But once I had a nonprofit make an unsolicited offer to dissolve. I was surprised, since my office was still in the initial stages of review, but I agreed. The nonprofit’s conduct had been questionable, but I was not sure any state laws had been broken.

So what could a nonprofit do that was so bad that it voluntarily invoked one of the harsher penalties under Missouri law, even though it may not have broken any state laws? Simple: It completely failed to meet its constituents’ expectations for openness, and the resulting perception of its actions became so bad, it could not continue.

About 12 years ago, the nonprofit was launched to support an agency created by the state legislature. The agency set up the nonprofit to act as a fiscal agent under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. That status allowed donors to get deductions for donations to the agency, and the nonprofit could own the real estate that housed the agency’s operations.

At the time the charity was created, the management of the nonprofit and the state agency was the same. The organizations’ leaders didn’t think they needed to draft a good operating agreement, but later the groups came under separate management, and that turned out to be a bad decision.

About three years ago, the nonprofit began to refuse to provide any information to the agency on donations it had received or details about real estate.  It said it was not legally required to do so more than once a year.

Leaders of the agency filed a complaint with my office, the Missouri Attorney General’s office. Its leaders said, in essence, their organization’s money and real estate were going into an information black hole. They couldn’t get any data, and the nonprofit’s president could be stealing everything, for all they knew.

My office quickly decided to review the situation. We received documents, made sure there was no criminal conduct, and then met with the nonprofit’s officials.

At that meeting, the nonprofit’s leaders offered to dissolve and give everything to the agency.  Thus, at the end of the day, I never found out if Missouri’s laws on nonprofit transparency had been violated, but the perception of the nonprofit’s actions were so bad, it simply could not continue.

The lesson from this is to be as open as you possibly can. Nonprofit donors and the public expect complete transparency, and every year their expectations get higher. The expected level of nonprofit transparency is often well beyond the minimum required by state laws.

Lack of transparency, failure to disclose information, and other related topics are at the source of more complaints to state attorneys general than almost any other issue. People expect information, and if they don’t get it, they will complain.

But those complaints are not just a matter of unmet expectations. Those who complain to the authorities often leap to conclusions. Accusations of theft, waste, and conspiracy thrive in the absence of information. And while usually untrue, such allegations are not what you want a state regulator to read about your organization, nor do you want that accusation on a blog or Twitter feed.

What’s more, an information vacuum can create distrust, meaning potential donors may decide not to support your organization. I only receive the angry complaints or suggestions that something really bad is occurring at a nonprofit. I can only imagine how many more people decide simply to withhold donations or quietly discourage others from giving.

State laws do not always go so far as to require what is widely considered to be a best practice in the nonprofit world. But even so, I do tell nonprofits to operate with as much transparency as possible. For instance, financial information should not just be disclosed but also made easily accessible. The board chairman of the Carnegie Corporation of New York offered an excellent guideline in 1952: He said that foundations should operate with glass pockets. So, too, should all nonprofits.

Transparency sheds light on an organization’s practices, and that enhances incentives for ethical, efficient, and effective operations and facilitates oversight by the public and others, as noted by a Government Accountability Office report on tax-exempt groups.  All are worthy goals.

An organization that tries to follow the best practices on transparency can prevent government investigations.  On more than one occasion, when I have received a nasty complaint about a Missouri charity, I have decided that the allegation might be true. But upon doing a preliminary review online, I have found that the nonprofits in question were so transparent that I could verify that the complainers had it wrong, all without leaving my desk. Those nonprofits have no clue how close they came to large and embarrassing investigations.

We do whatever is needed to preserve the organization’s ability to serve its community.  At times, we need to act aggressively to make sure an organization that is vital to its community continues to fulfill its mission. This happens more often than most nonprofit directors and executives probably realize.

What it often boils down to is this: Sometimes we need to clean house. My favorite example of what can happen involves a case I pursued awhile back against an animal shelter in Missouri.

This shelter was quite important to its community. It was the only shelter in town and one of only three in the four-county area it served. It also had a stunningly beautiful donated campus whose size was measured in acres. But a few years ago, it dissolved into chaos.

We first got complaints about the shelter’s extremely poor financial practices. The board had no financial controls. There was a fair amount of cash in the shelter that was never documented or put somewhere secure. The treasurer’s bimonthly report to the board was usually that day’s bank-account balance written on the back of a torn envelope. Audits and financial statements didn’t exist. The predictable financial difficulties were jeopardizing the shelter’s operations and its beautiful campus.

