Moderator: Thanks Bill and thanks to the Bradley center for holding today's event and thank you for all coming especially as Bill mentioned in the heat of August. The schedule moderator today was the editor of the Chronicle my boss Stacy Palmer and unexpectedly she was called away and I step in to fill her shoes, she sent her apologies and certainly a little bit sorry to be missing such a lively event we hope. When I volunteer to fill in for Stacy, I received several pieces of unsolicited advice perhaps the best I heard from a colleague in the nonprofit world was keep your head down, with the exception that today we are going to certainly hear from, certainly hear some strong opinions as many of you know as Bill noted our speakers are not shrinking violets by any means, they are outspoken and willing to take on some sacred cows of the non profit world and the topic itself is the role of non profit in politics is certainly a hot - but an issue and let me little bit of back ground here. Since the 2004 presidential election non profits have increasingly been in a crosshairs of IRS investigations haven't run a fowl of rules that ban churches charities and 501c3 organizations with large from partisan politics. During the 2006 election cycle the IRS has said that more than 350 charities donate money to political candidates and have been investigated for possible illegal political activities, and let me be specific here for example. Some administers were accused of endorsing political candidates on both republican and democrats from the pulpit. Science promoting politicians appeared on property owned by non profits few charities were also said to have distributed election materials according specific candidates, these are all of course illegal activities and well 350 possible investigations is certainly a small percentage of the number of about one million charities and foundations in the in America that is certainly very important issue that is now kind of come up in the non profit world. So in to this frontier are two speakers asking the question what is the proper role for non profits in politics. But perhaps beyond that issue where there is a broader debate to be had here, what exactly in non profit is, what is relations to the government and for profit component should be and what ultimately should its role be in democracy. As Bill mentioned about both Robert and Pablo started their discussions in that pages of Chronicle we are glad to have continued here which I think will be very lively and thoughtful discussion. The format today is fairly simple, we will give each of the speakers about five to ten minutes to sort of summarize their views as they presented them in the page of the Chronicle hopefully we will have - I will have time to ask a few questions and have them respond to each other but I hope to open the questions to the audience for a good amount of time and allow all of you to occupying and ask questions your selves. Since Robert started this discussion with is op-ed in the Chronicle, he will go first, as many of you probably know Robert if the founder and president of DC Central Kitchen, a nationally recognized innovator in anti-hunger efforts to job training. He also the author of "Begging for Change" the dollars and cents of making non profit responsive efficient and rewarding for all. And last year he had organized the first non profit congress which among other things sort to bring together neighborhood charities with large global non profit organizations to discuss their role in politics and to bring their issues to the fore front of the government. Robert.
Robert L.E. Egger: Thank you - thank you. Well first and fore most I think you can imagine give in my line of work, it makes me very happy to a room full of fed people. It's always good seriously it's always good good to see people with a full stomach. And you have to understand that a lot of the ideas I have, the theories I followed and the things I believe passionately in are born out of the day to day work in the basement of the biggest shelter in America. I said this a million times I love my job I hate my work. And the reality is that at the end of the day I love going to work at the DC Central Kitchen, I am surrounded by great people, and I think more than many non profits I have the amazing luxury of seeing people's life change and I know a lot of us want to think we can see that that immediate impact, at the DC Central Kitchen, I am I am really lucky, I could see people graduate and move on but at the end of the day I don't want to be more efficient, I don't want to be a self sustaining non profit. At the end of the day I want to have a very robust discussion of America about why it is that a program in Washington DC has to pull up in the back of the Mayflower Hotel and pick up left over food to feed to working poor people in America. I don't like it and I am not going to sit still 51 percent of my time I will always be down devoted to what next, why do we do the things we do, who says we can't do anything different that's where I am coming from that's where this article germinated. It was also reinforced by about a 114 different town hall meetings that were held last year before the non profit congress. Meeting with rank controlling non profits it really make up 85 percent of the sector. Mom and pop stores out there, most of them under $750,000 a year just trying to make payroll, just trying to do something good in their community and they