Nonprofit Tweets of the Week – 4/29/16

Lincoln Memorial

This week, Erin’s been in Washington DC attending Georgetown Law’s Representing and Managing Tax-Exempt Organizations Conference (#NPGTEO16). Have a listen to Grace Potter and the Nocturnals’ Treat Me Right (featuring DC’s Ron Hollaway) while perusing our curated nonprofit tweets of the week:

  • Nonprofit Quarterly: Douglas Rushkoff proposes new business model for companies to be benefit corporations or best of all, #nonprofits. The Sustainability Prerogative: Nonprofits in the Future of our Economy NPQ
  • Nonprofit Law News: Program Related Investments: Final Regulations | by @seyfarthshawllp
  • La Piana Consulting: New merger series explores key issues, from merger basics to org culture & communications
  • Haas, Jr. Fund: #Philanthropy can help create a stronger democracy. Six takeaways from California in new #BolderTogether report
  • Jan Masaoka: Interesting! Behind those “dream house” #raffles quotes @CalNonprofits Priceonomics
  • CompassPoint: Unpacking a #nonprofit buzzword: What is a #TheoryOfChange and how can you use it?
  • Nonprofit Quarterly: Here are 10 ways Collective Impact gets it wrong: NPQ
  • Charles Keidan: China: The overseas NGO law returns, with a new strategy – Alliance magazine
  • Andy Ho: China Approves Strict Control of Foreign NGOs via @nytimes
  • Erin Bradrick: IRS Counsel states donor advised funds are high priority and are getting serious reflection right now for further guidance #NPGTEO16
  • Hugh M. Robert: CHARITY Act (S. 2750) unlikely to move fwd due to election year, Senate staffers suggest. #NPGTEO16

Nonprofit Radio: Election Year Advocacy

Headphones silhouette against On-Air sign symbolising a podcast broadcast.

I’ll be on Nonprofit Radio this Friday at 10:30 am PT / 1:30 pm ET discussing What’s Permissible Advocacy with host Tony Martignetti. Catch us live on Talking Alternative or a few days later on iTunes.

How much can your nonprofit participate in the presidential election? Can you educate? Endorse? Lobby? Gene Takagi walks us through what’s allowed; disallowed; and questionable.

Who Should Engage in Advocacy?

All of us who work for nonprofits are advocates of our organizations and the communities they serve. Fundraisers know this. But the role of advocacy needs to be further embedded on all levels of a nonprofit starting with the board. We should also ensure we’re communicating not only with prospective donors but also with the broader public. And we can’t forget about policy makers who create the rules and the playing field we operate in. Let’s remember that all of the most important public policies we hold dear to us – civil rights, women’s rights, disability rights, education, health, religion, environmental protection, animal welfare, etc. – result from strong nonprofit advocacy and not just individual leaders.

Potential Areas of Advocacy

  • Proposed cut in budget or public services to the people you serve
  • Proposed change in a law that will affect your core mission and the people you serve
  • Proposed change in law that will affect your organization’s ability to operate or fundraise

Some Permissible Forms of Advocacy for Public Charities

  • Stating the organization’s position on a public policy issue
  • Educational activities (including educating lawmakers and even candidates if done appropriately in a nonpartisan manner)
  • Lobbying (attempting to influence legislation – bills and laws made by legislative bodies), within certain limits which can be fairly generous, particularly for charities making the 501(h) election
  • Advocating a change in administrative regulations

Some Impermissible Forms of Advocacy for Public Charities

  • Endorsing a candidate for public office (including by providing a link to a candidate’s website)
  • Contributing to a candidate
  • Using organizational resources to support a candidate (including use of organizational emails)
  • Getting a candidate to endorse the organization’s agenda
  • Evaluating or grading the candidates’ positions

