Kaitlynne Ward

Cultural Policy
19 March 2010

Reflections on Transparency & Secrecy in Nonprofits

In thinking about our discussion last class, and the many ethical issues we raised,
I decided to continue along these same lines for this week. I’ve been exploring the notion
of transparency in nonprofits, looking particularly at the examples of Mt. Hope Farm and
the Landmark Society of New York. Both organizations have made news in the past
couple of months, but each for a very different set of circumstances.

1. The Mount Hope Farm

On its website, the Mt. Hope Trust, owners of the Mt. Hope Farm in Bristol, R.I.
declare there mission to be “…to preserve and protect the integrity of its natural assets
and its historical structures. Mount Hope Farm is a special place to be enjoyed by all who
pass through its gates. It is meant to provide visitors and guests with an extraordinary
opportunity to learn, to understand, to explore, and to respect this land that represents our
forefathers, the peacefulness and serenity of open space. It is an historical tutorial of our
town, state, and national heritage.” Thus, this 127-acre property has a somewhat public
mission to present and preserve this historic landscape.
In his scathing article published on EastBayRI.com, Scott Pickering points out
several ways in which the Mt. Hope Trust has transgressed the ethical boundaries of the
nonprofit world. The primary issue with the organization has been its repeated efforts to
suppress its financial records. Several organization members have been fired after asking
publicly for statements on the organization’s finances, all in an effort to preserve the
secrecy of the Trust. As a registered 501©3, the Mt. Hope Trust is bound by federal
government transparency standards requiring that some of the financial information being
kept hidden be made accessible to the public. Board members have asserted repeatedly
that the organization is a private entity and therefore not obligated to share institutional
financial records.
This case study brings us back to our earlier discussions of the blurred lines
between public and private in the non-profit world. The Mt. Hope Farm was funded by
Bristol taxpayer dollars (over $1.5 million) in 1999 and has continued to have an intricate
financial relationship with the State and town. This, in addition to its non-profit status,
would seem to make the private organization argument moot, however, Board Members
assert this adamantly amidst the sharp criticism they now face. Nevertheless, this
example does point to the all-important question of just what constitutes “private”? Are
board members justified in withholding the financial records of the organization? What
role does the town of Bristol play in all of this?

2. The Landmark Society of New York

In stark contrast to the ‘close to the vest’ philosophy of them Mt. Hope Farm, the
Landmark Society of New York, in thinking about what to do with the Campbell-
Whittlesey House Museum in Rochester, decided to actively solicit input/feedback from
the public. The organization, in a press release in August 2009, declared that it would
begin exploring options for adaptive re-use of the house. A few months later, the
Landmark Society declared that it would sell the property in the summer of 2010. The
sale of historic house museums is akin to deaccessioning collections in the ethical
concerns it raises. In this instance, however, the Landmark Society was completely
forthcoming in declaring its intention and even held public forums to get feedback from
community members. The decision to sell the property, according to Joanne Arany,
Executive Director was reached in effort to, “…[find] a solution that would sustain the
house as historic landmark…” Even though the house is being sold to a private owner,
the Landmark Society appears to be acting ethically. I wonder, though, if this feels right
only because there was no effort to “hide” the decision?

Is being public/forthcoming enough to make decisions like this

ethical/acceptable? How do these two stories compare, and what do they suggest about
the relationship between public and private?