see no end in sight. And they are looking for some new alternatives, something that gets them out of this trap we have fallen in. and not just us. The people we serve, the foundation world, we are all trapped in this charity model. So what I have tried to do and what I am pleased to see is get a discussion going about what next. You know, again when I first started the kitchen, people said you can't do it. The laws prohibited, the rules don't allow it. All we did was say, okay we will exchange those rules, let's challenge those assumptions that homeless men and women can't be trained for work. It's somehow it's illegal for restaurants and hotels to donate food. And when we went on we got laws changed. We didn't just stop and say, well here is the laws as they exist. Let's try to work within the confines. It's like no, let's push it and get new laws. I mean again, thanks to the work at the DC central kitchen, I would I mean god bless America some one like me went to the back of the rose garden and watch Bill Clinton sign a national law that protected, shielded all non profits all donors of food from liability because we pushed to get a new law. That's what I am saying, you know, to a certain extent we are held hostess and we assume that the laws that we inherited are the only laws. I look at the non profit sector, and I got to be wants to paraphrase my friend Pablo Eisenberg, I have met the future and it's us. We are the future of this country; we are one tenth of the economy in America and often times it terms like one tenth kind of roll off with that that represents the gross national product of India. I have said this for the past few years but if we were a country, we will be the seventh biggest economy on the planet the non profit sector in America. Yet in the smallest town, we don't have to say in the budget process. We pace outside the city hall, waiting to see what gets cut and then render our cloths and bark at the moon and think that's all we can do. Now I got to tell you, everyone knows this. There are laws that allow us to be actively involved and we should utilize every single one of those laws to the maximum the maximum potential we have. And I am in the middle of that in New Hampshire with the primary project which I will be happy to talk about later on. But I got to tell you at the end of the day, it feels to me a little bit like telling women in America that if you just keep playing by the rules, someday you will make as much as men. You know, that's what we are hearing, sure we can play by the rules. Sure we can use the laws. But at the end of the day, I question openly whether those laws were designed by people to keep us right where we are at. And I would question those laws. I don't like where I'm at, I am not going to sit still and I am going to work every single day with my brothers and sisters in the sectors start to come together. And find a unified voice, this starts to get us at the table which is where we need to be. Now I got to be honest with you Stacy I mentioned the DC central kitchen and I want to toss Stacey in here without getting too personal, she is only taking care of her mother who is old and ill. And this is the future for many of us since we are infected by mess. How many of you are dealing with aging infirm parents right now? There is 80 million more coming. 80 million baby boomers about to get old in this country and there is no big plan. And a programs like DC central kitchen are struggling, every day to feed an estimated 20 million people who were at risk of hunger. What happens in this country when we add 10, 20, 30 million more people and we are trying to fit it in this charity box. I am not going to wait. And like many people I have met on my journeys over the past three years they don't want to wait either. They want to start to come together and exercise much more of a voice much more of a sense of ownership of this country our shared future and that's what I am suggesting, we have a role to play and it's not passive, it's not sitting on the sidelines with our fingers crossed hoping that the right person gets elected. It's jumping into the middle of the spray. Again like many of you all, I am about to turn 50. And my trajectory across America, I grew up in southern California watching Cesar Chavez. You know, I was in Los Angeles at 10 years old when Bobby Kennedy got shot. You know, I grew up with Martin Luther King. I grew up with Mitch Snyder in this town. I grew up with people who said, "we respect the laws and we work within the confines in laws, but our ultimate goal is to change the laws". That's all I am suggesting, the laws that limit our role in politics were introduced by Lyndon Johnson in 1954 without hearing, without testimony designed a silenced critics in Texas who were challenging him openly. And with that middle of the night gesture, all of us were silenced, and I think we have to openly, honestly, and bravely step forward and say, no more, thank you very much.
Moderator: Thanks Robert, next up the Pablo Eisenberg, Pablo is the senior fellow at the Georgetown Public Policy Institute and a regular columnist as I said for the Chronicle of Philanthropy, for committee of Georgetown, he served for 23 years as the executive director for the center for community change and advocacy organization that asists low income in minority groups across the the country. Pablo is also the author of challenges for non profit in Philanthropy, the courage to change. Pablo.
