Donate
Email Password
Not a member? Sign Up   Forgot password?
Business and Economics Education Environment Health Care California
Home
About PRI
My PRI
Contact
Search
Policy Research Areas
Events
Publications
Press Room
PRI Blog
Jobs Internships
Scholars
Staff
Book Store
Policy Cast
Upcoming Events
Should City Hall Go Bankrupt?
5.30.2012 12:00:00 PM
A CalWatchdog Series on Municipal Bankruptcy 
More

Capitol Update with U.S. Rep Darrell Issa (CA-49)
6.14.2012 12:00:00 PM
Chairman, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee 
More

Jonah Goldberg Luncheon and Book Signing
6.22.2012 12:00:00 PM

The Tyranny of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat in the War of IdeasMore

Recent Events
Benjamin Rush Society Debate: UCSD
5.17.2012 3:00:00 PM
UCSD Benjamin Rush Society More

Public Pension Tsunami: Closer to the Shore?
5.17.2012 12:00:00 PM
Public Pension Panel More

Benjamin Rush Society Debate: Harvard Medical School, May 3, 2012
5.3.2012 5:45:00 PM

Harvard Bejamin Rush Society Debate

 More

Opinion Journal Federation
Town Hall silver partner
Lawsuit abuse victims project
Press Archive
E-mail Print Big Brother eyes racial makeup of foundations, nonprofits
Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal Op-Ed
By: K. Lloyd Billingsley
2.8.2008

Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal, February 8, 2008



In January, the Assembly Judicial Committee held a hearing on AB 624, a measure billed as an aid to philanthropy. It's actually a hindrance.

The bill, introduced by Assemblyman Joe Coto, a San Jose Democrat, wants all private foundations in California with assets of more than $250 million to collect and publicize data on the racial composition of its board of directors, including the percentage that are African-American, Asian-American, Pacific Islander, Caucasian, Latino, Native American and Alaskan Native. The bill mandates reporting on the board's gender composition and also wants to know the racial and gender composition of the foundation's staff.

AB 624 wants the percentage of business contracts awarded to businesses owned by African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Pacific Islanders, Caucasians, Latinos, Native Americans, and Alaskan Natives and the number of grants awarded to organizations serving the same groups. It also seeks the percentage of grant dollars awarded to organizations serving those groups and the number of grants awarded to organizations where 50 percent or more of the board members are ethnic minorities. Not to be left out are the number of grants awarded to organizations where 50 percent or more of the staff are ethnic minorities. All this is to be displayed on the foundation's Web site and included in a "diversity" section of the annual report.

As the Business Affairs section of the California State Bar, Nonprofit and Unincorporated Organizations Committee, pointed out, this costly and burdensome measure demands multiple layers of record keeping. The administrative burden on grant recipients is at least as much as that of the foundation.

In California, strictly speaking, minority means everybody. As the 2000 U.S. Census revealed, there is no longer any ethnic majority in the Golden State. Legislation should reflect reality.

Private foundations have established their own diversity policy, without any intrusive legislation. They give away private money earned in the private sector. In short, they are doing a fine job and a spendthrift state with a $14 billion budget deficit should leave them alone.




K. Lloyd Billingsley is editoral director of the San Francisco-based Pacific Research Institute.

Submit to: 
Submit to: Digg Submit to: Del.icio.us Submit to: Facebook Submit to: StumbleUpon Submit to: Newsvine Submit to: Reddit
Within Press
Browse by
Recent Publications
Press Archive
Powered by eResources