servant who buried the talent given to him and did nothing with it.

I also think that most reasonably-informed members understand and appreciate that the people who have access to and control over the Church's finances have put in place numerous safeguards, oversights, checks and balances, etc. so as to reduce the risk of misuse of such funds.  We have the Council on the Disposition of Tithes, the Budget Committee, the Appropriations Committee, the Church Budget Office, the Church Audit Committee, and more.  We get annual reports from the Audit Committee.  Moreover, we see the beautiful temples, the tens of thousands of missionaries, the thousands of church buildings, the Church's humanitarian and philanthropic efforts, the canneries and storehouses, Welfare Square, Humanitarian Square, and so on.

I also think that most reasonably-informed members understand and appreciate that the Brethren are not getting rich.  Their living allowances are static, uniform and fairly modest given the amount of work they do, the skills involved, and the alternatives available to so many of them.

8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

and for it to be exercised there must be transparency. 

I wonder about that.  For a few reasons:

First, relative to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, this seems to be a solution in search of a problem.  If we were seeing indicia of misconduct or mismanagement of the Church's finances, your supposed moral imperative ("there must be transparency") would have a bit more heft.  But we aren't (seeing such indicia), so it (your proposed imperative) doesn't (have more heft).

Second, in my experience, the standard rejoinder to the foregoing is "Well, we can't really know for sure about the Church's finances unless there's more transparency."  I think utilizing this expectation runs the risk of making it endlessly regressive.

Third, "transparency" is a pretty nebulous term, and one susceptible to abuse (the "No-True-Scotsman" and "Moving the Goalposts" varieties spring to mind).

Fourth, I think it is not reasonable to use the same set of standards and expectations for all "charitable" or not-for-profit groups/institutions. 

For example, from the CharityWatch website:

Quote

CharityWatch does not accept requests from charities that ask to be rated, nor do we charge charities to be listed in our publication or website, or for the right to publicize their ratings. CharityWatch does not report on churches, synagogues, mosques, political action committees (PACs), fraternal clubs, colleges, or local institutions such as hospitals and museums. CharityWatch does report on the separate human and social welfare organizations of religious groups, such as the Salvation Army, Red Cloud Indian School, and others.

The current list of organizations rated by CharityWatch can be found here.

Why does CharityWatch "not accept requests from charities that ask to be rated"?

Why does CharityWatch voluntarily not "report on churches, synagogues, mosques, political action committees (PACs), fraternal clubs, colleges, or local institutions such as hospitals and museums"?

Similarly, Charity Navigator apparently does not report on religious groups which are not required to file Form 990 with the IRS.

I think there may be a few reasons for this:

• Difficulties in evaluation: Assessing the charitable efforts of churches can be challenging due to their diverse activities and varying missions. Churches often engage in a broad range of charitable work, including running food banks, providing shelter, supporting community development, offering counseling services, and more. Evaluating the impact and effectiveness of these efforts can be complex and subjective, making it difficult for watchdog groups to provide standardized ratings. 
• Different standards and perspectives: Charitable efforts can be subjective and vary based on religious beliefs and interpretations. Watchdog groups might be hesitant to impose their own standards or values on religious organizations, recognizing that what is considered charitable can differ among different faith traditions. Such groups might be more inclined to focus on areas where standards are more universally applicable, such as financial transparency.  I think this may be a particularly potent factor relative to the Church.  For example, is a watchdog group going to fault or praise expenditures on the Church's missionary program?  Its family history efforts?
• Focus on broader societal issues: Some watchdog groups might prioritize monitoring and rating larger-scale societal issues, such as government policies, corporate practices, environmental concerns, or human rights. These organizations may direct their resources and attention toward areas they consider to have a wider impact or areas where they believe there is a greater need for oversight.