Pablo Eisenberg: Good afternoon, your applause actually reminds me of a sign in a tough Texas bar, which read, if you are drinking to forget, please pay in advance, so I thank you in advance for your applause. You might not want to do it afterwards, and I want to thank the Hudson institute, Bill Schaumburg and Christy Shafer for sponsoring this colloquium and also for the Chronicle of Philanthropy for doing the same, what is really very nice about the Hudson institute is that, it is trying to start debate and discussion, in a sector, on a non profit sector which is intellectually more important. There is not much thinking, there is not much argument, there is not much debate, no one wants the challenge, but that's typical of our society, we are some what a gut- less society in that respect, in any case. less society in that respect, in any case. The major difference between Bob and my position on the issue of politics, and non profits, is that he strongly believes that the regulations governing non profits are too restrictive, that they should be changed, so that non profits are allowed to participate directly in political campaigns and partisan politics and I hardly disagree, but there, as I think a few other issues that both of our op-eds in the Chronicle raise that in my view, are worthy of discussion. First is what should our vision of the non profit sector be? Does it have a unique role, as an independent sector apart from government, and business or should its boundaries increasingly be blurred into becoming parts of business and government. A second issue is what's the role of government? Both federal and state and making sure that our non profit sector is transparent and publicly accountable. The third issue focuses on the means, by which non profits can become more activist and politically involved with out actually becoming directly involved in political activity, and finally the last issue on which I think both Bob and I agree is the need to create new leadership, for our sector so that in fact you can be strong and much more vigorous than it is. I essentially have five reasons, why I oppose loosening the restrictions on non profit political activity they are both practical and I think political. The first is the massive tax payer opposition, that's such a change would generate in this country, the federal government has provided as you know generous tax advantages both to charitable dollars and to non profits, and the understanding the non profits will provide vital services and benefits to our society. That is the contact that the federal government has made with our civil society. Tax payers would not tolerate and I think they would be correct. Their money going to politics, a non but not non profit activity, otherwise tax payers would be giving money to non profits so that in fact they could designate politicians and campaigns and parties to be the receptions of the money they get from tax payers. There is no need for that. Tax payers can give directly to politicians, campaigns and parties now without having to go through in a media race. The second reason is that politically such a chance would not be feasible. The congress has consistently and strongly prohibited political activity of non-profits for many many decades even before Lyndon Johnson's rule. You recall the frantic efforts of conservatives and indeed many democrats when they tried to undermine the advocacy role of non-profits a few years ago by almost passing the [0:15:59] ____ amendment and that was just to cut out political advocacy on the part of non-profits not to sustain or eliminate political activity which is harder topic. Congressmen don't want non-profits meddling into politics and they would not stand for it. Pushing them to do so could be counter productive undermining they are very positive view of non-profits today. A third reason is that political activity of non-profits would inevitably taint their integrity and their public trusts thereby, diminishing their capacity to deliver those services that they are known for, to retain public confidence and also to raise sufficient sharable money for their operations. Now, we expect many congressmen to be corrupt, corrupted along the take, we don't want our non-profits to be the same. The fourth reason is simply that non-profits don't need fewer regulations in order to become much more activist, influential in policy and influential in moving politicians. They have not yet begun to tap their enormous legal potential for lobbying that is legislative act to be for influencing policy and for influencing the political process. When you think that just a little more than one percent of all public charities that report to IRS report any money going to lobbying you will see what the potential has been and not used. Now even should they want to raise the limits on legislative activity they wouldn't need to do that. They could use C-4s which have a much more capacitive to lobby. They could even create political action committees and five 27 organizations. In short, the current regulations offer ample opportunities for much more political activism on the part of non-profits. Now, the fifth reason is that I believe the non-profits must maintain that independence which has characterized their history in this country. If they want to do their jobs well, serving as an inner media between politics, business and government. It is I maintain the unique quality of non-profit ness that has been the backbone of our civil society over the years. It is that which has enabled non-profits to give voice to the voiceless, to challenge government, to monitor and hold accountable corporations, to organize constituencies, to influence public policy and to generate that crucial amount of scientific and medical research that has been so important to our country. It has done these things because it has been independent, not because it has become more like businesses or politicians. In short non profits don't need new regulations or standards to be effective activists or promoters of democracy. What they do need though is tough, visionary and courageous leadership, and we are going to try to create that leadership in the coming decades. The culprit for non profit lack of activism and their political lethargy is not the current rules of the game but it is as I mentioned in the editorial citing pogo we have seen the enemy and it is us, thank you.
