IoF and PFRA due to merge at end of July

first_img“The PFRA has achieved a huge amount since it was formed and was rightly credited during last year’s inquiries as being at the forefront of improving fundraising standards. That’s why we at the IoF are so excited to be moving towards a merger and are confident that this will ensure we have a single membership body driving best practice and speaking with one voice”.Paul Stallard, Chair of the PFRA added:“Our Board have rightly recognised the huge opportunities this merger presents to expand our compliance work into new forms of fundraising. We have worked hard over the last decade to strengthen street and door-to-door fundraising and we are now going one step further. The events of last year showed there can be no gaps in self-regulation if we are to preserve public trust, so I strongly believe this merger will provide an excellent platform to help our members deliver even higher standards of fundraising.” IoF and PFRA due to merge at end of July  159 total views,  2 views today AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis10 The boards of the Institute of Fundraising and Public Fundraising Association (PFRA) have unanimously agreed the merger of the organisations to produce a single membership body for fundraisers in the UK, and one which offers a new range of compliance services for the membership.A final decision to ratify the merger agreement will take place at the PFRA’s AGM on 15th June, with the merger due to be completed by 31 July.The merger was proposed last year as part of the Etherington review into the self-regulation of fundraising, following criticism by some media of some fundraising practices.The Boards took their decisions “in the best interests of the fundraising community”.The reserves and assets of the PFRA will be transferred to the merged organisation. These will be ring-fenced under a three year agreement ending in July 2019, and used by the Institute for the purposes of supporting and furthering compliance in public fundraising.Compliance serviceThe current Chief Executive of the PFRA, Peter Hills-Jones, will take up a new position as Director of Fundraising Compliance at the Institute of Fundraising. Staff currently employed by the PFRA will become the Fundraising Compliance Directorate. There will be “no redundancies” as part of the merger according to the Institute.The PFRA has already established a mystery shopping programme for private site fundraising which involves a six month pilot programme launching on 1 April. It will gather information on current standards.New sub-committeesFollowing the merger, the Institute will create three new sub-committees of the main Board of Trustees – Door-to-Door Fundraising; Street and Private Site Fundraising; and Telephone Compliance.  Existing PFRA Directors will sit on the committee most closely related to their role and expertise. The committee chairs will be selected by the IoF and the PFRA.A full consultation will be launched next month, with a series of ‘Question and Answer’ sessions scheduled to allow PFRA members to discuss the proposal with Trustees of the IoF and Directors of the PFRA.Richard Taylor, Chair of the Institute of Fundraising said: Advertisement About Howard Lake Howard Lake is a digital fundraising entrepreneur. Publisher of UK Fundraising, the world’s first web resource for professional fundraisers, since 1994. Trainer and consultant in digital fundraising. Founder of Fundraising Camp and co-founder of GoodJobs.org.uk. Researching massive growth in giving. Howard Lake | 17 March 2016 | News  158 total views,  1 views today Tagged with: face-to-face Institute of Fundraising Law / policy Management PFRA AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis10last_img read more

Judge Blocks Indiana’s Attempt To Limit Birth Certificate Ruling

first_imgJudge Blocks Indiana’s Attempt To Limit Birth Certificate RulingMarilyn Odendahl for www.the indianalawyer.comIndiana’s motion to alter the judgment allowing both females in a same-sex marriage to be listed on their child’s birth certificate was met with a sharp caution from the bench about re-litigating or attempting to limit the court’s order.Judge Tanya Walton Pratt of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, issued a ruling Dec. 30 granting in part and denying in part the state’s motion to alter or amend judgment in Ashlee Henderson and Ruby Henderson, et al. v Dr. Jerome Adams, et al., 1:15-cv-00220.The Hendersons and seven other female, same-sex married couples and their children had filed a complaint against the state because the birth certificates only listed the birth mother as a parent.Finding that Indiana was discriminating against these women and violating the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses, the court entered a permanent injunction preventing the state from withholding the presumption of parenthood to female, same-sex spouses of birth mothers.The state responded to the June 2016 ruling with a motion asking the court to modify and clarify the declaratory judgment and permanent injunction.In particular, it requested the court remove its order barring the state from enforcing the “born in wedlock” and “born out of wedlock” statutes. Indiana argued the plaintiffs lack standing because the law only applies to adoption proceedings.However, the court provided a reminder that the state’s Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 59(e) motion is not an opportunity to re-litigate motions.Pratt wrote, “Because the State Defendant has failed to point out a manifest error of law or fact and seems to simply relitigate its argument from its summary judgment reply brief, the Court DENIES the Motion to Amend Judgment regarding the request to remove any declaration or injunction directed at Indiana Code 31-9-2-15 and 31-9-2-16.”Again, the court fired back when the state asked for clarification of whether the permanent injunction applied only to wives of birth mothers who conceived through artificial insemination by an anonymous donor.The court noted that nowhere in its order were “anonymous donors” discussed or considered.“The Order means what it says and says what it means,” Pratt wrote. “It applies to female, same-sex spouses of birth mothers and children born to a birth mother who is married to a same-sex spouse. It does not apply additional limitations as the State Defendant questions.”FacebookTwitterCopy LinkEmailSharelast_img read more