Some Tricky Areas to Approach Cautiously

  • Issue advocacy (generally okay) that may appear to be timed with an election
  • Legislative scorecards that may appear to be timed with an election
  • Praising, honoring, criticizing an incumbent who is also a candidate
  • Voter education (debates, forums, guides, candidate questionnaires) implemented in what may appear to be a partisan manner
  • Social media likes, favorites, follows, and third party comments related to candidates


Everyday Advocacy, National Council of Nonprofits

Policy & Advocacy, Independent Sector

The Do’s and Don’ts of Electoral Advocacy, NAEYC

Electoral Activity, Bolder Advocacy (Alliance for Justice)




California’s Dangerous Nonprofit Warning Label Bill – AB 2855 – Now with Appropriations Committee

Money Money Money

4/28/16 Update: Costly bill that would require charities in California to post a “warning label” on their own websites and fundraising documents moves to Assembly Appropriations Committee for consideration

AB 2855 is a dangerous bill that threatens nonprofits raising funds in California and reflects several Assemblymembers’ lack of understanding of the nonprofit sector’s work, influence, and scope, and how nonprofits are regulated. If this bill passes, it will rank among the worst laws in the country in its characterization and treatment of nonprofits. The bill moves to the Appropriations Committee on or around May 11.

About 500 nonprofits have actively voiced their opposition to AB 2855, and no organization or entity has supported the bill yet it hasn’t died because of the the author/sponsor of the bill, California Assemblymember Jim Frazier (D –Oakley), and members of the consumer protection-focused Assembly Committee who voted in favor of the bill – Ian Calderon (D–Whittier), Ed Chau (D-Monterey Park), Jim Cooper (D-Elk Grove), Mike Gatto (D-Los Angeles), Matt Dababneh (D-Encino), and Evan Low (D-Silicon Valley) – possibly more as a sign of collegial support and less on its merits and constitutionality.

It’s critically important for many more nonprofits to make their voices heard and to support sector advocates like CalNonprofits. If you haven’t already, please take this opportunity to add your nonprofit voice to CalNonprofits’ opposition letter by clicking to the Survey Monkey poll here.

Background of the Bill – Mandated Overhead Disclosures

AB 2855 originally was drafted to require charities operating or engaging in charitable solicitations in California to post their administrative overhead expenses or a link to such information on each and every one of their web pages and on the first page of each and every fundraising document.

Requirements of the ‘Warning Label’ Bill

Likely because of Constitutional issues related to compelling such speech, AB 2855 was amended to delete the overhead disclosure requirement and replace it with a requirement for charities to include what CalNonprofits terms a warning label, more specifically:

1. a required prominent link on charities’ websites to “the Attorney General’s Internet Web site which contains information about consumer rights and protections and charity research resources”; and

2. the Web site address of such Attorney General’s Internet Web site on all charities’ fundraising documents (including old ones) used to solicit in California.

AB 2855 would require hundreds of thousands of charities operating or engaging in charitable solicitations in California (regardless of what state in which they are based) to put a link to a California Attorney General website with unknown content that would also be freely available to the public without such link. And it would require those charities to put the Attorney General website address on tens of millions of fundraising documents that are distributed within California.

First Amendment Issues

A general principle of the First Amendment requires a court to review any government regulation of the content of a person’s or organization’s speech with strict scrutiny. Generally, this involves asking two questions:

  1. Does the regulation further a compelling governmental interest?
  2. Are the means used narrowly tailored to accomplish that governmental interest?

The government’s interest, according to the Legislative Analysis, is “to give consumers more information about how to research a charity before making a gift ….” The additional substantive information would be required of, and provided by, the Office of the Attorney General. Such information would be accessible to the general public without requiring charities to add any information to their communications. But advocates of the bill appear to be making an argument that giving consumers an easier time to find such information on a government web address is the compelling government interest requiring the consumer protection ‘warning label’ on what would amount to tens of millions of documents.

