popular

methods of judging a donated-dollar’s effectiveness, Landesman says

that the percent of a non-profit’s gross spent on fund raising is

seldom the litmus test we might think. "Frequently, it is

necessary

to spend half as much in getting a new donor as she will currently

give," he explains. "This is not egregious skimming, it is

a wise investment." Typically the new donor will continue to

donate

several times beyond the initial gift. And since all charities

continually

lose patrons by natural attrition, they must aggressively seek new

members merely to stay even. Better to examine, he says, how those

funds are spent once they enter the charity’s hands.

corporate

giver to a charity receiving its primary funding from individuals?

Maybe. In addition to checking out the percentages given by major

categories of government, individuals, and corporate donors, the

potential

donor will want to know whether the current contributors are young

or old, a lot of folks giving a little, or a few giving a lot. Do

these patrons also buy your firm’s product? To be effective fund

raisers,

non-profits should provide break downs of their contributors to make

giving seem worthwhile to a whole array of possible donors.

cheaper to support via planned giving, such as bequeathed estates.

New charities face high start up costs, frequently with less going

to the actual non-profit work. However, the newer organizations can

often offer greater donor visibility aimed at a more specific target.

The non-profit, warns Landesman, while striving to present itself

as a rewarding recipient, should not be afraid to give staff costs

for office staff as well as for those who work with clients. The

careful

donor will be looking at what changes have occurred in an organization

and why. Answering these questions before they get asked removes any

uneasiness.

a brilliant stroke invented by the Salvation Army. It rapidly became

a bandwagon onto which hundreds of non-profits have gleefully piled.

It displayed the ideal of painless giving. Today charities are

competitively

seeking new methods of creative dollar extraction. Most are willing

to work with donors offering funds over extended periods. "There

is a basic conflict here," says Landesman. "Virtually

everybody

wants to earmark his particular funds for direct benefits — buying

rice, medical research, whatever. No charity can exist on that alone.

There’s got to be someone there, working however unglamorously, to

answer the phone." Non-profits see expanded staff and offices

as a direct expansion in benefits. Their donors only want to see the

sacks of food or field doctors. Both entities will have to compromise

on this issue.

enable

much higher data rates, which will enable web access on cell phones,

maybe even video. "With the third generation will come a

consolidation

of standards in the United States," says Franz. In contrast to

Europe, where unified standards were set up early in the wireless

game, Americans must contend with a half-dozen incompatible systems:

Cingular, AT&T Wireless, Nextel, Verizon, VoiceStream, and Sprint.

Switching coverage means getting equipment.

Franz says that Verizon and Sprint are combining to adapt Code

Division

Multiple Access (CDMA 2000) standards, and they will roll out

third-generation

equipment that adheres to these new standards this year. Meanwhile

AT&T Wireless will move toward joining VoiceStream/Deutsche Telekom

in the third-generation evolution of the Global System for Mobile

Communication (GSM) standard (which is also the European standard).

The name for this will be wideband CDMA.

laptop users to "hook up wirelessly" in homes, offices, and

airports — just about any place other than moving vehicles.

"This

will change the way we are connected, when, with your laptop, you

can connect in familiar places," says Franz.

will give the advantage to existing companies, such as Verizon.

"Global

Crossings, Tyco, and other companies that sprang up — they built

networks rapidly, and those networks are not profitable. When faced

with a lot of bandwidth and a downturn, they went under," he says.

"The existing companies will benefit, because they have the cash

business in their local service to sustain them."

These local phone companies will always do fine, says Franz.

"Because

people will always talk."

— Barbara Fox

Ethics in Real Estate

Anyone who has ever closed on a piece of property or

a building knows that no matter how niggling the real estate laws

may be, they never quite seem to apply to your case. Vague clouds

of "discretion" invariably swirl around the sharper points

of ethics. If you think that lawyers groping their way through these

misty gray areas never concern themselves with ethics, think again.

The Mercer County Bar Association, in an attempt to help ferret out

where right lies in those far fields beyond the law, offers a

roundtable

discussion "Everyday Ethics in Real Estate Closings: The Issues

Nobody Talks About," on Thursday, April 4, at 12:30 p.m. at the

Palmer Inn. Cost: $37. Call 609-585-6200. Attendees will break up

into groups and considering a series of real estate situations. Each

table’s solution to each question are brought forth and discussed

before the group.

The questions will be proposed by Lee A. Gronikowski, a the

bar’s Department of Ethics Council, and by Grace Dennigan, an

attorney in private practice at 5 Independence Way who is a member

of the bar’s Real Estate Section. The moderators tailor the program

to cover situations involving bankers, real estate agents, surveyors,

and title insurance professionals, as well as attorneys.

"Real estate trends fluctuate," says Dennigan. "The

attorney,

banker, and most of the professionals involved, however, are held

to very inflexible standards. Situations forever arise testing just

how far from our rules we ethically may stray." She proffers a

few examples of topics that will be covered, with much greater

specificity,

in the roundtable:

the basement of a building leaks, flooding the brand new building

just purchased. It was, after all, the biggest rainfall in three

years.

Inventory now lies soaked in soggy boxes. Can you seek redress from

the seller for failure to disclose a pre-existing problem? Was it

his legal or ethical duty to inform you that this rare deluge might

cause problems? Can you prove that he was aware of the condition?

All of these questions fall generally under the ever-tightening rules

of full disclosure. What used to be a sales brochure for a building

now need to be a confession. Dennigan insists you can no longer just

close the deal and walk away. But the question remains, exactly how

far down the road does the law reach? If you live on a street that

swells with traffic every rush hour, do you have to inform those

touring

your house Saturday morning of this probability? Maybe. Dennigan says

the trend now tilts increasingly toward disclosing the ridiculously

obvious.

and plans to move into his newly purchased one across town all within

a single Friday. He closes on the old house in the morning and hands

the check to his attorney, Ghengis, who plans to deposit it in escrow

in his bank, The Farmer’s Megatentacle. The money will go toward the

purchase of Irv’s new house that afternoon. At the afternoon closing,

Irv writes a new check for the new house, which the seller, Swifty

Greyhound, runs and deposits in his own bank, The Seaman’s Harpoon.

Attorney Ghengis, alas, did not make it to Megatentacle before

Friday’s

closing and simply deposited the closing check first thing on Monday.

But it is too late. Seaman’s has already rushed Greyhound’s check

to Megatentacle. Megatentacle has stamped the check "Insufficient

funds," and Seaman’s refuses to simply reissue the check. Irving

and Swifty were last seen at in front of the new house threatening

to "settle this like men," while their wives warned them to

remember their hernia and prostate conditions respectively. Now, who

ethically and who legally is responsible, and more important what

is the simplest way of settling this situation (without a double

hernia)?

on and handle the sale of a major piece of property by multiple

sellers.

Since three of them live out of town, the attorney deals strictly

with the one local client. Throughout all negotiations and the final

closing, the lawyer dutifully sends copies of all papers to each

seller.

The deal closes, but scarcely before the ink is dry, the three silent

sellers come to town complaining about several aspects of the deal,

and seeking redress against the lawyer.

The other owners of the property were sent papers for review, but

not specifically phoned and polled for agreement on the several issues

of sale. Where do all the sellers, the attorney, and the final deal

stand? Such a situation becomes particularly sticky when spouses are

forced to divide and sell property in a divorce settlement.