Comment by dragonwriter
4 years ago
> Why do nonprofits not get "hardcoded" to advance a particular cause in a particular way, by way of a charter or otherwise?
Because if they did, and the charter could not be amended, then a change in the opinion of people who support the mission on the optimal mechanism kills the organization and requires the costs of building a whole new organization.
The same reason why the whole of the law of a nation isn't fixed for all time out the outset.
But that's okay. A non-profit is just a company. No one is born into it, it holds no legal power over anyone, it can't send troops to conquer foreign lands, and most notably can't stop anyone from leaving it or working against it.
I don't see why a non-profit can't work just like a legacy trust---fulfil the mission left behind by its founder, and manage its monies to do that and only that.
If a non-profit's mission is successful, it can disband. It doens't need to pivot with its current supporters to find new things to do. Additioanlly, it need top change to suit the whims of its supporters. The supporters can simply support someone---anyone else (non-profits are far more numerous and easy to start than a new country). The original non-profit will die on the vine.
> But that's okay.
To you, maybe. It is manifestly not to most of the people actually involved or they would do it more often. It's not like the space of degrees of flexibility has not been well explored.
> I don't see why a non-profit can't work just like a legacy trust---fulfil the mission left behind by its founder, and manage its monies to do that and only that.
It can, but real people founding them don’t usually want that because its not a legacy trust; the people making it are alive, know that they have evolving views of the precise parameters of the mission and the optimal mechanisms for pursuing it, and don't want the burden of inflexibility.
Feel free to start your own rigidly programmed NGOs if you want.
That's not a problem. If they believe the original mission is not relevant, then, dissolve and form a new entity that espouses their new-found points of view.
'We do longer believe in our founding principles, therefore we will dissolve and form a new entity and will evangelize according to this new set of principles, if you agree, come and join us. Those who believe in our old principles are free to re-form around the cause'.
Imagine a non-profit that believes in abolishing the death penalty. It has a change of heart at the top and decides it's for the death penalty. I think this deserves dissolution and forming a new non-profit or PAC, whatever.
> That's not a problem.
It usually is for real people putting real resources in toward real efforts, which is why outside of exceptional things like campaign committees, people don't usually found orgs with purposes that are narrowly circumscribed and inflexible, and even when they do they don't narrowly and inflexibly prescribe the acceptable means of pursuing the purpose.