Requiring hundreds of thousands of charities fundraising in California to include such website addresses and links on all of their websites and fundraising documents will require much work. It’s difficult to see how proponents of the bill will claim that the bill is narrowly tailored particularly in relation to the rather narrow goal of making information on the Attorney General’s website easier for the general public to find. It would be the first law of such nature governing charities in the country and a strong signal of the state government’s distrust of the charitable sector based on a minuscule fraction of charities involved in scandals picked up by the media. It essentially would put charities in the same category as tobacco companies that are required to put a warning label on their products. And it would undermine the incredibly valuable work of the charitable sector, the sector most trusted by the public.

The U.S. Supreme Court dealt with content-based regulation of speech in a charitable solicitation context in Riley v. National Federation of the Blind, 487 U.S. 781 (1988). In Riley, the Court held that the North Carolina Charitable Solicitations Act was unconstitutional content-based regulation of speech. Members of the Assembly Committee should be fully aware of this case and how the Supreme Court protects free speech before voting on compelling the speech of nonprofits in the manner described by AB 2855.

Imagine if all states had the same requirements. Every charity raising funds in all states would have 50 links to include on their website and on all of their national fundraising documents.


See CalNonprofits revised letter to the Honorable Ed Chau, Chair, Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee.

The AG’s office is already communicating this information to the public – their web site is the first listing in a Google search for “California charities.” Burdening nonprofits in and beyond California with required speech on “any document” which seeks donor support to simply advertise what the public can easily find is unnecessarily punitive without serving any compelling public interest. Imagine all the “documents” that non-profit organizations create to solicit funds to support their mission-based work: signs on coin collection jars, private letters to individual donors, billboards and other large-scale outdoor advertisements, flyers posted in laundromats, neighborhood association newsletters, to name just a few. And AB 2855’s provisions would apply to any charity – regardless of where they are based – that solicits donations from Californians. So, every inbound piece of mail from any charity in the world would have to include this unnecessary disclosure. The additional cost of including this provision on “any document” would be extraordinary.

Also see the Opinion piece by Tim Delaney, chief executive of the National Council of Nonprofits, in The Chronicle of Philanthropy:

The bill, as amended late last week, would force every nonprofit in the country that seeks funds in California to put a link on its home page – plus a disclosure on all other solicitation materials directing potential supporters to  the California Attorney General’s Office.  That office is instructed to provide “information about charities, informational materials containing consumer rights and protections and charity research resources to allow donors to become informed about a charity before making a decision to give.” Such legislative  language puts nonprofits at the mercy of an elected partisan’s changing views on what’s “appropriate” on such things as overhead, compensation, and advocacy – as well as which charitable causes are worthy. It probably will prompt copycat legislation in other states, transforming nonprofit website homepages into huge advertisements for the offices of state charity regulators, rather than the mission of the actual nonprofit.

Burdens and Costs to the State Government

AB 2855 will create substantial burdens for the State’s Office of the Attorney General in developing a website with appropriate information on how to research a charity (a very complex matter approached in myriad ways by grantmakers), developing regulations related to the law (including determining the minimum contacts required to fall within AB 2855 – e.g., a “donate” button on a passive website clicked by 5 California residents?), educating the public about the law and its associated regulations, re-designing registration and registration renewal forms, enforcing the law in audits, defending litigation on the constitutionality of the law (which would be expected in light of the almost universal opposition by the nonprofit sector).


For more information, read our Senior Counsel Erin Bradrick’s article The Ongoing Overhead Myth and the Dangers of Overly Zealous State Legislators in The Nonprofit Quarterly (4/14/16).


The Electioneering Prohibition: A Closer Look

A night shot of the eastern facade and dome of the US Capitol in Washington, DC.

With the election year in full swing, many nonprofits have questions regarding the scope of permissible election-related and lobbying or advocacy activities organizations recognized as exempt under Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3) can engage in.  This post will be the first in a series discussing these issues.


