a torah thought on fundraising

[cellio]

This past shabbat's parsha, Vayakheil, describes the collection of materials that went into building the mishkan (the portable sanctuary). An appeal went out -- we need gold and silver and linen and "red and purple and blue" (dyes? wools?) and so on, and the people answered the call. Voluminously. Enough that Moshe had to call it off -- they had enough for what they needed now. (Where they got all this stuff is a different question.)

I've heard lots of comments (usually from synagogue treasurers and the like) about how this was the first successful fundraising campaign and would that we could be so fortunate when we need to raise money. I was thinking about this during the torah reading yesterday and found myself thinking that modern fund-raising would do well to follow the guidelines laid out in the parsha. Specifically:

1. There was a clear connection between the donations being requested and the goal that was being pursued. Everybody would be able to look at the product (the mishkan) and see how the donated materials were put to use. That's easier with goods than when everything is mediated through bank accounts, but I think many organizations can do better on this nonetheless -- starting by disclosing the costs of the fundraising (i.e. how much of my donation never makes it to its intended purpose?). In my own experience, when my congregation had a campaign several years ago toward building renovations, the board was very up-front about the planned renovations and the budget, and also that any excess would be placed in such-and-such fund for such-and-such purpose. Very open and up-front, and the donations came.

2. They asked for contributions at various levels. Not everybody can afford to give gold but some of them can give linen. They didn't say "ok, if all you can send is linen that's ok"; they asked for linen. The person making the donation could feel like a first-class donor. How many times has your donation to some charity been met with "can you do any more?" outweighing the "thank you so much for helping"? Great way to make donors feel valued, eh?

3. When they had enough they said so. This idea seems ludicrous to many fund-raisers I've spoken with -- they ask "why would you cut off donations if they're still giving?". I don't think you necessarily need to cut them off but you do need to be clear that you've met your goal. I experienced a blatant case of this problem some years ago: I was part of a group that was taking pledge calls, and when we were done and somebody asked about some discrepancies, they admitted that we had received more money in pledges than what they announced on-air as progress toward their goal (by quite a bit). They said they did this to keep the pressure on. I said that was dishonest and that was the last time I helped them.

Fund-raising is always going to be with us, and some of it will work well and some badly. The parsha urges us toward clear goals, valuing the donor no matter his contribution, and transparency to help it go well.

Comments

[miz-hatbox.livejournal.com]

HaShem was very precise about what the dimensions, decorations, and makeup of the Mishkan. If you aren't allowed to have seven beaten-gold almond-blossoms (with calyxes) decorating a lampstand that is required to have six, then there's no point in taking more gold than you need.

One of our local public radio stations has structured their pledge drives in the past such that they quit fundraising early once they reached their goals.

[cellio]

But you could always put the extra away for a rainy day -- the cheruvim wings might get damaged or the gold carry-bars for the ark scuffed and you'd need more gold to fix that, or whatever. Or they could use the extra wealth to provide for other (non-mishkan) communal needs, they might think. At least that's the reasoning I usually hear from people today -- the "you can't have too much money" mindset.

Your public radio station is doing a good thing there. Do they usually meet their goals early?

[miz-hatbox.livejournal.com]

I don't know if they do. Over time I've shifted to a different NPR station (or to listening via podcast).

The one I listen to (when I listen) usually has pledge drives Mon-Sun, and the big shows are always the Saturday ones (Prairie Home Companion, This American Life, etc). I can't imagine that they would skip a fundraising weekend. Now, if they started on a Saturday they could end on a Thursday.

[jerusha.livejournal.com]

The thing that I appreciated Chicago Public Radio doing, when I listened to them (*), is for a week or two before the fund drive, just during normal between-segment advertising time, point out that the fund drive was coming, the goal was $foo, and the sooner it was met the sooner they'd stop the fund drive and go back to regular programming. Oh, and did we mention that if you pledge now, it totally counts towards the goal? And let's just stress again that the drive will end as soon as the goal is met, so you're buying back days free of us begging *instead of* your favorite NPR programs (as opposed to briefly between them). And now, our next program is...

*before I got a CD player in the car and basically stopped listening to radio

[cellio]

That's a smart approach, and I hope it worked out well for all involved.

[mabfan.livejournal.com]

A very thoughtful post on fundraising. I enjoyed reading it.

[cellio]

Thank you.

[richardf8]

This should be on every synagogue president's desk.
Heck, they should bind it for a sign upon their arms and a frontlet between their eyes.

Of course there's always "Pony up, or next week's hummus comes out of a can!"

[cellio]

Thank you.

The funny thing about the frontlets, though, is that the text in question isn't actually visible. You're binding a physical object to prompt the memory of certain words. I'm not sure that works with newly-supplied words. :-)

[baron-steffan.livejournal.com]

A couple comments on the first-paragraph issues only, not on the point of the full post.

* I had always sort-of imagined the "red and purple and blue", here and (e.g.) when Hiram is described as being skilled in working with "gold and silver and linen and red and purple and blue" that what was meant was fabric, specifically wool and/or linen. But yeah...when one speaks of "purple" in this context one usually means "purple dye" as in "Tyrian purple. So maybe we are talking about dyes here.

