January 07, 2008
Grant Maker Demotes Chief Executive After He Disguises His Identity Online
By Ian Wilhelm
The Board of Directors of GiveWell, a grant maker set up to help other donors with giving decisions, has removed Holden Karnofsky as its executive director and board secretary after he was caught last week using online aliases to promote GiveWell.
Mr. Karnofsky, who helped establish the New York group last year, will now serve as a program officer and enter a professional-training program, the board said in a statement released Sunday on the group’s Web site. In addition, Mr. Karnofsky must pay a “financial penalty,” though the board did not say how much he was assessed.
“The Board believes that the acts of misrepresentation that were committed are indefensible and are in direct conflict with the goals of the organization, and we condemn them in the strongest possible terms,” the board said.
GiveWell is now searching for a new chief executive. Tim Ogden, a member of GiveWell’s board, will serve as interim board secretary.
GiveWell calls itself the “world’s first completely transparent charitable grant maker” and wants to assist other donors by putting online its decisions about what causes to support and how it evaluates charities.
But Mr. Karnofsky’s dedication to being public about the group’s operations was called into question last week.
On Metafilter, an online message board, Mr. Karnofsky promoted GiveWell without identifying himself. In one message he asked for ideas on how to choose a charity to support and then “answered” as another writer by touting GiveWell’s evaluations of nonprofit groups.
A Metafilter member uncovered the self-promotion, which violated the Web site’s rules, and announced the discovery on the message board.
Mr. Karnofsky quickly apologized and said that he had a “horrible lapse of judgment” by hiding his identity. He also offered to make a contribution to Metafilter to compensate for his mistake – an offer that was derided by Metafilter contributors as a bribe.
Metafilter members found other examples of Mr. Karnofsky’s praising GiveWell as an anonymous source, including instances where he criticized other nonprofit groups.
For example, on Luxist.com, a message board on personal finance, Mr. Karnofsky questioned an article that suggested readers support DonorsChoose, another charity that assists donors.
“Why DonorsChoose? Why not one of a trillion other charities?” he wrote, identified only as “Holden.” He went on to suggest GiveWell as a superior alternative.
Mr. Karnofsky’s actions prompted an angry outpouring on numerous philanthropic blogs, with writers upset by the contradiction between his behavior and GiveWell’s mission.
“The issue isn’t just a mistake — it’s hypocrisy,” Jeff Trexler, a professor of social entrepreneurship at Pace University, wrote on his blog, Uncivilsociety.org.
While the Board of Directors has removed Mr. Karnofsky as leader of GiveWell, it defended his intentions for setting up the fund.
“While we are removing him from the Executive Director position, we believe that his previous contributions outside of the acts noted above have demonstrated a commitment to the goals of the organization and have been important to accomplishing GiveWell’s work,” the board said.
On Metafilter, the online message board where the controversy originated, members appeared divided over the move. Some wrote that the punishment wasn’t harsh enough, but others said it was satisfactory.
Comments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: Nonprofit Leaders Question Presidential Contenders
Next: Direct-Mail Appeals Suffer, New Survey Finds
Thank you for sharing this. It is one of the most unbiased reports on this subject that I have read thus far.
I think it is also important to add that Holden publicly admitted to using 10 employees email addresses to continue his deceptive business tactics. He did this without their knowledge or permission.
As many others have pointed out across various sites, this type of behavior is especially damaging to industries that rely on public trust. Holden and his partner Elie (who has also been found to engage in “astroturfing” tactics, but has yet to be held accountable) have destroyed that trust–not only for GiveWell, but for all of the other charity aggregators, NPOs, and the taxpaying public, who provide the fuel to make the who thing go. Sadly, the time, energy and money now must be spent on damage control, being the PR nightmare that it is. And it does the biggest disservice to those who truly need help.
I hope that this whole GiveWell disaster becomes an example that is shared in schools everywhere. It is an important lesson in philosophy, finance, law, ethics, sociology and internet communities, education, language and communication, business, and humanity.
— iamkimiam Jan 7, 01:20 PM #
I mis-quoted when I wrote “10 employees email addresses”. According to Holden’s own admission in the MetaTalk thread (also covered in the Wiki page), he sent 10 separate emails, from one “borrowed” address. His deception is still as egregious as ever–and it is just as important to get the sharing of facts straight.
— iamkimiam Jan 7, 01:46 PM #
The regional associations of grant makers, community foundations and affinity groups of the Council on Foundations are an excellent source of information and support for individuals, estate lawyers and businesses who seek assistance in making sound decisions about their philanthropy. A simple phone call to any of these donor-focused organizations is likely to result in a conversation with a knowledgable professional who can steer philanthropists to worthy and effective charities.
— Sylvia Salas Jan 8, 08:44 AM #
I think that entitled brat should have been completely fired. He gives a bad name to young people everywhere who are trying to make a difference and be taken seriously.
— annon Jan 14, 11:29 PM #
A curious aspect of the Givewell debacle is that several well regarded publications – the NY Times, Wall Street Journal and, of course, the Chronicle of Philanthropy – gave such major play to a nascent organization with no track record whatsoever. I think it underscores the fact that many in the field of philanthropy focus excessively on what is new, while proven, established programs seem like yesterday’s news. As an earlier post notes, there are various existing resources available to help donors make more informed giving decisions. My own organization, the Standards for Excellence Institute, operates a rigorous, peer-review accreditation program for charities that includes a review of whether the charity has a meaningful system in place for evaluating the progress it is making toward achieving its mission. More than 190 charities in five states have earned the Standards for Excellence seal and the certification is now available nationally. Perhaps we all ought to pay more attention to what’s out there and working.
— Peter Berns Jan 15, 11:26 PM #