Fifth, I question whether "transparency" (whatever you happen to mean by that) is the panacea you seem to think it is.  See, for example, this 2018 article: Foundation Transparency: Opacity — It’s Complicated.  Some excerpts:

Quote

Introduction
Calls for greater transparency from social institutions are gaining momentum in American culture, especially given concerns about the potential risks to society from misconduct hidden from public view. Such concerns have escalated since the 2008 global financial crisis (Rourke, 2014, Kelly, 2009), where consequences of misconduct had broad impact. While social institutions had little role in bringing about that crisis, broadly applied transparency is increasingly represented as society’s best defense against unethical behavior (Jennings, Mitchell, & Hannah, 2014; Morrison & Mujtaba, 2010). Accordingly, advocates for increased transparency are acquiring a growing voice in the field of private philanthropy. 

Private foundations have been criticized for conducting themselves in a manner that is mysterious (Fleishman, 2007) and unaccountable (Sandy, 2007). Yet, the privacy literature suggests that transparency is not a panacea (Briscoe & Murphy, 2012; Bernstein, 2012; Desai, 2011; Osborne, 2004; Hannan, Polos, & Carroll, 2003). It is not achieved without cost (Briscoe & Murphy, 2012; Desai, 2011; Osborne 2004, Hannan, Polos, & Carroll, 2003), and its influence on conduct and accountability within private philanthropy may be less than straightforward (Fox, 2017; Reid, 2017; Andrews, 2014; Rourke, 2014). Nonetheless, growing interest in transparency on the part of private foundations is easily observed in recent professional journals and conference agendas.

Key to this transparency debate is whether private foundations are viewed as genuinely private or as quasi-public entities. Some argue that the tax advantages and charitable status enjoyed by private foundations make them quasi-public institutions (Fleishman, 2007). Others contend that because their assets derive entirely from private donors and not from fundraising activities, they are genuinely private entities (Brody & Tyler, 2010

Transparency in private philanthropy is a complex matter. Considered essential to public trust (Fleishman, 2007) and an enhancement to grantee relations (Boldouc, Buchanan, & Buteau, 2007), transparency can also impede certain philanthropic advantages uniquely available in opaque settings (Reid, 2017, Desai, 2012). Through tax returns, foundations reveal the identity of trustees and key personnel; insider compensation; grant recipients and grant amounts; and investment holdings. Yet they are being challenged to be even more transparent.   

The research on which this article is based was intentionally agnostic about whether foundations are private or quasi-public entities — or even if they should operate with more transparency. The findings here reach beyond philosophical convictions to instead provide a more practical examination of transparent/ opaque practice and related issues. Accordingly, this research contributes to a more complete understanding of both practices in private philanthropy. A list of questions is provided to help foundations assess their practices within the context of philanthropic objectives.

And here:

Quote

Key Points
•The perception that private foundations lack accountability has led to calls for greater transparency. The literature, however, suggests that transparency is neither a panacea nor achieved without cost, and that its positive influence on the conduct of philanthropy may be less than straightforward.  

•This article seeks to examine transparent and opaque practice in private philanthropy, studying the literature as well as findings from interviews with foundation staff, trustees, and grantees that sought answers to two relevant questions: Does opacity exist in private philanthropy? Have foundations and grantees developed strategies for overcoming challenges related to opacity?

•U.S. tax law affords private philanthropy unique discretion regarding transparent practice. Before abandoning such discretionary capacity, it might be productive for private foundations to explore how transparent and opaque practices impact their reputation and inhibit or support their activities.

• "The literature [] suggests that transparency is neither a panacea nor achieved without cost, and that its positive influence on the conduct of philanthropy may be less than straightforward."
• "Have foundations and grantees developed strategies for overcoming challenges related to opacity?"
• "Before abandoning such discretionary capacity, it might be productive for private foundations to explore how transparent and opaque practices impact their reputation and inhibit or support their activities."

These are interesting to me.  The author includes this interesting bit in his conclusions regarding approaches he calls "Enthusiast Transparency" (which is, I think, what you have in mind as to what the Church does), "Compliant Transparency" (which is, I think, how you would characterize the Church's current stance), and a "Situational Transparency" (which is, in my view, where the Church has been going for a while) :

Quote

U.S. tax law affords private philanthropy unique discretion regarding transparent practice. Before abandoning such discretionary capacity, it might be productive for private foundations to explore how transparent and opaque practices impact their reputation and inhibit or support their activities. This may prove a less than a straightforward exercise. 