As most 501(c)(3) organizations are well aware, they are prohibited from engaging in any electioneering activities.  This prohibition comes from the language of Section 501(c)(3) itself, which describes an organization exempt under that Section as one that “does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.”  The general idea is that an organization is not operated exclusively for one or more exempt purposes within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) if it engages in activities intended to impact the outcome of an election.  But what does this language really mean in practice?

In simple terms, a 501(c)(3) organization may not directly or indirectly engage in or sponsor any activity that supports or opposes any candidate for public office.  A “candidate” for purposes of this prohibition includes “an individual who offers himself [or herself], or is proposed by others, as a contestant for an elective public office…”.  The prohibition applies not only to declared candidates, but also to third-party movements and efforts to encourage or discourage someone from running for office.  “Public office” for these purposes refers to any position that is filled by a vote of the people.  This includes elected offices at the local, state, and federal level, as well as party nominations, and is not limited only to partisan positions.  However, it does not extend to appointed public official positions, such as some judges and executive nominees (although note that activities related to such appointments may constitute lobbying if the appointments are subject to legislative confirmation).

The prohibition on election intervention includes publishing or distributing written statements or making oral statements on behalf of or in opposition to a candidate, including on social media.  It also includes using any of the organization’s resources to support or oppose a candidate, such as by making a contribution to a campaign, preparing a research report for the use of only one campaign or certain campaigns, or sharing the organization’s mailing list with a specific campaign for free.  However, it generally also includes less obvious activities, such as coordinating activities with a campaign, distributing campaign materials at an organizational event, or using code words in a communication to refer to a candidate other than by name.

In determining whether a particular action constitutes impermissible electioneering, the IRS will look at the all of the relevant facts and circumstances.  While there is no clearly established test that will be used, the IRS has indicated that the factors it may consider in determining whether a particular communication constitutes prohibited electioneering include:

  • Whether it identifies a candidate for public office or a candidate’s position on an issue that is the subject of the communication
  • Whether it expresses approval or disapproval for a candidate’s position or actions
  • The timing of the message and its proximity to an election
  • Whether it makes reference to an election or voting
  • The targeted audience, including whether it targets voters in an election
  • How the message relates to candidates’ and political parties’ communications, and whether it discusses an issue that has been raised as distinguishing candidates for a given office
  • Whether it is part of an ongoing series of communications by the organization on the same issue that are made independent of the timing of any election
  • Whether the timing of the communication and identification of a candidate are related to a specified event other than an election (such as a scheduled vote on legislation)

If a 501(c)(3) organization engages in any amount of prohibited electioneering, it runs the risk of having its tax-exempt status revoked by the IRS, either permanently or for a specified period during which the activities occurred.  The IRS also has the authority to impose a tax of 10 percent of the expenditure associated with the electioneering activities on the organization and a tax of 2.5 percent on organizational managers who knowingly and willfully approved a prohibited expenditure, up to a total of $5,000.  If the IRS does impose either tax and the expenditure is not corrected within the appropriate period, an additional tax of 100 percent of the prohibited expenditure may be imposed on the organization and an additional tax of 50 percent may be imposed on the individual managers, up to a total of $10,000.

Although 501(c)(3) organizations must be careful to avoid engaging in prohibited campaign intervention, not all election-related activities are completely prohibited for such organizations.  We will discuss certain permitted nonpartisan election-related activities that can be engaged in (if done carefully) without jeopardizing an organization’s exempt-status in additional blog posts in this series.

* Please note that the posts in this series are intended to address some of the federal tax law issues that may apply to organizations recognized as exempt under Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3).  However, they do not address other potentially applicable legal, registration, or reporting requirements, including, but not limited to, state tax law issues, federal election law, or state and local election laws, which are currently beyond the scope of this blog.  Organizations should be aware of all applicable laws, rules, and requirements and ensure appropriate compliance.