* I've always assumed that when the people left, they, well, took their stuff. Being slaves, one assumes that isn't much, but do we really know what the economic condition of an Israelite slave was? What, if anything, they were allowed to own? Perhaps the deal was that they weren't allowed to own land, or livestock, and so were forced to work in what jobs they were allowed...like the construction trades %^). That would be pretty similar to the condition of the Jews for millennia after, certainly. But then there's the pesky "not allowed to leave, either" business %^J.

* We know that when they left, they pretty much plundered the Egyptians, so in fact, that's where I've always assumed the gold and silver (and prob'ly most everything else) came from.

[cellio]

Dye, thread, or cloth -- I can't tell either. I sometimes see "thread" in the translation, but it's clearly editorial. Why choose that over one of the others I don't know.

I assume that the gold, silver, and precious gems are Egyptian loot. What's less clear to me is why they would have carried out enough acacia wood to build this structure. And I'm not very clear on the so-called dolphin skins (translation there seems to be speculative too).

I also assume that they took their stuff, what little they owned. You make an interesting point about the conditions of slavery; we don't know that they weren't craftsmen and the like, after all. We hear about the brick-making, but there's no reason to assume that accounted for everybody. And this also answers the question about the skills needed to fashion all this stuff; yes, that could be of divine origin, but the people also made a golden calf, presumably on their own, so somebody knew about gold-smithing. Thanks for this insight!

[baron-steffan.livejournal.com]

Yeah, we don't really know what "slavery" entailed in Egypt, do we? Really? I can't imagine that, (pace Cecil B. DeMille and the like) every single Israelite -- man, woman, and child -- worked from dawn to dusk as a hod carrier on the pyramids. And, as you point out, if they did do so, for generations, where did they get the skills they needed to do the things described in Exodus and Leviticus? Just divine inspiration? Not to be an apologist for Rameses II %^), but let's be mindful of slavery under various cultures: the Romans and ancient Greeks, for example, had slaves, at least some of whom seem to have had far more liberty than we think of in terms of, say, American slaves. So what was the reality of the "Egyptian bondage"?

[goljerp]

Re: Dolphin skins: there's a modern midrash about that. Oy, my memory. I can't remember now if this is something which I read in one of the midrash collections that Howard Schwartz edited, or if it's my riff on something mentioned in passing in the midrash. Anyhow, in brief, it's this: when the jews crossed the sea of reeds on dry land, it was great for the Jews. Not so great for the fish. I mean, fish are just not that bright, and they're not used to vertical interfaces of water and air, so they would swim along, and plop out of the wall of water, onto the ground. There they'd flop around, and probably be stepped on by an israelite, or a sheep, or cow, or whatever. Dolphins, now, they are bright, and so they quickly assesed the situation and started a patrol along the sides, herding fish away from the miracle. You know what else isn't that bright? Cows. They weren't used to walls of water, either. Well, the dolphins herded them, too, keeping the cows and sheep out of the water. They knew that this was a risky thing they were doing, and that the sea was not going to stay parted. Especially when the Egyptians came into the passage: at that point, they started purposely splashing water to try to slow the chariots. But even though they could've left at any point, they didn't. When the walls of water came crashing togther, killing pharoah's men, many dolphins were killed as well. In honor of their sacrifice, and their help to the israelites (and the fish), they merited a place in the mishkan.

[baron-steffan.livejournal.com]

That's a sweet story, and, um, actually pretty funny. I'm not so sure I'd appreciate being skinned and used for decoration as that much of an honor, even in the Temple, but okay %^). But the big question is: dolphins? In the Red Sea? Yeah?

[talvinamarich.livejournal.com]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/alfonsator/96335790/

Dolphins. Red Sea. Yeah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinner_dolphin is the likely candidate from what I have found.

[talvinamarich.livejournal.com]

Following my link to the Spinner dolphin in my reply to baron_steffan:

"Spinner dolphins also communicate by slapping the water with various body parts. For instance, “nose-outs” occur when the beak is thrust above the surface. This action is common when the pod is emerging from a rest period. Tail slaps often indicate impending danger or indicate a dive. Head slaps, side slaps, and back slaps are most frequently seen as the pod accelerates. Last, and most spectacular, are the spins themselves. Many animals spin repeatedly, with each spin tending to get smaller and smaller, finishing with an emphatic side slap."

That fits in with the "splashing water" part of the story rather well.

[goljerp]

The thing that I love about Midrash is that it doesn't have to make sense. I mean, it's nice that there really are dolphins who live in the Red Sea, but even if there never were, it wouldn't matter, from a midrashic point of view.

But it's cool that there are, and they do engage in splashing behavior in real life :-)

[goljerp]

We know that when they left, they pretty much plundered the Egyptians, so in fact, that's where I've always assumed the gold and silver (and prob'ly most everything else) came from.

Yeah, I head a D'var Torah this week where the speaker went even further: not only did everyone have plundered gold, silver, etc., they couldn't wear their jewelry after the Golden Calf episode -- and whatever stuff they donated they didn't have to carry. He made it sound very selfish indeed to donate :-)