Foundations that fully embrace the underpinnings of transparency advocacy are likely to be enthusiastic about opportunities to engage in transparent conduct; this approach is known as enthusiast transparency. Foundations that embrace the principles of privacy advocacy, on the other hand, are more likely to merely comply with minimal transparency requirements, an approach known as compliant transparency. These represent opposing philosophies with respect to transparent practice. 

Conflicting philosophical convictions between transparency and privacy-rights advocacy might suggest that only two options exist in setting transparency-related policy. However, research findings suggest there is a third, more pragmatic option: situational transparency. This option is less straightforward and more complex, because it requires clear objectives and correspondingly nuanced intentionality. It might be helpful to consider options for transparent conduct within the context of a continuum bounded by opposing philosophical convictions. 

Enthusiast Transparency — Advantages and Risks

A hallmark of enthusiastic transparency is an unqualified commitment to provide to virtually all external stakeholders as much insight as possible into foundation processes, decision-making, and achievements. This might include robust, informative websites; press releases and position papers; meetings with community members and grant seekers; public reporting on grant decisions and outcomes; and efforts to solicit public input.  

The potential advantages of this approach include enhanced public trust and improved access to and relationships with grant seekers. Potential risks include exposure to outside interference, which can compromise philanthropic freedom and internal control and lead to greater risk aversion for both foundations and grantee partners. 

I can think of a few other potential risks "Enthusiast Transparency" might bring if applied in the context of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Quote

Compliant Transparency — Advantages and Risks

This approach is primarily motivated by a duty to satisfy minimal statutory requirements, and may also involve a foundation’s attitudes toward privacy rights.      

Its potential advantages include the likelihood of enhanced autonomy and flexibility as well as minimized outside interference, which can offer greater control over external access. The approach can be a way to better preserve philanthropic freedom, providing more flexibility to make risky grants, to experiment, and learn from failures. Among its risks are a greater vulnerability to complaints about accountability and an accompanying diminishment of public trust, and may also impede the development of effective grantee relationships.

I suspect this is where you think the Church currently is (or has been).

Quote

Situational Transparency — Advantages and Risks

The overwhelming majority of foundation participants followed this approach to some extent, and primarily with strategic grantees. For strategic grantees, this approach mirrors practices embraced more broadly in enthusiast transparency. Others, however, tend to perceive it as more opaque, similar to compliant transparency. While not examined in this research, it is possible that situational transparency can also be practiced with select external audiences, such as members of the public who are not grant seekers, where doing so is considered strategic. 

Situational transparency is unlikely to attract outside interference, thereby enhancing philanthropic freedom through possibilities for experimentation and risk and the ability to make potentially controversial grants. It also allows for intimate partnerships with strategic stakeholders and grantees. At the same time, there is the potential risk of a loss of public trust, and the approach can make grantee prospecting more difficult.

I think this "Situational Transparency" is more reflective of where the Church is now.  The Church has, in recent years, become more forthcoming as to its expenditures on humanitarian/charitable efforts.

This author of the above article also penned this 2017 article: The Dark Side of Transparency (Private decision-making can be more effective than openness)

His conclusions seem to veer toward the "Situational Transparency" approach:I

Quote

It is now almost impossible to read donor literature or attend charitable conferences without being bombarded by growing demands for greater openness, transparency, and self-revealing in giving. It’s said that foundations won’t realize their full potential, and may even fall into ineffective and self-serving ways, unless there is a transparency surge beyond existing disclosure requirements. However, in interviews I conducted for a dissertation at Oklahoma State University, “The Opacity of Private Philanthropy,” both grantmakers and grantees reported several reasons why quiet, discreet foundation practices can lead to better giving.

"{S}everal reasons why quiet, discreet foundation practices can lead to better giving."  

Hmm.  What are they?  Well...

