California Nonprofit, Union Spar Over New Contract

A new contract between a Berkeley, Calif., nonprofit and the California Professional Employees (CAPE) union is being held-up because of disagreements regarding a potential pay raise for the organization's workers.

According to a report in The Daily Californian, Building Opportunities for Self-Sufficiency (BOSS) -- which provides food and shelter for the homeless -- and CAPE began negotiations for a new contract in January, but have yet to reach common ground on pay. The union is demanding a 2-percent pay raise, an amount that BOSS Executive Director Donald Frazier said would bankrupt the organization.

"They’re asking me to increase the deficit, and I’m just not willing to do that," The Daily Californian quoted Frazier as saying. "BOSS is not equipped to do that." BOSS has an annual budget of more than $5 million, according to its most recent federal Form 990. The organization has 90 employees, most of whom are members of CAPE.

In an interview with The NonProfit Times, Frazier said they got an extension of the current contract until August 31. As to what happens after that, he said that it's hard to say at this point, but that it's possible they will get another extension of the contract so they can continue negotiations.

"I've asked the union to work with me for one year. We can certainly do a two-percent increase eventually, but we need to stabilize financially first," said Frazier.

A representative from CAPE took issue with Frazier's statement, saying that employees at BOSS have not received a pay raise since 2006. Christoper Graeber, who is CAPE's business representative, reportedly said that the only concession BOSS is offering is to give workers an extra day-off each year.

Graeber reportedly described the wage increases sought as "minimal," and expressed disappointment that Frazier is refusing "to bend at all."

You can read the full story in The Daily Californian.

North Carolina Nonprofits Could Soon Pay Sales Tax

The North Carolina state Senate passed a measure Thursday that would cap sales tax refunds, a measure that critics say could cost hospitals, universities, and other charities millions of dollars.

According to a report in The Charlotte Observer, the Senate bill would cap sales tax refunds at $7.5 million initially, with that number going down to $100,000 beginning in July 2017. The state House did not include such a cap in their version of the bill, so its fate will be decided when the two chambers enter negotiations. The measure has strong support from Sen. Phil Berger (R-Rockingham), the president pro tem of the Senate who argued that nonprofit hospitals and other large organizations are nothing more than businesses organized as nonprofits. Berger framed the bill as a way to invigorate the state's economy.

“Our compromise plan incorporates feedback from folks across the state, provides much-needed tax relief to North Carolina families of all incomes and propels our state from the bottom of national rankings to the 6th best business tax climate in America,” Berger said in a statement.

On the other hand, the N.C. Hospital Associate has come out strongly against the cap estimating that it would eventually force the state's numerous nonprofit hospitals to pay $220 million a year in sales taxes. The N.C. Center for Nonprofits also estimates that the bill would affect about 250 of its 1,600 members. Don Dalton, a spokesman for the Center, said in a statement that hospitals would also be forced to cut back on services.

“Our hospitals are already facing $780 million per year in decreased payments every year for the next 10 years for serving Medicare patients,” Dalton said. “The State has not yet chosen to expand Medicaid or provide alternative coverage options for the state’s poor. Hospitals will continue to serve these uninsured patients without adequate compensation.”

Did A California Nonprofit Receive Special Treatment?

The assistant general manager of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (PUC) is under investigation to determine her alleged role in awarding a $20,000 no-bid contract to a nonprofit she once chaired.

According to The San Francisco Chronicle, Juliet Ellis earns $195,000 a year for her role at the Commission. Her main job is to figure out how to implement PUC's new policies regarding environmental justice and community benefits. Ellis was formerly chair of the Oakland-based nonprofit Green for All, according to 2012 financial-disclosure documents filed with the city of San Francisco, and this has raised questions about what role she played in approving the July contract for the organization.

PUC guidelines state that administrators are allowed to take on outside work so long as they have special permission and on the condition that there is no conflict of interest.