Nonprofit Tweets of the Week – 4/22/16

electric guitar on sheet music

The past week was marked by the shocking death of music icon Prince. On this Earth Day, have a listen to Purple Rain while perusing our curated nonprofit tweets of the week:

  • Disaster Philanthropy: How to respond to Ecuador, Japan, and Myanmar earthquakes from @Regine4Disaster #philanthropy
  • Omidyar Network: .@WhiteHouse’s announcement on foundation PRIs is latest data point that #impinv is taking off
  • David Sasaki: What is Philanthropy For?
  • Gene: The Art of Public-Policy #Philanthropy: The Battle of Ideas | Philanthropy Roundtable @ACReform
  • Nonprofit Quarterly: These tech titans know where you are and what you are thinking. Do we really want them running philanthropy too? NPQ
  • Nonprofit VOTE: ICYMI: @NpVOTE launched a new library of voter engagement resources for 2016 yesterday. Check it: #NPVotesCount
  • Politico: Koch-linked group scores legal victory over California AG
  • CNM SoCal: Detrimental bill AB 2855 goes to Assembly after all. Email and call Assembly members today. via @Calnonprofits
  • Surdna Foundation: New report: worker-ownership may be a route to more productive, stable & equitable econ #Coops #impinv #ESOPS
  • Current: An @AmPress survey finds “areas of sensitivity” in foundation support for nonprofit news. Current
  • Knight Foundation: Survey of U.S. news editors shows a diminishing ability to defend #pressfreedom

CLE Renewal Retreat: Reignite Your Passion for Law



I’ll be speaking at the Continuing Education of the Bar – California (CEB) at the Renewal Retreat in North Lake Tahoe taking place May 18-20. If you’re a lawyer who works for a charity or foundation, I have a couple of free tickets (worth $495 each) to give away. Send me an email if you’re interested!

Refresh and sustain your practice—and yourself! Join us in bucolic North Lake Tahoe for relaxation—and CLE. At our retreat you will learn techniques to deal with stress in your legal practice and hear from other attorneys who have attained greater satisfaction by making small or large changes to their practices and their lives. Get two days at Granlibakken to reflect on building a sustainable legal career, with seminars on:


• Avoiding and Addressing Attorney Burnout

• Empathetic Communication for Attorneys

• Mindful Law Practice

• Finding Balance Without Quitting Your Day Job

• Compassionate Communication Training

• Legal Careers Outside the Box: Alternative Practice Models and Alternatives to Practice

• Eliminating Family Care Bias to Improve the Legal Profession for Everyone

9 MCLE credit hours; $495, including 2.5 hours in Competence Issues and 1 hour in Bias; plus 4 hours of Ethics CLE programming On Demand


Nonprofit Tweets of the Week – 4/15/16

World Planet Community

The past week was marked by the Council on Foundations Annual Conference and Skoll World Forum. Sing along to Monty Python’s Always Look on the Bright Side of Life while perusing our curated nonprofit tweets of the week:

  • Nonprofit Quarterly: Lessons to take away from a very dangerous bill opposed by @CalNonprofits: [Ed. Our senior counsel Erin Bradrick wrote the article and contributed to stopping the bill.]
  • National Council of Nonprofits: In @Philanthropy: Stop the Spread of State Laws That Trample on #Nonprofit Rights Chronicle of Philanthropy
  • CalNonprofits: Our advocacy is working…but “the warning label bill” #AB2855 is still dangerous. Here’s the latest
  • Nonprofit Quarterly: The #PanamaPapers demonstrate why charities need to be vigilant in protecting their names and brand
  • Gene: Why The Next Gen Don’t Want To Play ‘Family Philanthropy’ Forbes
  • For Purpose Law: 4 Ways To Ensure Necessary Conflict On Your Board  … via @jfmueller
  • CompassPoint: 10 board chair practices that are practical, replicable, and inspiring.:
  • Gene: New “Bright Spots” Report a Goldmine for Nonprofits about Successful Fundraising at the Grassroots NPQ @JeanneBellCP
  • Philanthropy: 11 questions to consider when choosing a crowdfunding platform
  • Morgan Clendaniel: Yale spends more on fund managers than on students, but it’s enormous hedge fund goes untaxed. This is insane: Fast Co. [Ed. Important to be aware of the debate on large endowments.]
  • Fast Co. Exist: Full gender equality would add $4.3 trillion to the U.S. economy [Ed. Based on a new report from McKinsey, The power of parity: Advancing women’s equality in the United States.]
  • Ashoka: To tackle the world’s most pressing problems we need empowered communities @SkollFoundation #AshokaAtSkoll #skollwf