Quote

Most foundations, interviewees said, practice a mix of open and closed deliberation and action—shifting back and forth to optimize results in different circumstances. Making decisions more privately permits foundations to make important grants that would be unlikely to be approved if they took place under a bright spotlight. Specifically: The ability to work outside of a public glare helps insulate grant decisions from political considerations. It helps protect the integrity of grant programs by shielding them from unhelpful external influences. It encourages experimental risk-taking. And it allows givers to take a much more entrepreneurial approach to grantmaking. Let’s examine each of these factors in turn.

So he itemizes four factors:

Factor 1: Ability to insulate grant decisions from political considerations.

Quote

Whether parochial or national in scope, there are political dynamics and potential controversies within many grants. Being able to make clear decisions without fear of how outsiders might react will often bring better results. Grantees report that private foundations that have retained some privacy in their deliberations are much more likely than other funding sources to offer support based on the merits of projects rather than factors like potential reputational risk.

For example, two national nonprofits emerged repeatedly in interviews with foundation insiders: Planned Parenthood and the Boy Scouts of America. Both have often found themselves at the center of hostile attention. Foundation executives felt that if they were to fairly consider grant proposals from controversial nonprofits like these, on their merits, some insulation from controversial publicity was necessary.

"{T}here are political dynamics and potential controversies within many grants."
"Being able to make clear decisions without fear of how outsiders might react will often bring better results."

I think this is a factor that the Church takes into account when it gauges its level of transparency.

"{P}rivate foundations that have retained some privacy in their deliberations are much more likely than other funding sources to offer support based on the merits of projects rather than factors like potential reputational risk."

I think the Church may look at this too.  When it evaluates this or that humanitarian project, it wants to focus on its merits more than "political dynamics and potential controversies."

I also can't help but wonder if the Church doesn't want to convert itself into an institution principally known for making grants.  This could start out as a well-intentioned thing, but I can imagine all sorts of pitfalls that could come about.  

Factor 2: Shielding grant programs from external influence.

Quote

Foundations report that elected officials, civic leaders, businesses, colleague donors, neighbors, and friends often seek to influence grant decisions. Resisting such efforts depends upon the extent to which grant decisions can be shielded from influence-peddling. Foundation trustees and executives see this as important to their ability to protect the independence and integrity of their programs, and often close ranks, and close doors, to avoid interference in grant decision-making.

"Seek to influence grant decisions" and "influence-peddling" are also likely points of attention by the Church.

Factor 3: Embracing risk and innovating.

Quote

Grantees report that foundations that are able to keep some control over the privacy of their deliberations are more willing to experiment and tolerate project failures, in pursuit of greater overall impact. Grantees appreciate foundations that are able to embrace risk, test ideas, be intellectually honest about outcomes, and learn together with grantees through trial and error. It may be necessary to drill several dry holes in order to hit a big one, said some interviewees. Since most foundation money was originally made through a willingness to take risks, trustees want the ability to make some calculated gambles in grantmaking as well.

I think this is a factor for the Church as well.  It needs some elbow room, some "trial and error" space to pursue humanitarian/charitable goals.  Our critics surely cannot be relied upon to do this.  To the contrary, they would seize upon and trumpet each and every opportunity to find fault, to leverage failure, etc.

Factor 4: Encouraging an entrepreneurial approach.

Quote

Study participants suggested that effective foundations often act like venture capitalists—bringing to the table not only money but intellectual resources, access to essential networks, technical assistance, legal help, aid in recruiting other investors, a spirit of activism, and an “all-in” approach that grantees appreciate. This investor-like orientation requires strategic discretion and tactical quiet at times.

These various positive outcomes argue against constant, simple-minded openness in all philanthropic deliberations. Being somewhat closed at times and in places encourages effectiveness, independence from herd thinking, and innovation. This is not just a theory. Both foundations and grantees in the Oklahoma State study reported that private foundations take full advantage of these capacities in service of fresh, high-impact grant programs. In fact, grantees said that opportunities to work with donors in relative privacy yielded unique rewards in their ability to experiment, and to build consultative relationships founded upon genuine candor. More privacy correlates with less bureaucracy, more flexibility, and improved efficiency, according to charitable recipients.