While Ellis reportedly assured her superiors at PUC that she had no role in the approval of the contract, but an investigation by The Chronicle casts some doubt on that claim. An insider at PUC reportedly told the publication that Ellis was involved in almost every discussion regarding Green for All, and worked with them to "develop the scope of work."

PUC has suspended the Green for All contract indefinitely until the investigation by authorities is complete.

You can read the full story in The San Francisco Chronicle.

LACMA Proposes Merger With Struggling Museum

Struggling with financial troubles and staff and board defections, the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles (MOCA) has been contacted by the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) about a potential merger.

According to a report in The Los Angeles Times, LACMA director Michael Govan and two co-chairs of his board made the offer to the MOCA board in a Feb. 24 letter. Sources who have seen the letter but were not authorized to discuss it told The Times that the proposed acquisition would preserve MOCA's two downtown LA locations and they would still operate them under the MOCA brand.

Additionally, LACMA would agree to raise $100 million for the two museums as a condition for completing the deal.

The proposed acquisition was confirmed by LACMA in a blog post on its website by Govan, who wrote that he "appreciates" the impact MOCA has on the community and desires to see that work continue as part of a successful merger.

"Combining LACMA and MOCA would strengthen both [museums]. LACMA’s mission is to share world-class art with the widest array of audiences possible," wrote Govan in the blog post. "MOCA’s downtown location, extraordinary collection and devoted constituency, combined with LACMA’s modern art masterpieces, large audiences and broad educational outreach (especially in schools near downtown L.A.) would create a cultural institution that is much more than the sum of its parts."

Founded in 1979, MOCA has fallen on hard times in recent years. According to an article in The New York Times, the 2010 hiring of Jeffrey Deitch as the museum's director was criticized, as the Manhattan art dealer was considered to be too celebrity-driven. In June of that same year, MOCA's long-time curator Paul Schimmel was forced out, and that was soon followed by a mass-exodus of board members.

Ultimately, Govan believes that a merger with LACMA would not only solve MOCA's current financial problems, it would also set the combined organization up for future success. He wrote in his blog post that the merger would open up new opportunities for visitors and donors alike.

"The scale and common purpose of the larger combined institution would provide stability, confidence, and opportunity for donors," he wrote. "Each facility and location could retain individual character and the potential to reach different audiences."

This is not the first time to two art museums have been involved in merger talks. The two institutions were discussing a deal in 2008 until philanthropist Eli Broad pledged a $30 million matching gift to MOCA, making the merger unnecessary.

3 Necessities For Nonprofit Scaling

With the economy still floundering along, the demand for nonprofit services are high. Yet these same organizations are experiencing a lack of resources to fund important programs. How are nonprofits expected to make do? According to a recent post on Huffington Post Impact, the answer lies in scaling.

In the article, Ventureneer founder Geri Stengle wrote that organizations must scale if they are to continue to provide programs that solve social issues. This was a topic that was discussed in detail at the Social Impact Exchange in New York City. According to Stengle, the overarching theme of this year's conference was that scaling must be accompanied by appropriate investment in an organization's capacity.

Here are three methods of support that were discussed at the conference:

• Business Planning: Business plans are an opportunity to think things through on paper before putting the plan to the test. Nicole Farmer Hurd from the National College Advising Corps, Lisa Jackson from New Profit Inc., and Meghan Duffy, Manager of Special Initiatives at Grantmakers for Effective Organizations made this point during their panel.
• Leadership Development: Richard Brown of American Express Philanthropy told audiences that new leaders must get training when first beginning. Brown said that the leaders he has coached said that the advice they got from coaches transformed the way they thought.
• Peer Advisory Groups: During her panel, United Way of Long Island President/CEO Theresa Regnante espoused the benefits of being part of a group of decision makers. She shared the benefits she received while working with a group of executive directors who met regularly with a facilitator to solve problems.

There were four other methods discussed at the conference. You can read the rest in Stengle's article on Huffington Post Impact.