Moderator: Thank you Pablo, in many ways discussion I believe there are obviously similarities both Pablo and Robert believe that non profits need to be more politically active and the question really in an discernment pattern is how do they do that. But as Pablo also pointed out there is perhaps is larger underlying issue of unique quality of non profitness. The quality that make non profits independent from corporations and government, which are do want to get in to. But before I do I do want to horn in down a little more on the the question of the rules and Robert, I would ask you specifically what is that that you want to change, what do you see if they could change how ever you know unlikely that may be if the rules were to be lifted, what role did you exactly see from non profits. Would they be able to contribute to political campaigns, would with ministers be allowed to speak in the pulpit to support certain candidates, what exactly do you see and what would be gained by doing that?
Robert L.E. Egger: First and foremost, you know democracy isn't pretty, it's not easy, it is what it is. But it's every body speaking up I got to be honest with you. I like every thing you said. If I am sitting in the DC Central Kitchen right below Capital hill and I have a choice between two candidates and one candidate I know was going to create significant poverty, more poverty to America, it going to do really abject harm and I can't speak up openly I cannot put a I mean as a citizen yes I can. But as it is my organization I can't, no. I think the time has come for us to be very very counter effect I got to be honest with you. I am prepared to do that, at the DC Central Kitchen I would love to put up a join panel in fact I got to be honest with you, I almost want to say to Senator Grassley and we are going to get him I know. What ever you don't like, I am going to do because I want to push this as far as we can, not to be, not to be crazy not just a just a you know wave a red flag but again this is, this is bigly bold brothers and sisters, you know I am telling you. We can't feed enough - we can't feed the poor people in America just right now, and the food I use, left over food that's going away that's lost profit. Business is figuring that out and there is 80 million old people coming and there is no discussion and to a certain extent what I want to do is interject ourselves into this debate you know right now you know the voice of the non profit sector in this presidential election cycle what we are seeing is that classic dividing conquer and which we have got is is people trying to get children's issues, housing issues, art issues, a thousand little issues were splinted in to million different ways. And I think we got to get beyond this, that we have to start getting our collective voice, I think one of the disadvantages we face within the current systems I think Pablo brought it up is to a certain extent we are saying that tax payers wont accept this yet we are in affect saying lets trying to raise money the traditional ways so we can participate at the rules that exist. I don't think that the public right now - the public's interpretation of non profits, they are not going to give us money, I mean most - if most people have a choice between feeding a poor kid and fighting the reason the kids are poor they are going to up right now, historically for the organization that feeds the kids its like the old line and I forget which activist said when I fed the poor they call me a saint when I asked why they are poor they call me a communist. That's to a certain extent what's going on here and I think that we have to challenge this and I do want to be able to save vote for Joe vote for Jane openly.
Moderator: Pablo, I want to give you a chance to respond, but also when add in to this sort of question that you say the value of the independence of non profits that they are out side the political process but and and Robert is kind of brought it up too, but the idea that are they really outside this process or not are lot of the - is really thinnly veiled in a lot of efforts, partisan activities in some sense. And the question whether tax payers would actually support or would be actually be out cry again such a move that the rules are lifted I kind of question that I wonder how many actual tax payers really know that these rule exist.
Pablo Eisenberg: Well, a lot of tax payers don't know these rules exists but if they saw repeatedly that non profit to which they have given money where involved in politics and that the organization was spending in an ordaining manner of time in politics they would object. And certainly if the congressmen and the politicians would, there is plenty of room under the current rules for non profits to become active. And as I said if they want to lobby all their resources they can set up a 501c4. If they want to be involved some what in campaigns, they can set up packs in 527s. They can criticize politicians, they just can't support the candidate politically in an election or in a campaign, now I remind mind you there are other ways of doing it. Board members and staff as individuals can come out and support candidates and be involved in political campaigns. Its just that the institution as a non profit cannot, but there are so many alternatives to get involved and get others involve that it would be - I think a strategy that would bring on some bad consequences non profit if in fact they defy the rules. I don't think those rules are harmful, I don't think they are stopping anybody particularly the non profits from being engaged and indeed there are enormous number of political organizations that are doing just that and which tax payers contribute. No need to have non profits engaged directly. tax payers contribute. No need to have non profits engaged directly.
