Post by account_disabled on Feb 28, 2024 2:34:37 GMT -5
Among some of the absurdities that have arisen with the debate on the 3de3 Law, promoted by the Mexican Institute of Competitiveness and Mexican Transparency and signed by more than 600 thousand citizens, is including every organization to present declarations if they receive public resources. Some political analysts, columnists and commentators have described this action as a reversal. It is true that the entire Transparency System that we want to build with solid legal bases instead of leaving things simple, is becoming more and more complicated and the interweaving of legal precepts of various laws makes it complex and practically leads to opacity. . In the scenario of demanding transparency from all public officials, faced with the overwhelming fatigue of citizens, many politicians turn their eyes towards the philanthropic sector and treat it with suspicion, and again and again we hear that philanthropy in Mexico has few controls, that organizations go it alone, that they are not accountable, etc.; situation that does happen with political parties. In this regard, it is worth reminding the reader that the philanthropic sector has been one of the first to transform and emerge from the opacity that it once championed with statements such as: “it is top secret information”, “we cannot reveal our sources of financing (other than for anonymity because they saw a threat that another organization would take away their donor), etc. However, now it has created robust bases for its actions, where the government itself has given it other instruments to know the origin and destination of the resources that organizations receive. Let's look at some of the elements of transparency and accountability and the reasons why they became consolidated as a common and mandatory practice for civil society organizations that receive public resources or donations from both government entities and individuals.
The history of transparency in the Mexican Phone Number List third sector In the 1970s, perhaps there was some reason for organizations that had no public incentive to formalize their work. We did not then have a tax regime that would encourage the creation of organizations, much less was it considered possible to aspire to public financing. Therefore, hundreds of organizations considered it useless to formalize and warned that doing so meant paying taxes without receiving any benefits in return. In the following decade, a time that coincides with the promotion of the professionalization of the management and work of these organizations, various relevant actions were taken both locally and internationally. For example, at an international level, some organizations of fund attorneys worked to create a code of ethics that professionals would observe, somewhat to standardize practices but above all to organize the services offered by fund attorneys who worked “piece-rate” or with high commission copper. That is, those who obtained resources from donors and charged the organization a certain percentage that even amounted to between 10 and 20% of the amount donated without the donor knowing. Organizations such as the Association for Fundrasing Professionals, in coalition with others, drafted a code of ethics that now governs almost the entire world, which guides the actions of hired fundraisers. The spirit of that document is based on not lying to the donor and guaranteeing that 100% of his contribution is allocated to the cause that motivated him to make a donation. The next step up was based on increasing trust between the organization and the donor so that the donor could continue providing resources. So we have that the actions of transparency and accountability became institutionalized. Since then, it was understood that information had to be shared with donors about how their money was used, the changes they produced, and the financial health of the organization.
The 1990s found organizations strengthening the philanthropic sector with the development of courses, workshops and other resources to guarantee transparency. One of the substantial changes was to instruct the Boards of Directors and Boards to see themselves as a group of people who did not represent the organization in the community, but on the contrary: the members of any board represent the community within the organization and They verify that what is said is done. In essence it was to recover the former concept of stewardship. In the first years of the new century, various organizations promoted an appropriate legal framework for the sector and continue to insist that the government consider the philanthropic sector as an ally for the development and attention of needs that are not sufficiently addressed by its agencies. Thus were born the Laws of Social Assistance, Social Development and the transcendent Law of Promotion of the Activities of Civil Organizations that pushed changes to the Income Tax Law. The spectrum of causes susceptible to receiving donations (public and private) has been expanded but this task is not yet consolidated. The authority provided the transparency report that every authorized donee must observe on a mandatory basis, which indicates the origin of the donations, identifying the federal taxpayer registry of the donor and the destination of the resources. This information is public and can be consulted on the Tax Administration System page. Towards the end of that decade, one of the government's greatest suspicions towards the sector, citing a lack of transparency and accountability, was considering that philanthropic organizations could launder money from illicit activities such as drug trafficking. Then, some responsibilities that increase transparency practices were included in the Federal Law for the Prevention and Identification of Operations with Resources of Illicit Origin.
The history of transparency in the Mexican Phone Number List third sector In the 1970s, perhaps there was some reason for organizations that had no public incentive to formalize their work. We did not then have a tax regime that would encourage the creation of organizations, much less was it considered possible to aspire to public financing. Therefore, hundreds of organizations considered it useless to formalize and warned that doing so meant paying taxes without receiving any benefits in return. In the following decade, a time that coincides with the promotion of the professionalization of the management and work of these organizations, various relevant actions were taken both locally and internationally. For example, at an international level, some organizations of fund attorneys worked to create a code of ethics that professionals would observe, somewhat to standardize practices but above all to organize the services offered by fund attorneys who worked “piece-rate” or with high commission copper. That is, those who obtained resources from donors and charged the organization a certain percentage that even amounted to between 10 and 20% of the amount donated without the donor knowing. Organizations such as the Association for Fundrasing Professionals, in coalition with others, drafted a code of ethics that now governs almost the entire world, which guides the actions of hired fundraisers. The spirit of that document is based on not lying to the donor and guaranteeing that 100% of his contribution is allocated to the cause that motivated him to make a donation. The next step up was based on increasing trust between the organization and the donor so that the donor could continue providing resources. So we have that the actions of transparency and accountability became institutionalized. Since then, it was understood that information had to be shared with donors about how their money was used, the changes they produced, and the financial health of the organization.
The 1990s found organizations strengthening the philanthropic sector with the development of courses, workshops and other resources to guarantee transparency. One of the substantial changes was to instruct the Boards of Directors and Boards to see themselves as a group of people who did not represent the organization in the community, but on the contrary: the members of any board represent the community within the organization and They verify that what is said is done. In essence it was to recover the former concept of stewardship. In the first years of the new century, various organizations promoted an appropriate legal framework for the sector and continue to insist that the government consider the philanthropic sector as an ally for the development and attention of needs that are not sufficiently addressed by its agencies. Thus were born the Laws of Social Assistance, Social Development and the transcendent Law of Promotion of the Activities of Civil Organizations that pushed changes to the Income Tax Law. The spectrum of causes susceptible to receiving donations (public and private) has been expanded but this task is not yet consolidated. The authority provided the transparency report that every authorized donee must observe on a mandatory basis, which indicates the origin of the donations, identifying the federal taxpayer registry of the donor and the destination of the resources. This information is public and can be consulted on the Tax Administration System page. Towards the end of that decade, one of the government's greatest suspicions towards the sector, citing a lack of transparency and accountability, was considering that philanthropic organizations could launder money from illicit activities such as drug trafficking. Then, some responsibilities that increase transparency practices were included in the Federal Law for the Prevention and Identification of Operations with Resources of Illicit Origin.