The Fundraising Ask
Nov 1, 2017

FINZ Constitutional changes - who does it represent?

0 comments

In 2002. FINZ's constitution was all about fundraisers: http://www.societies.govt.nz/cms/banner_template/SOCAGENT

 

In an online Special General Meeting, with just 12 days warning, FINZ is about to change it's constitution again - moving the organisation still further from the members it claims to represent.

 

There is no online document to link to, but the mooted new mission statement goes like this:

'FINZ is a membership organisation which promotes excellence and ethical practice in fundraising to the direct benefit of Charities and not for profit organisations operating in New Zealand.' Hmmm, ok, not much about members there?!?

 

And the purpose will soon read: ' To advance fundraising to the direct benefits of Charities and not-for-profit organisations operating in New Zealand through ethics, education and advocacy and to do any act or thing incidental or conducive to the attainment of this purpose.

 

Members have been invited to send feedback directly to ex-PFRA CEO, and interim FINZ CEO, Karen@finz.org.nz.

 

There is no conversation, no open forum for dialogue. There is no way we can share or discuss this suggestion Just an online vote.

 

How do you know if you have been heard? Is this the representation you want? Is this the way you want to present your profession to your donors?

 

We talk about transparency - let's start practising it. Tell us what you think.

 

 

New Posts
  • Tom Brady
    Nov 1, 2017

    The reason I am concerned that the flavour of FINZ has swung away from its roots, is that it seems to be for the wrong reasons. The first big change was the employment of a CEO and his realisation that he needed to widen the reach if he was to meet his income targets. As he was full time (while the members were part-time volunteers) his urgency trumped due process. Since then, the agendas have all been driven by the employees or those offering money. There are separate membership groups for grant-making bodies (Philanthropy NZ), 'advancement' specialists (Educate plus), street solicitors (PFRA) and I am sure that there needs to be an advocacy group for charities too. Maybe that's FINZ's role now. But do those paid to fundraise need their own professional body? Are we different enough? Personally, I think that once you get senior or experienced enough to be able to influence policy decisions of your employer, you need to have the kind of support we'd expect from being part of a profession. Perhaps there is a large enough group of us for which that applies. Is NZ big enough for a body for Charitable Income Professionals? If there are enough, I'd be happy to help.