- 102 -
the initial capital to conduct the mailing campaign or bear
financial responsibility for certain specified types of expenses.
Without going into an analysis of each of these expert
witness’ testimony, we draw the following overall conclusions
from their testimony:
1. Contingent-fee charitable fundraising arrangements occur
with modest frequency. Although some in the fundraising field
regard such arrangements as being improper, others treat such
arrangements as an ordinary part of the fundraising landscape.
It is expected that a fundraising arrangement with a contingent-
fee element would present opportunities for greater total
compensation for the fundraiser than a similar fundraising
arrangement that does not have a contingent-fee element.
2. No-risk charitable fundraising arrangements occur with
less frequency. They may take various forms, most of which may
more appropriately be labeled as “limited risk”, rather than “no-
risk”. It is expected that a fundraising arrangement with a no-
risk or limited-risk element would involve greater total
compensation for the fundraiser than a similar fundraising
arrangement that does not have a no-risk or limited-risk element.
3. As petitioner’s experts Feldman and Herge point out, co-
ownership of mailing lists is typical in no-risk charitable
fundraising arrangements and is regarded as a method of enhancing
compensation to the fundraiser without requiring the charitable
Page: Previous 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011