The shelter’s animal care was even worse than its financial controls. The shelter suffered outbreaks of kennel cough and parvovirus at much higher rates than normal.

The high outbreak frequency was due to poor animal care including inadequate kennel cleaning and quarantines and a lack of frequent veterinarian visits. A few volunteers became so concerned with the shelter’s euthanasia rates, they staged what amounted to clandestine operations to save a few animals.

Then the most shocking allegation was proven true. The shelter’s executive director admitted on a local evening news show that he had put kittens in a freezer to euthanize them.

After our initial inquiries were rebuffed, the state sued every director and officer of the organization.

After some legal posturing, two colleagues and I sat down with the board to discuss the shelter. In the end, the executive director and two-thirds of the board resigned.

The remaining board appointed new members, found a very capable new executive director, and carried out a detailed overhaul plan both sides had drafted for a court to approve.

Through the efforts of its new board and executive director, the shelter is now the resource to its community that it is supposed to be.

What is important to recognize is that the real changes took place after the board met with the attorney general’s office.  Such meetings are much more common than most nonprofit executives and directors understand.

Except for the sensationalistic animal-care issues, this was not an unusual incident.

Charity regulators understand that if word of our investigation spreads, an organization’s fund raising could be harmed.  Thus, we prefer to handle these matters with little fanfare (although, if an executive director gives an interview to local TV news, there is little we can do).

Many nonprofit executives and directors have found themselves sitting across the table from a regulator who wants to know just why, exactly, the nonprofit they oversee has stopped serving its community.  And a few of those directors could have to resign, or worse.

To avoid these meetings (and the possible consequences), nonprofit board members and executives must abide by the easy-to-articulate but occasionally hard-to-follow principles of fiduciary duty:  Make sure your nonprofit is doing what it is supposed to do, and always make sure you have enough information to guarantee that. Always ask questions, demand answers, and never stop pushing your organization to excellence. Otherwise, you may get to meet with us.

The nonprofit executive had worked for three years to build his organization and donated a significant chunk of his life savings to it. His wife had volunteered for it, as had several friends. His goal was to help domestic-abuse victims, and he thought his approach was different—and better—than others. He had great plans, such as building a ranch for kids harmed by domestic violence, running a 24-hour crisis hotline, and creating a fund to provide financial assistance to victims. He set up the organization, got tax-exempt status, and then proceeded to solicit donations.

So why did the attorney general’s office take such a harsh action and force the organization to close?

In short, his solicitations for money were deceptive and he posed a significant danger to domestic-violence victims.

He sought donations by saying the kids’ ranch was hard at work when it did not even exist. What’s more, domestic-violence experts say such a place is unworkable and ill-advised.

He also had a toll-free number for his 24-hour hotline, but the line was rarely answered, and when it was, the operators lacked any sort of training. This was downright dangerous since a victim may have only one call to make. And he never awarded money to victims as he told donors he was doing. He had ideas for three other programs that were nowhere near reality, yet his fund-raising pitches said all three were fully functioning.

This episode offers lessons for others:

Don’t confuse dreams with reality. This executive director got in trouble because he represented his dreams as though they were reality. It is fine to solicit money for programs you wish to start, but it is not OK to tell donors those programs are operating when they are still just ideas.

Be honest in fund raising. This nonprofit went astray when the executive director succumbed to the temptation to make his programs sound better than they were. Soon his fund-raising pitches were becoming ever more distant from reality. He told donors what they wanted to hear and not what was actually going on at his nonprofit. And sometimes he was just wrong, such as when he said that many domestic-violence shelters separate mothers from their children. No legitimate shelters do that, and fear of separation could prevent victims from seeking aid at his organization—or anywhere else.

Recognize that dreams alone are not enough. People with big dreams make my state work, so I know we need them. But the best dreamers take small, tangible steps toward their goals. They don’t overreach and always seek to grow.

In this case, however, the wayward executive director wanted it all right away. He overreached, and now he cannot work on a mission he claimed to care deeply about. He tried to create a full-service domestic-violence advocacy organization from scratch. He did so without prior experience in domestic violence or in nonprofit management. He didn’t even consult with those who did. Had he focused on one program or, better yet, devoted his energies to helping an existing group, he might have succeeded.