Robert L.E. Egger: I would just point out the NAACP has taken a very demonstrative role politically and they were investigated. Now the reality the IRS backed off. But the point is I got to be honest with you, personally I don't think the IRS have really any intention of closing it down. What they are doing is sent a very chilling message that we are going to take you to court. And we are going to make you use your money to defend your rights publicly. And they took on a big sacred cow they said in effect we are willing to go up against the NAACP and challenge them openly. That sent a real message, loud and clear here is the line do not cross it or we will take you down, we will bankrupt you. You know - and to a certain extent another thing Pablo brought up in his article said nonprofits don't have to watch their bottom line I am sorry my brother. I live my bottom line. And in my bottom line I got to use I have to defy I have to say what do I use to feed people who are poor and hungry in America, in this city, our nation's capital and the face of hunger I need to say this over and over that the face of hunger is a person who is got a job it's a women with two kids who is working and playing by all the rules. That's what I feel I got to decide how much of money do I take to make sure she gets to feed - her kids get fed versus how much can I squeeze out over here I am talking squeeze out pennies that I can squeeze out to be involved in the political process to actually ask overtly why, you know this is the choice that non profits have to make and I think it's a Faustian deal that we have allowed ourselves to fall into that, we say in effect, these are the only options we have either we quite or we try to squeeze a few pennies out over here to do this other organize or maybe we find, we go out and play by the rules, we have to start another organization, we have to go out and start a C4 now, and if we want to fight no, no and that's what the non profit congress was about. I am sympathetic to a certain extent with the conundrum on nonprofit space. The reality is that we stand up and talk to the public openly that we have to have that we can't charity our way out of these problems and I have to admit I know when I talk I talk primarily from my perspective as a direct service, human service provide. And I know that the non profit is much bigger than this. But when you, for us to actually to confront the public and say in effects, you can give your left over money at the end of the year. You can give your left over food and left over cloths and quite frankly you're left over time. And that's cool that's great that is been the back bone of American charity and it's what defines us. But that's not going to ever solve the problem, it's a great thing its what makes us frankly American, it's a great expression of who is our - people, but its never going to solve the problem, individual is very difficult for non profits too confront the public with that reality, we are afraid that if we say, if we are that honest they will give their money to someone else and we are stuck in that trap. The congress was designed to start to get a collective voice, so that we wouldn't be taking the risk individually, that we will be starting to stand together and again recognize if you put non profit people who work in at non profit people who serve on boards and volunteers are who work to come to non profits and basically we are talking of a 100 million people in America do this you know this a profoundly big thing. We are so far beyond the charities of the 1950s. We represent a major part of the economy in this country, you know in many small towns, we represent a major economic stimulator you know we are not just good deeds over here, we are a major part of America now and we shouldn't sit back and hope, again I say over and over hope that laws are passed. Hope the policies are forwarded, hope that a people get elected to benefit or to do business with us. I don't want to sit idly by and watch government and business continue this arc in America. I think we have to be actively involved at every level.
Pablo Eisenberg: One of the things I agree with Bob that the IRS made a major mistake in attacking NAACP basically they attacked Julian Bond, who made a speech with the convention it sound ironic then they should have the IRS should have attacked the NAACP because if you look at their record in the last ten years, their field organization has not been almost non-existent and has not been a been a force for challenging the administration or challenging the politicians. There are so many issues on which non-profits ought to speaking out and putting their muscle into, that they are not doing it. For example, how many non-profits have had the guts to challenge foundations, corporate donors, united ways throughout the country in the pattern they are giving which is in fact neglected poor people has refused to find advocacy has in fact supported primarily established organizations. You can almost count the number of non-profits on the fingers of both hands. And I might add that the national congress never raise that as a major issue in its meeting all over the place. You read the report, there is not one sessions attacking foundations for the pattern of giving which discriminates against those small organizations that were part of the national congress. How many non-profits attack the excesses of corporate America? You can put those in the fingers of one hand. They have not the guts to do that so you have got issue after issue after issue. The non-profits had not been willing to speak out, by god if they can't do it on issues that really are essential to their quote" bottom line" or to their existence, I don't know what it is, they should focus on those issues and not try to get involved in politics which at the same time within danger the tax status. Non-profits do take tax benefits in exchange for which they have made a bargain not to be involved in politics. They ought to stick by then and focus on those issues they ought to be active on. You got the allover of philanthropy you have inequities and income and wealth, all those issues. Most of them are moot.