Council on Foundations 2016 Annual Conference



The Council on Foundations 2016 Annual Conference (The Future of Community) was held in Washington DC on April 8-12. The Conference website identifies contemporary boundaries that make up community (identity, purpose, and place) and three focus areas that have a direct impact on the health and well-being of our global communities:


In today’s workforce, the ideal employee must constantly adapt to new bodies of knowledge. To date, our current education system has not prepared our youth for this future and existing certificates degrees, and other traditional markers of expertise no longer guarantee successful careers. Foundations are looking critically at investments that support essential skill acquisition as well as improve existing educational institutions. To cultivate talent and adaptive skills that can keep workers at pace with a shifting global economy, grantmakers have also begun investing in new strategies for lifelong learning and skill development. These conference sessions will examine thes e pilot efforts that grantmakers have crafted to prepare a modern workforce.



With its ability to catalyze innovation, the philanthropic sector is looking at private/ public partnerships, civic engagement, building tighter ties to myriad efforts, as well as learning from grantmaking to date to combat the challenges of climate change. Conference sessions will focus on how grantmakers are looking to both global and local efforts to address climate change and its impact.



The United States has the largest prison population in the world, and many are routinely denied access to the civil legal processes that might help them overcome the pressing problems of everyday life, like home foreclosures, landlord disputes, custody cases, and unfair employment. Although a divisive topic in the past, today leaders of both parties have forged consensus around the need for bold action to fix this broken system. By examining large aspects of the justice system, including law enforcement, civil legal processes, and incarceration, this conference programming will look at the best ways that grantmakers can invest in meaningful reforms.

The Veterans Philanthropy Exchange 2016 National Annual Convening immediately followed the COF Annual Meeting and was kicked off with an announcement of $7 million in new commitments to the Philanthropy-Joining Forces Impact Pledge, a three year $285 million philanthropic effort to address a range of issues facing veterans.


Here are some my favorites resources coming out of, or relating to topics covered by, the Conference:

A Common Vision for Improving the Future of Community, CEO Vikki Sprull’s opening remarks (YouTube)

2016 Annual Conference – Day 1 Recap (YouTube)

2016 Annual Conference – Day 2 Recap (YouTube)


Council on Foundations President Focuses on the Future of Community (RE: Philanthropy Blog)

Research Reinforces Importance of Community, Upbringing for Revered Historian McCullough (RE: Philanthropy Blog)

HUD Deputy Secretary Shares Department’s Efforts in Building Communities (RE: Philanthropy Blog)


Philanthropy and Inclusivity: A Longstanding Problem That Must Be Treated as Urgent (Nonprofit Quarterly)

Philanthropy and Equity: Pushing from the Inside Is Slow Going (Nonprofit Quarterly)

Final State of the Work (D5’s annual report on the state of diversity, equity, and inclusion in philanthropy)

The California Endowment Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Report Card [See 15 Diversity Plan Goals]


2016 US Council on Foundations: American philanthropy prepares for climate change in Congress (Alliance Magazine)

2016 US Council on Foundations: De-polarizing climate change (Alliance Magazine)

2016 US Council on Foundations: How US funders can lead the SDGs at home (Alliance Magazine)


4 Takeaways from Council on Foundations 2016 Annual Conference (JD Supra)

1. When you want to fill a room to capacity, talk about the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative.
2. MRIs and PRIs finally have some momentum.
3. Good governance remains a top priority for the sector.
4. We may be witnessing the next great generation.

