As of this writing, 43.94% believe Armstrong should remain as Chairman of the Livestrong board while 49.24% believe he should resign from the board. So, you’re correct in the sense that more folks think he should resign than think he should remain as Board Chair. However, an additional 6.82% believe that, while he should resign as Chairman, he should remain on the Livestrong board. In other words, 50.76% of respondents believe Armstrong should either remain as Chairman or, at least, remain as a regular board member of the Foundation. So, there’s actually a slight majority of folks who believe he should remain with Livestrong.

If in fact Lance becomes a detriment to the Livestrong Fdn.,, I would agree with you, but as one of your comments noted, Livestrong raised $80,000 online after the announcement, which was $3,000 more than it earned previously. (I do not recall if that was in the prior month or during the same time last year.) It would seem that to date he is not hurting the Fdn. despite the fact your poll seems to indicate more people believe that he should resign.

But this is a decision that the Fdn. Board must make as they have a fiduciary duty to donors and beneficiaries to, as you indicate, pursue the best interests of the Fdn.; not Lance Armstrong.

As for Lance Armstrong, you suggest that character matters. I’ll just suggest that if his character strengths matter, so should his character weaknesses. At the point his character becomes a liability rather than an asset, that’s the point he should resign.

My feeling is that there should have been a statute of limitation on pursing these charges. He passed all anti-doping tests he took. Enough is enough, BUT, assuming for argument sake that he did oxygenate his blood, it does not diminish his win over cancer or the work he and the Foundation have done.

As a former Director of a Foundation, I would not ask such a public and well respected individual to resign. Yes, some of that respect came as a result of the sport in which he engaged and the number of wins, but the greatest part of that respect comes from the example he has set for those suffering from cancer and giving hope to the families that their love one may have the ability to survive like Lance.

I appreciate that you jump right in with intelligent conversations about the charity/fundraising aspect of media “scandals” like this and some of the other ones that you have covered.

It’s a bold move that few are willing to put their brand on the line to do, but it’s helpful to have your thoughts and the discussion created by your readers.

In the social-profit sector, it’s important for fundraising professionals to think through these ethical considerations in advance of the (rare) chance that they will have to face a similar situation at their own organization in future.

We’ve had a similar situation this year in Canada regarding the David Suzuki foundation where Suzuki had to step down from his own charity – it was not so much a scandal as a political move, but you may want to read some of the press around that for perspective.

My opinion on LIVESTRONG – it’s up to the board and Lance to decide how they can continue to have the best impact on their mission – with or without him on board. That’s why (I assume) it’s a public foundation and not a private one – therefore, unfair to say that it’s “his charity.”

A strange example from history lies in the foundations of the Cistercian monastic order (sometimes known today as Trappists). Their founder is not well-known, but their second leader, Bernard of Clairvaux, stands out in history as an amazingly prolific man who had a huge “media” presence in his day – as much as you could say that there was a media in the 12thC. The name of his home monastery was “Clairvaux” and they eventually started naming him by that name as well – so similar to today’s use of personal name associated with foundation name.

The cistercian foundation has continued for several centuries now, has produced incredible leaders and recognized saints (seeing as “holiness” is its purpose, this accomplishment matches their mission). So I have hope that if LIVESTRONG or any other foundation is meeting a relevant need and fitting with a Zeitgeist, then the coming and going of charismatic leaders, founders and namesakes should not hamper it’s successes.

http://www.ocso.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=122&Itemid=178&lang=en

(yes, those hours spent reading medieval history in Latin have paid off…)

Christina @GPtekkie