Moderator: Pablo, let me ask you something in terms of Robert is talking a lot about in the sense that the system is broken that even if non-profits will become more active in all the ways you said become less gutless, the idea would they be able to solve the social ills that I know that you are concerned about, a number of years given the amount of money that would be needed is the system broken it cannot be fixed within the way it works now?
Pablo Eisenberg: I don't think the system is anymore broken than it was years ago. It is still a strong sector. It is increased in numbers and in potential power. One of the problems that it is totally fragmented, all the special issues that we call about whether it is women's issues or health issues, education issues, disable issues, gay, lesbian has made the non-profit sectors so fragmented that it is very difficult for them to get together on one issue. If you would have the full force of the non-profit sector involved on national health insurance, on issues of social security, another issues we would have won as a powerful force and it doesn't have to be political to be that powerful force. It can stand for something and do it. I think the non-profit sector is strong, it does lack leadership and I think back to 20 years ago, not that I am a believer in the golden age and I compare the leadership. Many of the non-profits in those days than what we have today and I find the appalling, there is no guts. There is much more the perpendicular pronoun 'I', 'I', 'I'. There is the ego centric notion sort of you know the Hollywood star system and so few non profits are encouraging young people to be hired to develop training of leaders for the future. There is no wonder we are not being affected. I don't think it is a question of the system, I think it is a question the people in the system.
Moderator: Robert, I want to ask you little bit following on what Pablo seems - is saying about the strength of non-profit sector is it independence that makes it sort of unique quality of non-profitness and what do you see as the unique quality of non-profits? What makes them strong and something that can potentially change into to I guess a new type of organization you may foresee?
Robert L.E. Egger: Our potential. Again I have said before we are not independent, we are subservient and anybody who said different is a fool. We are slaves to the funding community, to the stereotypes, to the publics interpretation that charity is something make things go away. That is a hard thing to say. But I love the sector and I love our potential. I look out and I see in this room a significant number of the young faces. I got to be honest with you, I am not a big believer that there is a leadership problem coming. What I see is a generation of people who build the non-profit sector into what it is today and they should be honored. But I think quite frankly the day many retire will be a good thing and you know what I am will hoping will happen is that we don't need a younger generation to lead like us. We need a younger generation completely un-tethered to do dramatically new things. As I said young people at all you know making charity even bigger is so not the wrong - it's the wrong direction. We need to completely redefine this thing. This is where I am coming from. You know you can charity somehow we have got lost over here that we think that somehow we were separate, we will never be independent, we have to be involved, we were in we are obstructively linked with business and government and we just sat quietly and allow them to drive the car, we are almost like the kid in the back seat, just watching the parents picker driving in circles. You know I want to turn the radio station onto my station. It is our turn and I know I am 50 years old and I am not that young anymore but still there is a sense of let go, let a younger generation come in. you know we were looking at in the next 20 years in America, I have mentioned the ageing of America but I tell you the other things that scares a bit Jesus - is the reality the economy in America, China is coming and they are not messing around. You know and to a certain extend we watch blue collar jobs, I watch my generation, people in the 1970s and 80s watch blue collar jobs leave America and we have certain effect to those people who were union members, factory workers, people who really didn't have, they had high school diplomas, they got married and they went on and get a job. We said retrain, get a new job and we watch the 1990s, those people landed America and will watch the service extent - the service sector expand. And what you have I just got home from rural Indiana. Where my parents live and what you got is a Wall Mart and 16 fast food restaurants and they are the best and major employment hub in this small town in Indiana. What the reality is China is coming, India is coming, Brazil is coming and they are just as hungry as us. Is it right, wrong, good or bad, it is just going to happen and white collar job is going to leave America. So the notion that somehow we can continue with this charity are that more charities, more money it's not going to happen, we are going to have to consolidate and we are going to have to get over the notion that if we keep feeding people let over food everything will somehow be okay. We have got to interject our self into this process you know and again I got to be honest with you, I don't care politicians don't like it, there is a 100 