Popular Tweets

MacArthur Foundation: “Philanthropy has the freedom to experiment and ask questions for which there are not answers.”—MacArthur Pres. Julia Stasch

Kresge Education: Philanthropy should be leading a national conversation on diversity, equity and inclusion- not trailing it.

Council on Foundations: “Unless governments put climate change into law, we’ll never get there.” @richardbranson

Packard Foundation: #Philanthropy at its best is a magical combination of passion, patience, persistence, and true partnership. Carol Larson


Nonprofit Tweets of the Week – 4/8/16

Offshore banking and tax havens concept with golden coins on sand island and palm trees. Copy space

The past week was marked by disclosure of the Panama Papers, a report from the World Health Organization that diabetes has nearly doubled since 1980, and Villanova winning the NCAA championship on a buzzer-beater. Have a listen to the late country-jazz legend Merle Haggard‘s Working Man Blues while perusing our curated nonprofit tweets of the week:

  • Perlman & Perlman: Opinion: How to Keep Troubled Charities From Failing via @Philanthropy
  • Philanthropy: For California nonprofits, advocacy work on $15 minimum wage pays off
  • For Purpose Law: CA Nonprofits Urged to Oppose AB 2855
  • Gene: How to Keep the Board Under Your Thumb Blue Avocado – @janmasaoka #governance
  • Sandi Matthews: 10 Steps to a Successful Audit – Tips for #Nonprofits #AICPAnfp
  • Nonprofit Quarterly: TRENDING- Philanthropy and Inclusivity: A Longstanding Problem That Must Be Treated as Urgent NPQ
  • Chronicle of Philanthropy: Foundation chiefs spar on question of giving in perpetuity
  • La Piana Consulting: A collection of resources on the timely topic of foundation perpetuity vs. spend-down
  • Inside Higher Ed: Congress returns to scrutiny of wealthy university endowments [Ed. “Congressional Research Service analysis also floats … ideas of taxing endowments or endowment earnings”]
  • Harvard Biz Review: Too few businesses are capable of advancing their private interests in a way that also advances genuine public ones HBR
  • Landesa: We won’t achieve #genderequality until we tackle inequality in data. Great blog from @Data2X: Guardian #SDGs @FordFoundation

Yale Alumni Nonprofit Alliance – Ask a Nonprofit Lawyer Part II: Governance & Bylaws



Ask a Nonprofit Lawyer Part II: Governance & Bylaws

May 10th, 6-7:30pm


Are you a nonprofit board member who wants to better understand what your fiduciary duties are?  Are you confused about what a nonprofit board’s roles and responsibilities should be versus those of management?  Or are you forming a new nonprofit and want to know what provisions should be included in your Bylaws?  Come join us in an interactive discussion regarding the critical principles of nonprofit governance and the key components of a solid set of nonprofit Bylaws for a California nonprofit public benefit corporation.


About the Speakers:

YANA ErinErin Bradrick  |  Senior Counsel, NEO Law Group

Yale Law School (’07)

Erin focuses her practice on corporate, governance, charitable trust, and tax matters solely for nonprofit and exempt organizations. She has worked with many types of exempt entities, including charities, private foundations, social welfare organizations, social clubs, churches, and schools.


YANA JeanJean Tom  |  Partner, Davis Wright Tremaine

Yale Law School (’02)

Jean represents a diverse array of non-profit organizations, including public charities, private foundations, social welfare organizations, and trade associations on corporate, tax, and regulatory matters both domestically and internationally.



Tuesday, May 10th, 6:00-7:30pm

Davis Wright Tremaine

505 Montgomery Street, 8th Floor

San Francisco, CA