Social-service groups must do no harm. The Hippocratic oath should not be just for doctors but also for anyone who helps people in vulnerable situations. Social-service leaders need to evaluate their programs and ask if they are truly helping those they serve. For those who have the resources, hiring an expert to conduct an evaluation is a great way to go.

In this case, the executive director believed his two high-profile programs, the hotline and kids’ ranch, would help domestic-violence victims. But the untrained hotline operators could easily lead a caller astray. And any domestic-violence expert would have told the nonprofit founder that a ranch for kids harmed by domestic violence is unworkable because such youngsters could face severe anxiety if they left family members for extended stretches.

All told, the executive director in this case collected $20,000 for a bunch of programs that didn’t exist or that could actually harm domestic-violence victims. His fund raising was taking money away from legitimate groups, and his actions were making all of Missouri’s domestic-violence advocates look bad. He made matters worse by resisting any expert advice on how to tweak his programs, and he refused to alter his fund-raising pitches. Thus we knew we had to act.

Of most concern to us was that his ignorance about domestic violence could lead a victim of abuse to stay in a bad situation, potentially followed by horrible consequences.

No law compels the government to act when a nonprofit doesn’t accomplish its program objectives. But attorneys general do have discretion when choosing a remedy or punishment. And harming innocent victims through fake or inept programs, while lying to donors, can make us choose a much harsher remedy.

The only parties present at the  meeting were the lender and the court-appointed receiver for the nonprofit’s assets.

When we asked about the status of the nonprofit, the lender told us that the board members had all resigned and that the nonprofit had no management.

Apparently, once the board of directors realized that the nonprofit was no longer financially viable, its members washed their hands of the whole affair.  The board passed a resolution allowing the lender to exercise its remedies under the loan documents and then disappeared.

As long as the nonprofit exists, however, the board has fiduciary duties to it. If a nonprofit is insolvent or otherwise can no longer fulfill its charitable mission, the board must ensure that the nonprofit winds down its affairs in an orderly fashion.

The board is responsible for ensuring that the nonprofit provides appropriate notices to state and federal regulators.  The board is also responsible for providing requested information to regulators. Board members cannot avoid these obligations by resigning and leaving the nonprofit with no leadership.

Legally the board is required to dissolve the nonprofit, but when it fails to do so, that responsibility falls to the regulators and the courts.

This process will probably involve subpoenas to members of the former board, which may require board members to retain personal legal counsel at their own expense.  What’s more, by resigning, board members may no longer have the benefit of directors’ and officer’ liability insurance.  Former board members may even be personally liable for actions done in the name of the nonprofit while it is unmanaged.

While it may seem easy in the short term to abandon a failing nonprofit, in the long term, it can be a costly proposition for board members.  It is far better to see the nonprofit safely through the dissolution process.

Embezzlement and other fraud are a huge drain on nonprofits’ ability to serve their communities. Yet I consistently see nonprofits doing less than the law requires them to do to punish thieves, and far less than the most they could do to recover the lost assets.

Over the past few years, my colleagues and I have consistently told numerous nonprofits they need to do more to penalize embezzlers. Executives and board members in charge of nonprofits have a fiduciary duty to protect their nonprofits’ assets and preserve their ability to provide services. If nonprofit leaders don’t do enough, they have breached their duty, and that could prompt their attorney general to take action.

Embezzlement happens. Before my presentations to nonprofit groups, I often search the local news outlets so I can have current example available to illustrate my points. And without fail I find at least two in the previous four months or so, and those are just the ones that nonprofits disclosed and journalists found worthy of reporting.

According to the best estimate I’ve seen–a 2007 study by four university scholars of accounting— nonprofits lose 13 percent of the total they collect in donations each year to fraud.

I don’t know why organizations fail to take enough action against someone who just ripped them off. But all too often, state attorneys general have had to inform nonprofits that they need to do more.

What should a savvy nonprofit do if an employee has embezzled?

Punish the offender. Some nonprofits don’t even take this crucial step. The scholars who conducted the 2007 study found that only 72 percent of organizations that had been victims of fraud decided to fire the employee who stole from them. Seven percent took no steps at all to punish such workers.

Report the embezzlement. Tell law-enforcement officials about the problem and cooperate with investigators in every way they can. Ideally, nonprofits will get a police report and then do everything possible to help the investigator or detective who follows up. It is much more embarrassing to tell a donor you didn’t even file a police report after her $50,000 donation disappeared than it is tell a police detective what happened.