"More privacy correlates with less bureaucracy, more flexibility, and improved efficiency, according to charitable recipients."

Huh.

See also this 2013 Forbes article: Transparency Among Charities? Sure, Just As Long As It's Not Mandated

Some excerpts:

Quote

The Philanthropy Roundtable, a “network of charitable donors working to strengthen our free society, uphold donor intent, and protect the freedom to give,” recently published “Transparency in Philanthropy” by John Tyler (2013).  Tyler is the general counsel of the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.

“Transparency in Philanthropy” tries to address the demands for legally imposed philanthropic transparency.   The first sentence of the conclusion of this book describes the fine path walked by the author: “Transparency is complicated.”  When to a basic question we get the answer “it is complicated” we usually smell trouble and become suspicious.

... {However, Tyler} is correct.   There are good arguments for organizations being transparent on a voluntary basis, but creating a new set of legal disclosure requirements could have devastating effects.  Through websites such as www.guidestar.org, anyone in the world today can access the tax returns of U.S. foundations that have the official 501 (c)( 3) non-profit status.  In countries with weak rule of law, such information could be used to harass and pressure donors.   As a consequence, few countries impose such requirements.  Where they do, they tend to drive people away from the formal philanthropic sector.  Although the list of major donations received by grant-seeking non-profits is not shared with the general public, the names and donation amounts are shared with the Internal Revenue Service.

Tyler calls for measured transparency “undertaken in light of a foundation’s mission and the potential costs that would go along with that disclosure.”  His book addresses “The Misnomer of Philanthropic Stakeholders.”  But the answer is also “complicated.”   He acknowledges that foundations have legitimate stakeholders and that they need to be “accountable and transparent, legally and socially, to those stakeholders” and he correctly cautions that “there are critical differences between legal and social accountability and the degree of transparency applicable to each.”

Another reason for demanding more transparency is that it would make it easier to evaluate the effectiveness of philanthropic efforts.  One example would be more openness in sharing failures.  Donors and grantees agree that such information can be very valuable.  Tyler, however, correctly points out some of the legal and operational dangers of such transparency, especially when mandated by government.

• "There are good arguments for organizations being transparent on a voluntary basis, but creating a new set of legal disclosure requirements could have devastating effects."
• "He acknowledges that foundations have legitimate stakeholders and that they need to be 'accountable and transparent, legally and socially, to those stakeholders' and he correctly cautions that 'there are critical differences between legal and social accountability and the degree of transparency applicable to each.'"

Hmm.

Here is a link to Tyler's 2013 article discussed above: Transparency in Philanthropy

Here is the outline:

Chapter I: Philanthropic Transparency and Accountability to Government
A. Accountability to Law and the Tax Code: The Four Conditions that Underlie the Tax Treatment Compact
- 1. Foundations must be organized and operated for charitable purposes.
- 2. Foundations must not use funds for private benefit.
- 3. Foundations must not engage in impermissible lobbying or political activity.
- 4. Foundations must following reporting rules.
B. The Quid Pro Quo Fallacy: “What are we Getting in Return?”
C. The Misnomer of Philanthropic “Stakeholders” D. Accountability to Donor Intent

Chapter II: Philanthropic Transparency in Context: Fallacies of the Four Most Common Arguments
A. Transparency for Its Own Sake
B. Transparency for the Sake of Public Benefit and Social Good
C. Transparency to Correct Purported “Power Asymmetry”
D. Transparency as a Tool for Measuring Effectiveness 

Chapter III: Voluntary Philanthropic Transparency: Telling Your Story and Keeping the Public Trust
Benefits of More Expansive Voluntary Disclosure
Cautions Regarding Voluntary Disclosure 

This is a really good article, and I encourage everyone here to read it.  It's lengthy, but it addressed many of the issues we so frequently discuss here.  For example, from the Preface:

Quote

Engaging in philanthropy, as a donor or manager, involves hard work and hard choices. But recent years have seen new difficulties for philanthropists, in the form of challenges to the legitimacy of private philanthropy itself. Philanthropy and philanthropists are said to ignore the poor, abuse the privileges that our tax system accords to charity and donors, and deny the American public its proper authority in allocating philanthropic funds. For individuals who have chosen to incur the costs of engaging in philanthropy, these charges are extremely disturbing.

