Conflict of Interest Policy
Effectively moving money to where the hurt is worst – using money as medicine – requires the funder to have deep, authentic knowledge of the issues and communities that will be putting the funding to use. Deep authentic knowledge does not come from reading some stats, reports, or articles; it doesn’t even come from a site visit to that community or interviewing someone from the affected community. It comes from living inside that community and experiencing that issue for oneself. Period.
– Edgar Villanueva, Decolonizing Wealth: Indigenous Wisdom to Heal Divides and Restore Balance
The Jewish Liberation Fund works to mobilize resources to sustain and grow a progressive Jewish movement for justice and liberation. As decision-makers in JLF’s work: Steering Committee members, members of participatory grantmaking panels, and staff; our responsibility is to ensure the program carries out its mission with integrity.
One way we live out that responsibility is to act with integrity in making decisions about resource allocation; ensuring that funding decisions are made in alignment with JLF’s mission, rather than for personal gain. Money, however, is not the only resource any of us bring to the decision-making table. As a community-driven, participatory grantmaking project, JLF’s success depends upon leveraging the wisdom, expertise, lived experiences, insights, and relationships each of us brings with us; allowing that “deep, authentic knowledge” to inform and direct our grantmaking.
The risks of actual or perceived conflicts of interest in grantmaking are real; and without tending to them with integrity, attention, and care, they can undermine trust in the program and leadership, compromise our ability to fulfill our mission, and run the risk of exposing the program to legal liability. Conversely, attempting to make grantmaking decisions while excluding anyone with potential conflicts of interest will only serve to sustain the business-as-usual state of affairs in philanthropy: decision-making power will continue to be held by those furthest away from the places the hurt is worst, re-entrenching and perpetuating the systems of oppression we seek to transform.
With the recognition that proximity, relationship, and connection to our grantees is both an invaluable asset and a site of vulnerability, JLF’s Conflict of Interest Policy seeks to hold these multiple truths in balance.
Conflicts of Interest
A “conflict of interest” is defined as a circumstance in which a program decision-maker[1] - or an immediate family member - has a personal financial interest in the outcome of the program’s decisions. This can include but is not limited to serving on the staff of a grant-seeking organization, or being the direct financial beneficiary of a grant or contract. Furthermore, the appearance of a conflict of interest may arise when a program decision-maker - or their immediate family member - is serving in a non-compensated leadership role (including as a member of a Board or Steering/Advisory committee) of an organization, entity, or company being considered for funding.
In order to prevent a conflict of interest from unduly impacting program decision-making, and to prevent the appearance of such:
Annually, all JLF decision-makers shall disclose any potential conflicts of interest, including: employment (including relevant contract-based compensation) by organizations that could fall into the purview of JLF’s grantmaking or contracted services, Board or Steering/Advisory Committee service, or any other companies or entities within which the decision-maker has a significant financial stake. (Holding a non-majority number of shares of a publicly traded company, including as part of a mutual fund, does not constitute a significant financial stake.)
JLF decision-makers shall disclose the same potential conflicts of interest for immediate family members (including spouse or legally recognized domestic partner, parents, parents’ spouses, children, children’s spouses, and grandchildren).
All JLF decision makers will update their conflicts of interest disclosures if and when there is a change or addendum to previously disclosed conflicts. (Examples include: starting a new job, joining the board of a grantee or grant-seeking organization, a spouse’s company has decided to submit a bid for a contracted project, etc.)
If and/or when a potential conflict of interest emerges within the context of JLF decision-making, after answering questions and sharing relevant information with the remaining decision makers, the person with the conflict will recuse themselves from final discussion and voting on the matter.
If the potential conflict of interest emerges in the context of a decision that would not otherwise be decided by a formal vote (e.g. contracted services for the program, as deemed necessary by the Director in the course of normal operations), the decision-maker will share all appropriate and relevant information with the Steering Committee Chair and/or Director (as reasonable/appropriate), including competing bids, market-rate assessment, and decision-making criteria/rationale. Final decisions, in such circumstances, will only be made with Steering Committee Chair and/or Director approval. If both the Steering Committee Chair and Director have a conflict of interest, approval of a neutral Steering Committee member will be required.
In the course of grantmaking decisions, if a decision-maker has a direct financial stake in the outcome of grant recommendations, they will be invited to share their insights, wisdom, and direct experiences with the grant-seeking entity as part of the discussion. They will, additionally and as a matter of form, recuse themselves from a portion of the discussion, so as to ensure all committee/panel members have an opportunity to discuss the potential grantee openly and without fear of offense or self-censorship in the interest of the person with the conflict.
Though the program’s preference and ethos is for transparency in decision-making, if a conflict of interest scenario raises significant concerns for decision makers and/or includes matters that are highly confidential, discussion can take place in camera[2]. For the purposes of accountability, these sessions can also take place “on camera;” and be recorded. As a matter of course, this option should be exercised sparingly and only when necessary, so as to preserve program transparency.
APPROVED BY JLF STEERING COMMITTEE: MAY 17, 2020
[1] Steering Committee member, member of participatory grantmaking panel, staff, and/or anyone else asked to participate in making a decision about the allocation of JLF resources
[2] For more information on the purpose of in camera sessions and appropriate uses, see: http://consciousgovernance.com/blog-archives/2016/what-is-an-in-camera-session-how-to-maintain-confidentiality-in-the-boardroom-without-generating-fear