Saying NO to IR-1687

Eleven years ago, I founded the Long Island Coalition Against Bullying with a singular mission: to provide Long Island children and families with a resource that was sorely lacking during my own time of need. Today, as I reflect on the journey thus far, I am reminded of the profound impact our work has had. Just this morning, a young man whom we had helped years ago reached out to me, expressing his gratitude and stating, "Thank you for saving my life." His words are a poignant reminder of the life-saving role nonprofits can play in people's lives.

However, yesterday offered a stark contrast to this moment of reflection. I found myself in the hearing room of the Suffolk County Legislature, standing in solidarity with fellow nonprofit leaders in opposition to?IR-1687, which, if passed, would limit the funding of nonprofits by prohibiting the county from supporting organizations that pay any employee more than the Governor of New York. Additionally, the bill would require nonprofits to publish the names of their donors and the amounts they contribute – all of this in the name of transparency and safeguarding taxpayer money.

On the surface, this legislation seems innocuous, but it sends an unsettling message. By drafting this bill, the legislature implies that nonprofits warrant greater scrutiny—that there is reason to suspect our organizations of financial misconduct. Such implications are harmful, particularly when directed at organizations that exist to serve the public good. It is no exaggeration to say that nonprofit work is difficult enough without the added burden of having to combat suspicion and doubt from the very government entities that benefit from our existence.

Nonprofits are not superfluous; they fill essential gaps in public services, providing resources and support that the government cannot, and often does not, offer. This symbiotic relationship benefits not only the government but also the taxpayer. Without nonprofits, many critical services would simply not exist. Whether it’s providing mental health services, combating bullying, or addressing homelessness, nonprofits offer targeted solutions to complex problems.

However, like any business, nonprofits require effective leadership to function. They must be run with the same level of professionalism and fiscal responsibility as our for-profit counterparts. In fact, given that nonprofits rely heavily on public funding and private donations rather than product sales, the need for transparency and accountability is even more pronounced. It is worth noting that nonprofits are already subject to rigorous oversight from a number of agencies, including the New York State Attorney General's Office, the Charities Bureau, and the Internal Revenue Service.

Attracting and retaining top-tier leadership is crucial to the success of any organization, and nonprofits are no exception. High-caliber talent does not come cheaply. To ensure effective management and program delivery, nonprofit boards of directors must offer compensation packages that reflect the demands of the job. These decisions are not made lightly; they are the result of careful deliberation by the board, whose fiduciary duty requires them to consider the organization’s budget constraints, industry standards, and local economic conditions.?

However, when you focus solely on the salary of nonprofit executives, it fails to recognize the full scope of what our roles entail. Nonprofit leaders are often responsible for wearing multiple hats—administrators, fundraisers, program developers, and advocates—all while working long, unpredictable hours. The notion that nonprofit executives are overcompensated is not only misguided but also fails to account for the immense responsibility they shoulder. I know I can speak for myself and my colleagues when I say we did not enter the nonprofit sector for financial gain, but rather out of a deep-seated commitment to our communities. However, fair compensation is still essential, particularly in an environment where many organizations are chronically understaffed, bolstered by legal safeguards already in place to prevent excessive salaries within the nonprofit sector. Organizations that exceed these limits face stiff penalties. The imposition of further restrictions is not only redundant but harmful.?

With respect to financial transparency, that of which 1687 purports to promote already exists. Nonprofits are required to file an IRS Form 990 annually, which details our financial activities, including sources of funding. In most cases, these financial statements are also subject to independent audits. This level of oversight provides exactly the type of transparency that the proposed legislation seeks to mandate.? If the intention behind this legislation is truly to increase transparency and ensure better safeguarding of taxpayer dollars, why are nonprofits, whose very existence depends on public trust and a commitment to social good, being singled out as if they are inherently less transparent or more prone to misuse funds? If true fiscal responsibility is the goal, shouldn’t the same level of scrutiny be applied across all sectors that receive taxpayer funding, rather than disproportionately burdening organizations that work to fill gaps in public services? This focus seems not only unfair but also misdirected, raising questions about the bill's real intent and whether it is truly aimed at protecting the public interest.

Moreover, donor privacy is another area where IR-1687 causes severe damage. Many individuals donate to nonprofits with the understanding that their personal information will remain confidential. Forcing organizations to disclose donor names and contributions could deter potential donors and violate their trust. At a time when so many organizations, mine included, are spending precious time and resources to adequately protect that data in an ever-increasing world of cyber threats, coupled with the difficulty of fundraising in challenging economic times, this provision is not only misguided; it is fatal.

Reflecting on the last 11 years, juxtaposed against yesterday’s hearing, I am struck by how much has changed and yet how much remains the same. The reminder of our impact feels especially poignant when contrasted with the legislative challenges we face today making it clear how fragile the work we do can feel in the face of unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles. Yet, the lives we’ve touched and the lives we will continue to change reinforce why we cannot afford to be deterred. Our work, which was born from a need that I personally felt, has grown into something much larger, and it is that purpose—serving and saving lives—that will always drive us forward.