Get the stolen money back. I am constantly frustrated by nonprofits that get ripped off by employees who broke their trust in heartbreaking fashion, yet fail to do anything to recover the money.

I understand that stolen funds often disappear, but that is not an excuse not to even try to find out if repayment is possible. Nonprofit leaders often ask me whether they’ve done enough if they have determined the embezzler can’t pay back the stolen funds. Nonprofits don’t have to pursue embezzlers beyond some point of diminishing returns, but only once have I ever said that a nonprofit had done enough.

In that case, the executive director of a shelter stole about $100,000 in cash and property over two years. After he was discovered, he committed suicide. Four days after his death, the shelter sued his spouse and mother to retrieve its property. Its swift and decisive response saved a great deal of its assets.

Some organizations I have spoken to about embezzlement have made the following excuses for inaction:

• “She is sincerely sorry for stealing, so we’re not going to terminate her.”
• ” We’re sorry for him, so we’re not going to try to get any repayment from him.”
• “Even though our executive director’s inaction allowed the theft, we’re going to trust him to follow up without any oversight”
• “We’re too embarrassed by this to tell: (a) the police, (b) our insurance company, or (c) our donors.”

Others have made the more understandable but still inappropriate excuses, to explain why no new safeguards were put in place:

• “We thought our external auditor would catch everything.”
• “His embezzlement was so creative that it could never happen again, so we’re not going to make any changes.”

As a regulator, these excuses cause me to think that a nonprofit is unwilling to protect its own money, unwilling to protect the trust its donors have placed in it, and unwilling to do what is needed to serve its constituents. And if it is unwilling to do that, the attorney general could be quite willing to take more drastic action for the nonprofit’s breach of fiduciary duty.

However, nonprofits need to understand this above all: If you do contact us for assistance in an embezzlement case, you will always receive the benefit of the doubt and whatever assistance we can offer in retrieving stolen assets.

At that moment, it occurred to me that most people running nonprofits don’t understand how active their attorneys general are, or even what those officials are supposed to do. Yet we have the power to dissolve whole organizations, require them to act in certain ways, remove their directors, and take numerous other actions.

A few high-profile cases handled by attorneys general do make the news, such as the state of Tennessee’s negotiations with Fisk University over its desire to sell an art collection it inherited from Georgia O’Keeffe. Most of our actions aren’t reported even though they have profound effects on the nonprofits involved—and could have the same consequences for other nonprofits.

In most states, the law says the attorney general is the guardian of charities and charitable assets. In short, we’re the watchdogs. But what do we do? Where do we come from? How do we guard the public interest? And when and how do we dissolve a nonprofit or give you a new set of directors?  Those are the kinds of questions we will seek to answer in our blog posts.

We’ll discuss the myriad actions that states take against nonprofits and try to help you avoid getting stuck in similar situations. We also hope our perspective can inspire you to improve what you do and to go beyond the mere legal minimum required of nonprofits. We hope we can provide insight into what the regulators see and what we believe merits government action.

Each week my colleagues throughout the country and I will post our thoughts about current matters of concern. But we want this to be a conversation, so we urge you to tell us how you perceive our actions and how we can better help nonprofits achieve their potential. Don’t worry that you’ll offend us with anything you post – as government officials, we’ve already been called every name in the book.

Certainly BP’s public reputation is in terrible straits but another casualty is the reputation of the Nature Conservancy, which has embraced a working relationship with BP. See the first-rate reporting by Joe Stephens of the Washington Post, who broke this story. The Nature Conservancy-BP dustup has important lessons for all charities to bear in mind.

The simple reality is that at its core, the Nature Conservancy believes in having working relationships with corporations active in certain environmentally sensitive industries.

Yes, you can still hug a tree even if it’s covered in oil.

Readers can agree or disagree with the Nature Conservancy’s special relationship with industry, such as that with BP. However, it is not the relationship with BP but rather how the Nature Conservancy has mishandled its relationship that has caused it harm and damaged its reputation to the public and donors.

How a charity manages a major corporate donor can be of vital importance to protecting the charity’s reputation.

First, the charity should make certain that any significant donation from a corporation (say, over $25,000) is made public and information on the donation is easily available on its Web site.

