- 63 -
petitioner’s executive director stated that the direct mail
campaign is a form of public relations, some viewing it as a
negative form, but with a cancer patient assistance fund in place
it could be turned around to a positive form in the future.
In April 1988, petitioner retained a consultant to assist
petitioner in soliciting donations and grants from corporations
and foundations. The consultant reported to petitioner on the
May 6, 1988, meeting that took place between the consultant and
an executive with the Lilly Endowment, a large foundation in
Indianapolis.
The consultant advised that the Lilly Endowment’s
executive’s unfavorable reaction to petitioner during the meeting
indicated that petitioner’s continuance of its fundraising
contract with W&H would jeopardize petitioner’s efforts to obtain
funding from corporations and foundations. The consultant
advised that “It is doubtful that Lilly will ever fund UCC * * *.
Perhaps a case could be built three or four years after the
termination of the direct mail consultant contract.”
The consultant’s report was given to petitioner’s
Administrative Fundraising Committee, and mentioned by this
committee in its May 11, 1988, report to petitioner’s Executive
Committee.
Several of petitioner’s affiliate member agencies withdrew
from petitioner as a result of the adverse publicity petitioner
experienced.
Page: Previous 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011