FLI does some initial vetting and fails to discover important facts about Nya Dagbladet.
FLI informs SND of its intent to issue the grant (because it does intend to do so).
SND asks for a letter of intent in writing (possibly to include it in the filing to register as an official foundation), which FLI agrees to.
FLI does fresh due diligence, uncovering issues.
FLI informs SND they won’t issue the grant after all.
This doesn’t seem like lying to me—the only issue I see is that the vetting at stage (2) wasn’t good enough, and this seems like something FLI will work on improving. FLI’s telling SND it intended to issue a grant would only seem like lying, I think, if FLI actually suspected it would discover issues with SND later on, or otherwise suspected they wouldn’t actually end up issuing the grant. But presumably the vast majority of grants pass due diligence just fine, and FLI wouldn’t have communicated an intent to issue the grant in the first place if it thought it wouldn’t actually go through with it.
Is that really the way you see an “intent to transfer the grant amount promptly”? Sanjay, tell me with a straight face that there is no attempt to mislead here.
This seems needlessly combative to me. One of the norms of this forum is to be kind, and I think this sounds unkind.
I will try to be kinder. Apologies, I am new here.
According to the letter FLI sent, the only reason they did not issue the grant already is the lack of registration. Assuming they did not lie, this means, hypothetically, if SND was registered, FLI would have granted them $100,000 instead of writing this letter.
Do you see the issue with FLI granting $100,000 to neo-Nazis? I understand that they didn’t end up granting it, but according to the FLI letter that was a fluke. If SND happened to be registered, the grant would have been paid out. Or at least, that what the letter says. (They say clearly the grant has been approved, and the problem with paying it out is the registration.)
Maybe they are lying in the letter! But if not, FLI was going to give $100,000 to neo-Nazis and lucked out due to the fact they weren’t registered.
My problem now is that FLI does not express contrition for this. At no point do they go “oh no, we almost sent out $100,000 to neo-Nazis!” and at no point do they go “oh no, the letter we sent to SND said the grant has been approved when it wasn’t, so that misleads people, we are so sorry for misleading people”.
FLI says neither of these things. They pretend, instead, that they never sent out a letter approving the grant and intending to pay it out ASAP. They pretend they merely provisionally approved it subject to another vetting stage. But either that’s false or else they lied in their letter.
This seems inaccurate.
Yes, the original letter says that the grant has been approved.
I am not too familiar with how these grants usually go, but the wording of the letter seems similar to what our local EA group received for our grant application, i.e. your grant has been approved, now fill out some due diligence forms please. I can imagine that people familiar with grantmaking are of the understanding that approving a grant does not entail an unconditional agreement that the grant will be paid out.
That is, SND was very likely aware that there was still a due diligence process to come. If the FAQ is to be believed, SND misrepresented their political positions, and thus they cannot complain about failing the due diligence step.
It would be helpful for tentative-grant approval letters to be clear about what the remaining conditions are. Unfortunately, this letter mentioned one specific condition and implied that payment would occur promptly after it was met, which could give the impression that other preconditions had been satisfied.
Like you, I have a hard time mustering any sympathy for the would-be grantee here. But I think it’s easily foreseeable that an organization might show a letter like this to a third party in order to secure action by the third party. Indeed, that may be the most likely reason for requesting a formal letter of intent. Thus, the standard letter of intent should have language that is sufficient to put the third party on notice of the risk of rejection and nonpayment.
Please post the letter your local EA group received, then.
I agree that if the norm is “everyone lies in grant commitment letters, that’s normal”, then it makes the story better. I do not actually believe there is such a norm (and of course, if there is one, it’s a bad one).
And if what you say is true, then the commitment letter is a lie, to be clear—the letter specifically says the grant will be paid out promptly, as soon as SND registers as a non-profit. It clearly says this registration status is the only barrier left.
When I was hired for a job, there was indeed a point at which I got an offer pending on a background check. But the offer letter was clear that this offer was conditional; this FLI letter is not like that.
I think if I was issuing grants, I would use misleading language in such a letter to make it less likely that the grantee organization can’t get registered for some bureaucracy reasons. It’s possible to mention that to the grantee in an email or call too to not cause any confusion. My guess would be that that’s what happened here but that’s just my 2 cents. I have no relevant expertise.
I agree this seems likely. I think it’s bad to use misleading language to help neo-Nazi organizations pass bureaucratic checks, though, and I’m concerned that FLI showed no remorse for this.
