by Nick Jacobs

Back in 1963 my philosophy professor challenged me to prepare an analysis of intrinsic (taking) versus altruistic (giving) behavior. My conclusion at that time was that there clearly was no such thing as altruism. No one did anything unless it was good for them. Even those individuals who so generously gave of their time, money or wisdom, did it because it made THEM feel a little better about themselves.

Interestingly enough, that sophomoric knowledge (I was a sophomore.) did not keep me from embracing a life in not for profit management. Throughout my career in the various nonprofit organizations with whom I have worked; education, arts, economic development, and healthcare, it has been clear to me that there are two types of people who volunteer, the givers and the takers.

When questions are raised regarding how much is personally too much to those individuals who are the takers, the answer is obvious, “You can never have too much.” But when the same question is posed to the givers, the answer is entirely the opposite, “We enter with nothing, and we should leave with nothing. We are here to serve mankind.”

Well, over the last thirty plus years, it has also become clear to me that controls are necessary in order to keep the takers in tow because, many of them have no boundaries in regards to their material needs, and not for profit organizations are not the appropriate setting for pursuing those endless needs.

After Enron there appeared to be a glimmer of hope relating to controlling these takers, and there also appeared to be a strong movement toward a Sarbanes-Oxley-type legislation for nonprofit's. That proposal has now evolved into a new proposal called the Nonprofit Accountability Bill. Unfortunately, it does not yet have enough teeth to be really meaningful.

Let’s examine carefully the rolls of our nonprofit board members and simply track back the amount of business done by their companies within the nonprofit corporation for which they volunteer. Then check to see if bids were solicited, if influence was not placed on executives in charge through board compensation committees and if the business/member excused him or herself from the meetings when these issues were being decided. The Nonprofit Accountability Bill proposed certain limitations regarding the amount of business that actually constituted a conflict of interest, but, it is relatively clear that those numbers have also not been activated.

Bottom line? Ask questions about your nonprofit boards. Thankfully, for the past ten years I have worked for a board that is free of conflict, but this clearly is not the norm.

The difficult proposal that requires you to buy board member products, embrace their services, and use their consultants in order to ensure that they will be good board members is not acceptable behavior in a world that needs our help.

by Nick Jacobs

Why 2034? It’s actually the date that my actuarial has indicated that my individual involvement in this discussion should no longer have any viability. In other words it’s the projected date of my passing, but, believe me, there will be tens of thousands of we boomers contributing to this discussion until then.

A few years ago, during a scientific mission to Boston for a conference at MIT, it was my privilege to participate in a conference directed toward the challenge of keeping our senior citizens viable, active and out of long term care for as long as possible. We met with several health care professionals, engineers, and scientists who had taken on the challenge of miniaturizing every known type of monitoring system for the human body.

They had begun the effort to successfully decrease the size of these devices to the diameter of a nickel, the relative thickness of a potato chip and a cost of about twenty five cents each. We saw demonstrations of some of these miniaturized devices in actual use. They were adapting systems for monitoring the heart, blood pressure, brain function and respiratory system. With all of the flexibility that wireless communication can deliver, the unencumbered participants would be literally, wired for sound, as they moved freely through the special apartment that had been constructed for this research.

Each and every movement could be monitored all day, every day. The signals generated from the participants various organs were sent directly to a computer that was housed at a physician’s office where any missed beat could be reported through an alarm system that immediately notified the physician in charge.

Think of it. Pappy gets up from his chair, feels a little dizzy, sits back down, and the videophone rings with a healthcare professional checking to see if all is well.

Because of the 1984 feeling that some of we 1960’s free spirits might feel from this “Big Brother” type monitoring, it was suggested that the grandparent might also like to have her sibling monitored as well, thus giving the affect that they are indeed checking on each other.

Think of it. This system could very well keep us out of some offensive, under staffed, insufficiently reimbursed nursing home for at least an additional year or two.

In closing, however, I did receive an e-mail the other day with this suggestion. If you like to cruise, it would be more fun to live on the Pacific Princess for the rest of your life than in the Sunset Valley Nursing Center. The cost is similar, and when you trip and break your hip, they will upgrade you to a suite and deliver meals to your room.