There is an amazing article in today’s issue of the New York Times (page A16, should you be interested) that links the recent difficulties experienced by the Vatican Bank and the Vatican’s struggle with “modernity.”

Some explanation may be in order.

For the last several centuries, the Vatican Bank has operated in a manner that was outside of the finanicial controls and oversight of the Italian banking system.

Apparently, that is changing and the Vatican Bank is finding itself now subject to the regulations that oversee the management of all financial institutions on the peninsula.

Simply stated, an organization that has played by their own rules now must change their operations to be consistent with the way everyone else “in the world” behaves.

And in shifting those gears, there are going to be some operational gaps.

I think diocesan development directors struggle with “modernity” as well.

Open your current annual fund operations manual and compare the solicitation methodologies contained therein with the solicitation methodologies that were used in the campaign 20 years ago.

Direct Mail. In Pew. Two donor clean up mailings.

Meanwhile, those with whom we compete with in the philanthropic marketplace are utilizing every integrated methodology and technology to increase their marketshare.

Modernity. Change. Progress.

The Loch Ness Monster never sticks around long enough for a good photo opportunity.

Apparently, Scottish plesiosaurs are very elusive.

Last week, it was announced that Italian bank examiners seized 23 million euros of Vatican bank transactions as part of an ongoing money laundering investigation.

According to CNN:

The Vatican said Tuesday that it was “perplexed and baffled” by the public prosecutor’s actions and that the Holy See aims for “complete transparency” in its financial operations.

Transparency of operation.

A survey that we conducted in the Diocese of Albany of past and lapsed donors to our annual program indicated that one of the greatest impediments to donor reengagement was a perceived lack of campaign transparency.

We worked hard at developing a distinct annual report that delineated all expenditures to the previous annual campaign and mailed that annual report to all current and recently lapsed donors prior to the launch of the current campaign. Eventually, we developed a highly detailed financial breakdown that was inserted into the regional newspapers.

The process of developing this document was complex and involved building trust amongst key Diocesan constituencies. Yet, once completed, the end result of this process yielded great benefits.

The 1970′s were a rough time for the American music and fashion scene.

Cotton fiber yielded to artificial oil based weaves and the Beatles stepped down to allow the Bay City Rollers to fill the airwaves.

It was a bad decade for the oil industry as well.

OPEC, for a wide variety of reasons, decided to pinch off oil supplies to the United States.

The American oil industry, for the first time in a century, came to terms with falling supplies and the prospect of dimished profit margins.

In response to this, Royal Dutch Shell’s executive leadership team embarked upon a exercise of scenario planning in which they envisioned possible futures and compared those visions of the furture with varying corporate strategies. They built out how they would respond to optimistic, neutral, and pessimistic potential market futures and then articulated detailed plans on how Royal Dutch Shell would respond to each eventuality.

As a result, Royal Dutch Shell was able to endure the varied OPEC hardships and actually flourish in a down trending market.

Scenario Planning.

Do we, as diocesan fundraisiers, in our planning, consider varied potential economic futures and develop competing plans for implementation.

Such is the difference between responding and reacting.

Polyester is an oil based product, by the way.

I hate pie.

No, I really hate pie.

Apple. Mincemeat. Rhubarb. Even key lime.

I just got back from visiting several dioceses after reviewing their current appeal collaterals and discovered another type of pie that is almost as bad as rhubarb pie.

The pie chart.

I think if you were to open every Bishop’s annual appeal brochure in the United States, you would find the same pie chart that provides the reader a general breakdown of how appeal funds are allocated to varied diocesan ministries and programs.

Such practice is compelling in what it does NOT communicate.

If the purpose of the pie chart is to enhance the transparency of the campaign, if the practice of making “transparency” evident is important in the management of the annual fund (and we know that it is), then why not dedicate an entire web site or brochure to provide a detailed analysis of campaign allocations and how those funded offices impact and enhance diocesan operations.

It may cost a bit more, but I suspect that the benefit, in the long run, will be significant.

And have a piece of chocolate cake. It’s delicious.

This was a hot summer.

A really hot summer.

So I got to thinking about all that global warming stuff.

A lot of people are telling other people that in a very short period of time, the Northern Ice Fields will be little more than a wading pool.

Experts are telling us that stuff.

So I started thinking about experts and their role in the world, generally, and diocesan fundraising, specifically.

Experts – in the field of fundraising – their are a lot of them. They go by other names: consultants, vendors, and “those people who call me all the time.”

What is the role of the expert or of the consultant as related to diocesan fundraising?

Before we can answer that question, let’s consider those qualities that make a good “expert”:

1. They have done the work that you have been doing.
2. They were good, no, real good, at the work that you are doing.
3. They did the work that you are doing for more than one year.
4. They spend a lot of time, no, a lot of time, reading about current industry challenges and trends.
5. They have an intimate understanding of your issues. In other words, they have done their research.

So, what is their role in the world of diocesan fundraising?

Their role, really, is defined by the client: are they to advise the client on best practice and provide models for implementing that practice or are they the de facto decision maker in the process that they are hired to manage.

I would recommend that you be wary of the latter and embrace the former.