Through these columns, you’ve probably come to realize that there’s a lot more to fundraising software selection than just deciding what to buy. Should you go it alone? If your organization is small, with only a few programs and campaigns or a small donor base, you’ll probably be looking at entry-level products. If that’s the case, you will be able to evaluate the available systems in-house to make a choice.

However, once you reach the mid-range and high-end levels, the options can be considerably more complicated. You may want an experienced consultant to help with the evaluation. Depending on the skill set of your staff and the availability of their hours, partnering with the right consultant can be a smart choice for long-term savings.

A good consultant can provide services before, during and even after your software purchase. The range of offered services can vary widely. Consultants may only demonstrate and recommend software, or they may assist you with evaluation, implementation and training. Others provide additional services like customizing or optimizing the system for your organization’s specific needs. 

In a year when funding is tight and many organizations are cutting their training budgets, Pareto Fundraising has found a new way to express its passion for helping charities grow. The company is offering four full passes to AFP Greater Toronto Chapter’s Congress 2009, set for November 30 through December 2.

Intended for fundraisers who would otherwise not be able to attend, each pass covers the registration fee for the full three days of Congress. Travel and lodging are the responsibility of the passholders.

“At Pareto Fundraising, we are passionate about helping charities grow. One of the best ways to boost the capacity of charities is through training and professional development,” says the company’s North American regional director Jonathon Grapsas. “As we become better fundraisers, we can raise more money and make the world a better place faster.”

In August, we invited readers to submit ethical turkeys for consideration by the Gift Planning in Canada Ethics Squad, promising to award a real Thanksgiving turkey on behalf of the best entry (or the worst, depending on your perspective).

Thanks to all the readers who sent us their turkeys. We are pleased to announce a tie for first place! The winning dilemmas appear below, with the Squad’s response to one in this issue; the second will appear next month.

“I previously worked for a foundation where all bequest gifts were to be endowed in perpetuity. The program was marketed this way in print for both donors and the lawyers creating the bequest gifts. Many bequests included the name of the endowment fund, and donor discussion and presentations talked about perpetuating the donor’s annual gift. After the foundation was named in the will, stewardship discussions with donors would often centre on the importance to them that their gift be held in perpetuity.

Gobble, gobble. While Gift Planning in Canada readers were enjoying turkey dinners this Thanksgiving, the Ethics Squad were busy reviewing entries for the GPIC Ethics Challenge. Thank you to all of you who submitted sticky situations for consideration.  We are pleased to announce that we have a tie and two turkeys will be donated to food banks in honour of our winners. Both winners raised excellent sticky and confidential situations, and, in keeping with the terms of the Challenge, we are keeping their names anonymous. All entrants will receive a small token of our turkey appreciation, so watch your mailbox for your parting gift.

This month we will look at a sticky endowment situation and provide some insight.

“Furious with the Foundation” writes “I previously worked for a foundation where all bequests were to be endowed in perpetuity. The program was marketed this way in print for both donors and lawyers creating the bequest gifts…[a new] board went back and looked at bequests they’d already received to see if the ‘perpetuity clause’ [was formally written] in them; if not, they yanked [the money and spent it] after 9 years, 364 days.”

One of the first things Jill Geisler heard from her journalism management mentor was that mediocrity is a curse. “You’re too kind to fire it,” he told her, “and you don’t dare promote it.” After thirty years in leadership, Geisler knows that mediocrity is a universal challenge for managers trying to assess and improve the performance of a team. There are always some team members who have to be described as uninspired, formulaic and lacklustre. In other words, they’re average – not awful, but never great.

In better times, average employees weren’t necessarily a major challenge as long as they stayed out of trouble. Their managers could focus on genuine underperformers and daily organizational brush fires. But not in these tough times, Geisler warns. “Managers are being asked to justify every position on the team and expect them not only to perform well, but often to add new duties.”

Fighting mediocrity begins with making certain that managers aren’t contributing to it themselves. Here are some questions that will help you discern whether you’ve created or deepened the problem.

1. Have I been clear with this person about roles and responsibilities?
2. Have I communicated our standards of quality and how they are measured?