Omidyar Criticized Publicly by Grantees

Yesterday's blog described a pro-donor position which recognizes that highly skilled donors may have much more than money to offer today's nonprofits. Pierre Omidyar should be a prime example of how someone with money, drive, connections and skills can advance an aggressive change strategy to great impact. But Omidyar's relationships with potential grantees have been so problematic that five charity officials have stepped forward to criticize it. Leading this public airing is Ami Dar, who founded the pioneering Idealist website 11 years ago, way before the Web was cool. Dar posted his complaints on the message board established by Omidyar (but the link to his letter, posted by the Chronicle of Philanthropy, is no longer working.)

I'm not privvy to any insider information, but the validity of Dar's position (and my appreciation for his bravery) is supported by the following:

- Nonprofit leaders NEVER complain about ill treatment at the hands of program officers, because the power imbalance between those who give money away and those who raise it won't allow for very much honesty. I speak from experience directing nonprofit youth agencies for 10 plus years as well as a senior program officer.

- During the first round of the dot.com boom, I heard several complaints that echo Dar's. I also know a program officer who left his position at a community foundation in the Midwest and moved to the West Coast to work for the Omidyar Network only to be laid off in less than 12 months when the foundation decided to conduct a massive reorganization. (While this is no crime, foundations are notorious for multi-year, strategic planning processes in which they abandon previous priorities and commitments.)

I've obsessed for years about the inefficiencies inherent in the power imbalance between grantseekers and grantmakers. My fervent belief is that it will not be resolved by telling foundation staffers or individual donors they should "be nice." The only way it might change is as it becomes clearer, based on performance metrics, which efforts are having more impact and which are having less.

Now that business titans like Bloomberg, Gates, Branson and Omidyar are making their philanthropic avocations so public, coverage of whether or not their efforts acheive impact will become more transparent. In which case, communications tinged by disrespect will be recognized as counter-productive, and not just impolite.

Susan Herr