This is a pretty apt description of how critics on this board characterize the Church and its humanitarian efforts.

More:

Quote

A major topic of contention in the current discourse has been the question of how much and what kind of transparency, openness, or disclosure should be required of philanthropic enterprises. Discussion of this question has been particularly confused and hampered by the absence of linguistic, theoretical, and even practical clarity.
...
The topic of transparency is complicated, deserves further analysis, and should not be engaged without clarity about presumptions being made by participants in the dialogue. For instance, it should not be presumed that those who advocate generally for transparency in philanthropy have vetted whether the consequences and costs of their positions are generally acceptable. 

I have frequently noted this vagueness and oversimplification and seeming lack of "vetting" in what our critics are demanding.

Quote

 It also should not be presumed that those who appear to oppose the concept of transparency are not instead alarmed about the details of implementation and various consequences and costs of doing so, particularly if those details, consequences and costs have been neglected in the first place. In other words, what might seem wholesome on the surface may not be in practice and what might seem obstructionist might be striving for solutions to the practical impediments to greater transparency. The opponents might be looking for ways in which transparency can work within various limits and boundaries without otherwise unacceptable costs and consequences to the capacity of philanthropy to fulfill its responsibilities in our social, economic, and political systems. 

I have also noted this issue, namely, of the presumptuous denigrations of the Church's presiding authorities as regarding their concern for their fellow man, their basic decency, and even their Christianity.

Quote

There have been few, if any, thorough attempts to truly analyze and focus on issues relating to calls for greater transparency in philanthropy. The issues are important enough to philanthropy and the corresponding role of government that we need more study of the legal bases for and limits to such calls, the legitimacy and deficiencies of various other efforts to justify greater transparency in philanthropy, and reasons why philanthropic enterprises should voluntarily pursue degrees of transparency more aggressively than is required by law.

I agree with this.  And I think this is where the Church has been going.

Again, the whole article is worth a read (I have only skimmed it, and will be reading it a few more times).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 30, 2023 by smac97

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

So many disagree, and so many agree. So many Google options!

Well, that doesn't address the substance of the issue.

In my case, I recognize I have a certain bias toward more transparency given my history as an auditor at a Big 4 firm, as well as teaching auditing at the University level, and now in my role in financial forensics. Having spent a fair amount of time studying the theory behind accounting and controls (for which there is actual theory), as well as the ethics associated with transparency, the notion that financial accountability is merely an administrative exercise is, in my opinion, seriously lacking any in-depth thought of the ramifications of placing significant limitations on transparency of financial information.

Edited May 30, 2023 by ttribe

[jkwilliams]

59 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Well, that doesn't address the substance of the issue.

In my case, I recognize I have a certain bias toward more transparency given my history as an auditor at a Big 4 firm, as well as teaching auditing at the University level, and now in my role in financial forensics. Having spent a fair amount of time studying the theory behind accounting and controls (which there is actual theory), as well as the ethics associated with transparency, the notion that financial accountability is merely an administrative exercise is, in my opinion, seriously lacking any in-depth thought of the ramifications of placing significant limitations transparency of financial information.

I am trying to figure out how one would separate financial best practices, transparency, and accountability from moral considerations. The lack of these characteristics indicates, to me, that anything and everything is allowable, so nothing is forbidden, let alone immoral. 

[CV75]

58 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Well, that doesn't address the substance of the issue.

In my case, I recognize I have a certain bias toward more transparency given my history as an auditor at a Big 4 firm, as well as teaching auditing at the University level, and now in my role in financial forensics. Having spent a fair amount of time studying the theory behind accounting and controls (which there is actual theory), as well as the ethics associated with transparency, the notion that financial accountability is merely an administrative exercise is, in my opinion, seriously lacking any in-depth thought of the ramifications of placing significant limitations transparency of financial information.