The charity should make clear what the funds will be used for as well as any role the corporation may have with the charity and its work.

It is the rare corporation that is not happy to announce its good work. Also the charity should make clear if it has any relationship with the corporation such as a seat on the corporate board or outside contracts. But watch out for conflicts-of-interest — a sea of troubles.

The Nature Conservancy was viewed as less than forthcoming about the extent of its relationship with BP when it first started talking and blogging about the gulf oil spill.

In addition, while the Nature Conservancy did have information about BP and its relationship with the company on its Web site, I understand it was not a walk in the park to find all the relevant information.

After-the-fact proclamations of innocence fall on deaf ears when it takes digging to discover the full picture — base reasons for donations and other activities are given greater credence.

Being open, transparent, and candid about the relationship with a major corporate donor from the beginning is a better place to be.

Second, depending on the size of the gift (both dollar amount and proportion of budget) and the role of the corporation with the charity (board member, adviser) the charity needs to consider the public face it is presenting with this relationship — similar to a corporation when considering a public spokesman.

This public image is particularly important if the corporation is closely identified with the charity’s own mission and goals — for example, a pharmaceutical company that produces vaccines for children and a charity devoted to the health of children.

When a charity promotes a public relationship, the public naturally views the charity as “laying hands” on the corporation — again, especially if the charity and the corporation are occupying the same field.

The charity should weigh the reputation of the corporation with which it is forging a public relationship. It should consider whether the corporation is conducting best practices and if it a good corporate steward.

Finally, when bad days happen for the corporation, the charity needs to re-evaluate its relationship and make clear that the charity’s mission and goals come first. This is not to say drop and run at the first bad news story but rather that the charity needs to have its eyes open and ask the hard questions and insist on best practices.

When a major corporate sponsor is seen as a bad actor, it can bring into question the charity’s reputation as well. The charity and its board need to respond quickly and aggressively to protect the charity’s reputation and charitable mission.

By contrast, the Nature Conservancy wore kid gloves in its handling of its relationship with BP at the beginning of the spill — to the detriment of its role as a leader in environmental issues and the consternation of many of its donors.

It is my understanding that finally — after much damage to the charity — the Nature Conservancy stated this week in a live chat on its Web site that it is revisiting its relationship with BP and the actions of BP before and after the spill. Good marks for finally making the correct decision, but TNC board and leadership shouldn’t have taken this long to arrive at the obvious.

It is perhaps easy to look at the Nature Conservancy-BP imbroglio as something that would happen only to the other fellow.

Charities commonly have special relationships with large corporate donors. Those special relationships can bring much benefit. But more attention must be paid by charities to ensure that that corporate relationship is above board, open, and transparent and is always in the best interest of the charity and its mission.

Anyone with an interest in the charitable sector and its future success should attend.

The discussion is focused exactly on the issue that is first in the minds of policymakers in Washington who are interested in the tax-exempt sector: whether there is merit to a broader review and consideration of what is a charity. More specifically, should there be an effort to distinguish between types of charities?

The symposium is moderated by Professor Roger Colinvaux. It is rare that I am more interested in what the moderator has to say than the speakers (although the speakers in this case are of great interest as well).

Professor Colinvaux, formerly on the Joint Committee on Taxation, is on any short list of the people that members of Congress respect and listen to closely when it comes to charitable issues.

On the panel will be Diana Aviv. head of Independent Sector; Richard L. Schmalbeck, a professor of law at Duke University; Eugene Steuerle, a fellow at the  Urban Institute, a Washington think tank; and Russ Sullivan, chief of staff of the Senate Finance Committee and an aide to its chairman, Sen. Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana. This is a first-rate group.

As I noted in my previous column, one of the dangers for a charity’s board seeking to protect the organization’s reputation is when there is little to distinguish the charity’s activities from a for-profit business.

The public and Congress have a high expectation that a charity should act in a manner that provides real separation from the work of similarly situated for-profit companies.

Where there is concern that a charitable sector is not providing a benefit commensurate with its tax-exempt status, Congress has often engaged in industry-specific reforms – most recently with sweeping reforms of nonprofit hospitals included in the health bill and earlier changes in requirements for credit-counseling organizations. The new Form 990 also does much to place greater emphasis on what charitable activities an organization conducts compared with other efforts.

