Taylor S.,
I agree entirely that accepting those monies are completely unacceptable! Hiding behind technicalities of law is morally unnacceptable to me (a sinner who won't by mutual funds for the above reason).
My point is any entity receiving widsepread donations will receive a percentage of questionnable funds in the process. Now, that said, why is there no reasonable organizational provision (like the review board on ethical fund management teams) to constantly review their income sources and new holdings thoroughly (I think they could afford a few professionals if necessary) and immediately remove or decline inappropriate donations.
As a former business grad, I don't accept a position of ignorance as acceptable (any organization must choose how much its willing to pay to be ethical-accountants are capable of providing estimates regardless of what most senior executives will tell you, prefering to ignore the issue until a crisis comes along). One woild have thought that loving prudence would have created such a unit and process and that these things would be near impossible and quickly dealt with.
That said, do I expect a detailed letter of apology and a history of the investment income receipts or an offer of donation to anti-smoking causes? Not really hopeful!
My fingers hurt now, but does make my earlier post a little clearer? Accuracy in staements is paramount for the board's credibility.
W.
