News
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1002/nba.30373 |
| Date | 01 October 2017 |
| Published date | 01 October 2017 |
12
OCTOBER 2017NONPROFIT BUSINESS ADVISOR
© 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., A Wiley Company • All rights reserved
DOI: 10.1002/nba
EMPLOYMENT LAW (continued from page 11)
News
who had written such an email without being red,
(3) failed to take a group photograph of the board of
directors, (4) had no evidence that age played a role in
the decision to remove him from the foundation and
(5) left the front desk unattended while he “rested.”
Most important to the court, Kaplan had conceded
that the city never reduced his compensation or changed
the hours of his employment. It acknowledged that he
was reassigned to a different reporting structure with
different responsibilities, but ruled it could not form
the basis of a claim for age discrimination because it
was not an adverse employment decision.
The panel afrmed the ruling of the trial judge.
[Kaplan v. The City of Sugar Land, Tex. Ct. App.,
No. 14-15-00381-CV, 04/06/17]. ■
Data show modest uptick in
private foundation grantmaking
New data from Foundation Source, a provider of
comprehensive support services for private founda-
tions, show that average grant sizes for those organi-
zations grew modestly in 2016, as did the number of
grants awarded. Per the company’s 2017 Report on
Grantmaking, average grant sizes from client founda-
tions grew by 3 percent in 2016 compared to 2015.
Midsized foundations (those with annual revenues
ranging from $1 million to $10 million) and large
foundations (those with between $10 million and $50
million in revenue) also gave more numerous grants
compared to the year before, the company said.
The data also suggest that foundation donors view
the 5 percent minimum distribution requirement as a
oor rather than a ceiling, the company said. Founda-
tions of all sizes exceeded the MDR, but on average,
the smallest-size foundations distributed the greatest
percentage of assets, at 13.2 percent. Smaller founda-
tions were also more likely than their larger peers to
make general purpose grants as opposed to grants for
a specic program, the company said.
The report shines a light on the behavior of founda-
tions that, like the vast majority of Foundation Source’s
clients, hold assets of less than $50 million. Founda-
tions of this size account for 98 percent of all private
foundations in the United States, the company said.
“Despite their modest size, these foundations remain
an impressively dynamic segment of the philanthropic
community,” said Page Snow, Foundation Source’s
chief philanthropic ofcer. “They grant well above
the federally mandated 5 percent minimum distribu-
tion requirement, supplying critical operational sup-
port to nonprots as well as funding for their specic
programs.”
The report also provides a detailed analysis of where
foundations gave their grant dollars in 2016. The top
categories were education (15 percent); human services
(9 percent); and public, societal and benet organiza-
tions (6 percent).
To access the report in full, visit http://bit.ly/2gkYryn.
Religious groups urge Congress to
leave Johnson Amendment alone
A group of more than 4,000 religious leaders from
across the country and across disciplines have signed
a letter urging Congress to maintain the Johnson
Amendment, a federal rule that limits members of
the clergy from advocating for political candidates
from the pulpit. The amendment has been targeted
by the Trump administration in an executive order
the president signed in May that asked the IRS not
to enforce the rule, and members of Congress have
included provisions to that effect in budget legislation.
The letter, which was drafted and distributed by
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
and the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty,
was signed by clergy and lay members of churches
from all faiths—including Catholics, Methodists, Jews,
Muslims, Unitarian Universalists and more.
The letter reads in part:
“As a leader in my religious community, I am strong-
ly opposed to any effort to repeal or weaken current
law that protects houses of worship from becoming
centers of partisan politics.
“Changing the law would threaten the integrity and
independence of houses of worship.”
The letter, copies of which were delivered to mem-
bers of Congress on Aug. 16, points out how removing
the Johnson Amendment would negatively impact
churches and their congregations:
“Particularly in today’s political climate, engaging
in partisan politics and issuing endorsements would
be highly divisive and have a detrimental impact on
congregational unity and civil discourse.” ■
To continue reading
Request your trial