The question for tomorrow is should we move beyond just reforming certain sectors but instead look at broader changes to the subsidies for charities? For example, should there be line drawn that would allow for greater tax subsidies to charities that provide direct support to the poor? What lines should be drawn? What lines can be drawn?

All close readers of The Chronicle of Philanthropy are familiar with the significant number of charities that look, walk, and talk like a business. I commend to your reading an absolutely outstanding article by David Hilzenrath of The Washington Post called Charity Boosts Profits of Erickson Retirement Communities.

Readers may also find of interest The Chronicle’s own good recent article by Caroline Preston, Nonprofit Group Attacks Humane Society Over Spending of Donations, and a 2009 CBS news report, FBI Eyes Charity Linked to Rep. Murtha, by Sharyl Attkisson and Laura Strickler.

And just as a reminder, a 2007 Washington Post article by Philip Rucker, Panel Probes Spending of Veterans Charities.

These articles should serve as sober reading for tomorrow’s symposium. I welcome readers providing their own examples.

Readers can make their own judgment as to whether there should be any separation of treatment in terms of tax benefits that the charities mentioned in the articles cited here receive—benefits that we all subsidize—and, say, the Salvation Army.

At a time of skyrocketing deficits and significant increases in taxes (with more on the way) policymakers (including those at the state and local levels) cannot miss the opportunity to scrutinize the costly subsidies provided to tax-exempt entities and weigh that with the benefit they provide to the public. The charitable sector should be leaders in that discussion. I welcome your thoughts and comments about this idea just below this post.

Notwithstanding the power of prayer, leaders in the charitable community seeking to avoid letters from senators would do well to take a hard look at their organizations and ask fundamental questions.

The paramount question for the leaders of a charity to ask: What is our organization’s charitable goal and mission and how do we accomplish that mission?

To go further, is the mission (and are the related accomplishments) of our organization something that can be understood by a grandmother, and do our accomplishments justify the tax breaks we receive and that are subsidized by the community?

Setting aside the desire to avoid correspondence with senators, the need for 501(c)(3) organizations to have a well-articulated charitable mission coupled with concrete and measureable accomplishments is a here-and-now issue given the recent decision by the Illinois Supreme Court in Provena. The Illinois case upholds the denial of a charitable hospital’s exemption from property tax on the grounds that the hospital had failed to provide sufficient charitable work.

This landmark case — which many view as a major victory for the poor — should be must reading for every charity executive. As state and local governments are desperate for revenues, you can expect  that more charities will face questions about their exemptions from certain state and local taxes.

As charities revisit their mission and goals, here are some basic guidelines:  If the organization is providing services for a fee, the pull and effort should be toward those services that are free to the poor, discounted to people with low incomes, and fairly priced to others. Note: This doesn’t mean increasing the amount you charge low-income families and then providing them a discount from the inflated price—see Footnote 4 of the Provena decision.  

A charitable leader also needs to compare her organization to similar for-profit businesses and articulate a strong case as to how the tax-exempt organization significantly differentiates itself — to the benefit of the public.

It is charities that walk, talk, and quack like a for-profit entity with no clear charitable mission and accomplishments that will often find themselves subject to questions by the Congress, press, donors, and now their state and local government. 

Call it what you want — organized and operated exclusively for charitable purposes, serving public rather than private interests, or providing public benefits commensurate with your resources — each is grounded on a simple notion, and each, if followed, will serve as a north star to help guide a charity away from the rocks and shoals.  

There are some real steps that charities can take today — to the benefit of their goals and missions — that will do much to avoid getting an unwelcome bill from the state or local government or a letter from the Senate tomorrow. 

Welcome to The Watchdog, a new Chronicle blog written by Dean Zerbe, a lawyer in the Washington office of alliant Group and the former senior counsel to Sen. Charles E. Grassley.

Mr. Zerbe is best known in the nonprofit world as a top adviser to Mr. Grassley when he chaired the powerful Senate Finance Committee. In that role, Mr. Zerbe was a key player in Congressional efforts to fight charity abuses.

In addition to helping to pass the Pension Protection Act in 2006 — which instituted new curbs on nonprofit activities as well as new giving incentives — Mr. Zerbe also helped Mr. Grassley undertake numerous investigations of charity abuses.

More recently, Mr. Zerbe has fought back attempts to weaken provisions in the Pension Protection Act that were designed to fight nonprofit abuses.

His new blog will discuss the intersection between the charity world and government — with a particular emphasis on taxation and governance.