I recently read with concern an article reporting that United Way of Western New York had denied support for the local Planned Parenthood affiliate due to an apparently longstanding policy that prohibits funding to organizations that provide abortions. This is not a first, nor is it a local phenomenon. In the mid-90′s a United Way in Southern Nevada made the same decision.

This decision is not, from my perspective, about Pro Choice/Pro Life. Rather is it about a well-known national nonprofit’s willingness to sell itself cheaply. The New York United Way decision does not appear to be motivated by principle. If it were, the United Way would deny all funding to Planned Parenthood. Instead it dutifully passes along donor designated funds (taking its overhead fee), but refuses to consider grants from its unrestricted monies.

If United Way were to take a truly principled position, it would return donor designated funds to the donors rather than pass them along to Planned Parenthood. This would require a strong moral conviction that abortion is wrong, and a decision to disassociate itself from Planned Parenthood altogether.

On the other hand, United Way could recognize that the majority of Americans are in favor of legal abortion and allow the money to flow without favor or disfavor on this point. That too would be morally defensible.

Everyone in America seems to have a position on the Pro Choice/Pro Life debate, and these are often deeply felt moral positions. All of these positions are legitimate. However, when a national charity intermediary allows itself to be used in this battle, and in a self-seeking way rather than by taking a clearly moral position, it does nothing to help its own reputation, and little to advance the cause of reasoned debate about abortion.

Recently I had lunch with a couple of old friends from my days as a nonprofit executive director. They are still at it. One friend expects to retire in another 5 years, at which point he will have been at the same job more than 30 years. The other has been at the helm of his organization for more than 20 years.

We reminisced about the old times, when I was, like them, a member of an association of similar organizations that banded together to fight common fights around our public contracts. I was amazed that, nine years after I left, so many of the old names are still on the member roster.

When I left my ED job, I had been there for 16 years. It seemed like a long time, but compared to these folks, I was just starting out. The thought occurred to me that none of these old-timers, and certainly not my two buddies, was burned out. One was fighting a NIMBY community while growing his group’s services; and the other had recently received a 7-figure donation of land and cash to begin a new program in a community he had not previously served. These guys were not counting the days to retirement, but fighting on, just as we had all done together in our younger days. I am proud of them.

I was also reminded that we are sometimes too quick to label long-time EDs as “burn-outs” or as suffering from a version of “founder’s syndrome.” Some people can sustain their leadership, their energy, and their vision, for a very long time indeed. When they do retire, the organization will go through quite an adjustment. I feel sorry for the ED who is selected to follow either of these guys: it will be a hard act to follow for sure!

But, that is a future problem. And, in a sense, it’s a good problem to have. Far better to have a successful organization that thrives and then goes through a crisis when the long-term leader leaves, than to struggle with a revolving door of short-term EDs who never build the relationships to realize the organization’s potential.

Further, with ED’s like my two friends, you can bet they will set their boards on the path to a sound succession plan well in advance of the time when they finally decide to hang up their spurs.