million people out there voters who are prime, the potential of a younger generation, towards 90 percent of college freshmen have community service in America, you know our university system is brimming with a generation that often times has 10 years worth of community service under their belt by the time they graduate. They are surging out of this university system with great new ideas about philanthropy and the idea of mixing business and non-profit together and creating social entrepreneurship jobs. I think that is really exciting and at the same time we got 80 million people in America the deepest well of life skills and you got basically the freest, richest, most educated generation in the history of the planet. This deep well of their life experience they are surging in the non-profit sector looking forward to a certain extent quite frankly salvation after a couple of decades of chasing material stuff. Both neither one, neither group is going to be satisfied with charity. You know no one is going to want to come down and chop chop carrots at the DC central kitchen for the next 10 years. But they will, I believe get behind a new non-profit sector. A non-profit sector that looks to them not just as wallets for donations or muscle, but people who share ideas, that are willing to go out politically with us on this slim. But Pablo is right, it is going to take courage, but I got to be honest with you, that is the great joy I have had, when I went around a we built this congress, I got to be honest with you my brother, I am just as frustrated by this sector which includes foundations. But the hardest thing for me has been to temper myself and recognize that they are non profits too and that I can't continue to you know just find the fault in the foundation world and it is there but it is just like it is here too. But we were in the same boat and we got to liberate each other you know as long as I keep biting with the foundation worlds are finding fault with them, I want to find this common ground that's what the congress was about and was it some break through moment, yeah, actually it was. There wasn't some giant things, its not like we had probably any more people in this room that we have right now. But they represented people from all across this country, a million different walks of life they said courageously, wasn't the courage of yelling and shrieking or writing you know but has the courage to stand up and say, I am willing to go out side of my corporate zone to try something new, and I got to be honest with you put the sector the majority of the that just trying to make payroll that is courage.
Moderator: Pablo.
Pablo Eisenberg: Well, I think it's false to say that our non profits are have been subservient, take a look at all the social movements that have taken place since the 1960s, the civil rights to the youth movements, the women's movement, the environmental movement, to the disability movement, gay and lesbian movement, you name to the committee reinvestment act movement, all those movements have been led by non profits and they made major change in this country, politically, legislatively, and in terms of attitude. Look at the living wage movement led by Acorn Universities and others, made major changes in over 110 cities, getting a living wage. These are not subservient folks, they are fighting and they are activist and they are doing a great job and even I am proud to say our Georgetown students who in fact the administration, to get a living wage for a low income workers, went on a hunger strike. And when the highest agreement, the living wage of any university and that that's happening. There are not subservient folks and I am happy to say in many cases, led by young people. One of the problems with our non profit world and I think Robert is right on this as that we have too many old fogies and I am glad, I am retired. And we have people, who are not willing to make opportunities available to young people. They are not hiring them, they are not promoting them, in many cases they are scared to death, of them intellectually and in terms of energy and if you look at a 100 non profits and ask them how many of you have a succession plan, may be one or two will raise their hands and say we do. That shows they are not planning for the future, so there is a great opportunity and a great hope in young people, they must be given the opportunities to succeed. One of the interesting things, I might add in terms of activism, you do not have public service under the corporation for community national service or a peace corp that you used to have. Young people are precluded from being politically active and from advocacy by - largely by this administration, then also started in the Clinton days, that is not the type of folks who were Vista and peace corps and see the programs back in the 60's, 70's, up to the early 80's. They were told that they could advocate. They could fight, they could organize, they could support actively. We have got to change that and we have got to have committee service that includes activism, that includes more than just providing social services or mental services, so if you want to change things in this coming new administration, hope fully democratic, then that's the one issue were the young people can be put to work doing politically active stuff doing organizing, mobilizing consistency and doing social change, all young people today in committee service are precluded by a large from doing that.