For me, the varying opinions, found for example in Google searches and what you just shared, do address the substance of the issue as I've addressed it my posts from page 1 onward: financial accountability, more precisely the extent of reporting that is established for the kind of institution, is germane to morality in some contexts, settings and viewpoints and not in others, but always according to the institution's mores.

[Meadowchik]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

If organizational financial accountability falls within the parameters of your church's moral system and this system defines and penalizes infractions, I guess you could assert that. But I don't assert such a thing for our Church.

So, given your position on the financial organization moral obligations, when you tithed the last time, where in the tithing journe--of that payment--did your responsibility end?

[CV75]

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

So, given your position on the financial organization moral obligations, when you tithed the last time, where in the tithing journe--of that payment--did your responsibility end?

No; I have an individual responsibility to share responsibility for the institution's use of those funds according to the "articles and covenants" of the Church, typically through my personal religious observation and participation in quorums, organizations and Church units, and any respective councils, and by common consent. I am currently not in an "enforcement" or "development" role of high-level institutional policy, procedure and decision-making, but in an "observation" and "reporting" role. Much if not all of this is impacted by my relationship with God -- so much for "best practices"! But I am so far satisfied with what I have seen and reported, and as occasion required, administered, developed, decided and enforced.

[CV75]

32 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I am trying to figure out how one would separate financial best practices, transparency, and accountability from moral considerations. The lack of these characteristics indicates, to me, that anything and everything is allowable, so nothing is forbidden, let alone immoral. 

Laws are generally based on the morals, customs and conventions of a community, so I take the "characteristics" you listed as examples of secondary extensions of the particular ethos, and "characteristics" will differ from setting to setting.

[ttribe]

32 minutes ago, CV75 said:

For me, the varying opinions, found for example in Google searches and what you just shared, do address the substance of the issue as I've addressed it my posts from page 1 onward: financial accountability, more precisely the extent of reporting that is established for the kind of institution, is germane to morality in some contexts, settings and viewpoints and not in others, but always according to the institution's mores.

Am I correct in understanding, then, that you believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a unique status that places it outside of the higher moral and ethical standards to which other organizations hold themselves?

[Stormin' Mormon]

10 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Financial accountability is a moral principle, and for it to be exercised there must be transparency. 

 

I would argue that financial accountability and transparency are tools to achieve moral ends, but are not the moral end in and of themselves.  They are a process, a practice which, if followed, will result in a higher likelihood of moral ends.  

An institution that does not operate with public accountability or transparency is not necessarily immoral, but it does have a higher bar to clear in order to earn trust or deflect suspicion.  Earning that trust without public accountability or transparency, while more difficult to achieve if the institution were to use those tools, is not altogether impossible.

For my part, the LDS Church has done the hard work of earning that trust from me.   

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

Am I correct in understanding, then, that you believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a unique status that places it outside of the higher moral and ethical standards to which other organizations hold themselves?

I have observed and believe that churches in general have and apply different moral and ethical standards than businesses and governments, and that each of these, and other categories of institutions, differ among themselves with regards to moral and ethical standards. Certainly, many are held in common, and moral and ethical standards are not the same as the particular laws and practices adopted to support them, whether genuinely or ostensibly. Even more variation will be found in the latter.

[ttribe]

15 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I have observed and believe that churches in general have and apply different moral and ethical standards than businesses and governments, and that each of these, and other categories of institutions, differ among themselves with regards to moral and ethical standards. Certainly, many are held in common, and moral and ethical standards are not the same as the particular laws and practices adopted to support them, whether genuinely or ostensibly. Even more variation will be found in the latter.

That was a lot of words to simply say "yes."

Are you familiar with the concept of "best practices" in terms of the operation of organizations?

[jkwilliams]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Laws are generally based on the morals, customs and conventions of a community, so I take the "characteristics" you listed as examples of secondary extensions of the particular ethos, and "characteristics" will differ from setting to setting.

Can there be an ethos without such "extensions" put in practice?