Robert L.E. Egger: I would just - again I Pablo and I the reality is there is many things that we agree on you know that's that's the great joy of our friendship. But the and there while there are very very passionate powerful leaders who are fighting with twigs, I mean the reality is that they are throwing pebbles towards to our window trying to get attention, and for all the acorns and all the groups were all out there trying to raise money, they were fighting each other and not like - fighting each other for money, but what I look at is a sector that desperately wants to bring young people on. But what we have got is non profits that can afford, to give young men and women the salaries they need the pay back student loans and they afford to live in Washington DC, any kind of health care, any kind of retirement and the reality is most some have parents think when you are going to get over this non profit kick and get a real job. Because that's the way, we view non-profits in America. And I would like to make a point here if I may, I want to just go back to the where we are as a sector when I first came into the non profit sector, I was fascinated by when I came in because I literally went into a room full of 50 to 65 year old white women in the in the anti-hunger world. I was really intrigued by that demographic and I kept looking and I realized that all terms and purpose is a sector was my moms generation. The sector where a generation of women who went to college, got married, raised their kids, the kids move out and they couldn't help and read in the paper as in 1970's unfolded and we went into the 80's, that for all the good things happening in America, they were seeing homelessness on the rise and many of those women started non profits and the explosion in non profits was due to that. I think to a certain extent we took the same values we gave to women at home, you know this marginalized work force, that built America. America was built for all terms and purposes on a subjugated marginalized work force. And we took that same attitude and we just applied it to the non profit sector, and for all movement, all our growth we are still viewed America through that same prism of that power dynamic. That what we do with charity its good deeds you know it's nurturing and that's where we find our selves and that's when I - we talk about what we were fighting against? It's not us, even though we have our issues. It's this power dynamic, and with those people on the hill, I got to be honest with you they are not afraid of us and for all acorns and all the real powerful people they do have have made significant things, we are not really a threat. Which is why we are not paid attention. I got to be honest with you we are right behind the Hyatt Regency and every day in the Hyatt Regency there is another group of non profits meeting and every morning they are going up on the help of the advocacy day and every day they dutifully trudge up the hill and they go their rounds and I got to be honest with you, politicians have figured out just how to mollify it just how to say I am your champion on the hill. I am your tiger, you can count on me, nice talking with you and they pat you off and they down the hill, they go thinking that their cause is going to be champion on the hill, and the reality is as much as they probably mean it we are now overt threat do not to politicians right now. And I got to be honest with you, this is the double edge sword and this is the double edge sword of what I am proposing. Because they are those understandably who think if we go these route, this road we will be solid and the reality is I think we have to go this road, but the reason I propose this road is I believe we can save America. That we can save the political process in America. I do not want to hope that that gets better now what 80 million people are coming up and the economy shifting because quite frankly I watch every year business puts millions and millions of dollars in the lobbying efforts on the hill that in our wildest fantasy we could never compete with, in our wildest fantasy we can never compete with that, that's what striving the economy, so my point is I want to see as get elected I want to see us start to have put our selves up for office and openly vote for each other I want to - again to a certain extent should we form a pack, I am not saying yes right now, but I think it's some we should open up, I mean should we be forwarding our own candidates, should we be forwarding economic policies, others put some thing out there I have fascinate by, why is it? That if 25 years ago I had given a $100 to Apple I did so by giving dividend checks, and now why is that if some body gave me a $100, 25 years 20 years ago, when I started the kitchen, why aren't they getting dividend checks? Why don't they get an annual tax reduction. Why did they get a one time tax reduction, to give into a powerful economic stimulator, to save the city tens or millions of dollars. They get a one time tax reduction, get corporations they get that check every year why? Why don't we propose new economic it is part of what I proposing in my editorial was not just the regulations but the whole concept or we missing a huge opportunity in America, by continuing to view this this growing part of our economy, as just charity as suppose to really stopping and analyzing, is this given the future of America, given the real challenge as that we are going to face or we really using our assets our assets being the non profit sector but our - you k now and again a lot of what I am talking about I know it sounds like I am talking about us. We need to form parties we need to get involved and it is about us as the sector but brothers and sisters, its about us a country that's what I am up here talking about. It's us as a country, we are going to face as our country black, white, yellow, brown, yellow, brown, gay, straight, man, woman we are going to face serious challenges, and it is bigger than charity it's bigger than extra at the end of the year and I just can't sit ideally by and watch our business and government do what they have done, historically and they are not right or wrong, good or bad, they just are what they are. We need to jump in and be part of this process by any means necessary.