[CV75]

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

That was a lot of words to simply say "yes."

Are you familiar with the concept of "best practices" in terms of the operation of organizations?

That is because I do not want to simply say "yes" to the Church being "unique" (other churches and categories of organization operate similarly) and holding lesser moral and ethical standards to which other organizations hold themselves (which is patently false). Your question isn't a very good close-ended one due to the nuance and context of the descriptions you used. Please do not construe my reply as a "yes."

As to your second question: Yes, I am very familiar with best practices, and if you Google the term in connection with the Church, you can see all kinds of references relating to all kinds of Church-related endeavors (depending on how your Google functions for you!). That said, leading experts question the general label and especially the universality of application.

[CV75]

22 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Can there be an ethos without such "extensions" put in practice?

Inasmuch as communities differ, yes, since their ethos precedes and is less clearly defined than the moral codes and extensions that arise from it, just as experience precedes the word or language describing it.

[MiserereNobis]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

ethos

“I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it’s an ethos.”

 Godwin’s law meets Jeffrey Lebowski. 

[Meadowchik]

11 hours ago, CV75 said:

No; I have an individual responsibility to share responsibility for the institution's use of those funds according to the "articles and covenants" of the Church, typically through my personal religious observation and participation in quorums, organizations and Church units, and any respective councils, and by common consent. I am currently not in an "enforcement" or "development" role of high-level institutional policy, procedure and decision-making, but in an "observation" and "reporting" role. Much if not all of this is impacted by my relationship with God -- so much for "best practices"! But I am so far satisfied with what I have seen and reported, and as occasion required, administered, developed, decided and enforced.

How do you know it is using those funds and that your other efforts actually join any use of those funds? How do you you know the payment you make is really a tithe?

[Meadowchik]

8 hours ago, CV75 said:

That is because I do not want to simply say "yes" to the Church being "unique" (other churches and categories of organization operate similarly) and holding lesser moral and ethical standards to which other organizations hold themselves (which is patently false). Your question isn't a very good close-ended one due to the nuance and context of the descriptions you used. Please do not construe my reply as a "yes."

As to your second question: Yes, I am very familiar with best practices, and if you Google the term in connection with the Church, you can see all kinds of references relating to all kinds of Church-related endeavors (depending on how your Google functions for you!). That said, leading experts question the general label and especially the universality of application.

Google isn't going to give you a clear analysis of the journey of your tithe through the church organisation, and neither does the church itself. Being a participating member is not going to provide that information either.

[jkwilliams]

8 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

“I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it’s an ethos.”

 Godwin’s law meets Jeffrey Lebowski. 

Shut the f--- up, Donny. You're out of your element. 

[CV75]

11 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

“I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it’s an ethos.”

 Godwin’s law meets Jeffrey Lebowski. 

 Great film, just watched it a few weeks ago.

[CV75]

8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

How do you know it is using those funds and that your other efforts actually join any use of those funds? How do you you know the payment you make is really a tithe?

My knowledge on this subject is largely situated, and a combination of tacit and a posteriori knowledge. My calculation of 10% of my income a tithe is based on my imperative knowledge.

8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Google isn't going to give you a clear analysis of the journey of your tithe through the church organisation, and neither does the church itself. Being a participating member is not going to provide that information either.

That is part of my point; see above.

[Meadowchik]

On 5/31/2023 at 2:43 PM, CV75 said:

My knowledge on this subject is largely situated, and a combination of tacit and a posteriori knowledge. My calculation of 10% of my income a tithe is based on my imperative knowledge.

I'm not sure what question you're answering, doesn't seem like you're answering mine.

On 5/31/2023 at 2:43 PM, CV75 said:

That is part of my point; see above.

What point?

[CV75]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I'm not sure what question you're answering, doesn't seem like you're answering mine.

What point?

I am answering your question here: Posted Wednesday at 01:14 AM. I’m not sure how else to answer it.

My point (relatively long ago, in response to another poster which you replied to) was that Google gives people bias-confirming search responses (due to the user’s internet history).