My guess is that what happened here is related to Tegmark’s brother—the brother wanted SND to be registered and had the organization ask FLI for a letter. I’m not sure, though, and I think the information we’ve received so far from FLI is insufficient and likely deceptive.
Here’s what I understand happened:
FLI considers the grant to SND.
FLI does some initial vetting and fails to discover important facts about Nya Dagbladet.
FLI informs SND of its intent to issue the grant (because it does intend to do so).
SND asks for a letter of intent in writing (possibly to include it in the filing to register as an official foundation), which FLI agrees to.
FLI does fresh due diligence, uncovering issues.
FLI informs SND they won’t issue the grant after all.
This doesn’t seem like lying to me—the only issue I see is that the vetting at stage (2) wasn’t good enough, and this seems like something FLI will work on improving. FLI’s telling SND it intended to issue a grant would only seem like lying, I think, if FLI actually suspected it would discover issues with SND later on, or otherwise suspected they wouldn’t actually end up issuing the grant. But presumably the vast majority of grants pass due diligence just fine, and FLI wouldn’t have communicated an intent to issue the grant in the first place if it thought it wouldn’t actually go through with it.
This seems needlessly combative to me. One of the norms of this forum is to be kind, and I think this sounds unkind.
I will try to be kinder. Apologies, I am new here.
According to the letter FLI sent, the only reason they did not issue the grant already is the lack of registration. Assuming they did not lie, this means, hypothetically, if SND was registered, FLI would have granted them $100,000 instead of writing this letter.
Do you see the issue with FLI granting $100,000 to neo-Nazis? I understand that they didn’t end up granting it, but according to the FLI letter that was a fluke. If SND happened to be registered, the grant would have been paid out. Or at least, that what the letter says. (They say clearly the grant has been approved, and the problem with paying it out is the registration.)
Maybe they are lying in the letter! But if not, FLI was going to give $100,000 to neo-Nazis and lucked out due to the fact they weren’t registered.
My problem now is that FLI does not express contrition for this. At no point do they go “oh no, we almost sent out $100,000 to neo-Nazis!” and at no point do they go “oh no, the letter we sent to SND said the grant has been approved when it wasn’t, so that misleads people, we are so sorry for misleading people”.
FLI says neither of these things. They pretend, instead, that they never sent out a letter approving the grant and intending to pay it out ASAP. They pretend they merely provisionally approved it subject to another vetting stage. But either that’s false or else they lied in their letter.
This seems inaccurate. Yes, the original letter says that the grant has been approved. I am not too familiar with how these grants usually go, but the wording of the letter seems similar to what our local EA group received for our grant application, i.e. your grant has been approved, now fill out some due diligence forms please. I can imagine that people familiar with grantmaking are of the understanding that approving a grant does not entail an unconditional agreement that the grant will be paid out.
That is, SND was very likely aware that there was still a due diligence process to come. If the FAQ is to be believed, SND misrepresented their political positions, and thus they cannot complain about failing the due diligence step.
It would be helpful for tentative-grant approval letters to be clear about what the remaining conditions are. Unfortunately, this letter mentioned one specific condition and implied that payment would occur promptly after it was met, which could give the impression that other preconditions had been satisfied.
Like you, I have a hard time mustering any sympathy for the would-be grantee here. But I think it’s easily foreseeable that an organization might show a letter like this to a third party in order to secure action by the third party. Indeed, that may be the most likely reason for requesting a formal letter of intent. Thus, the standard letter of intent should have language that is sufficient to put the third party on notice of the risk of rejection and nonpayment.
That seems right.
Please post the letter your local EA group received, then.
I agree that if the norm is “everyone lies in grant commitment letters, that’s normal”, then it makes the story better. I do not actually believe there is such a norm (and of course, if there is one, it’s a bad one).
And if what you say is true, then the commitment letter is a lie, to be clear—the letter specifically says the grant will be paid out promptly, as soon as SND registers as a non-profit. It clearly says this registration status is the only barrier left.
When I was hired for a job, there was indeed a point at which I got an offer pending on a background check. But the offer letter was clear that this offer was conditional; this FLI letter is not like that.
I think if I was issuing grants, I would use misleading language in such a letter to make it less likely that the grantee organization can’t get registered for some bureaucracy reasons. It’s possible to mention that to the grantee in an email or call too to not cause any confusion. My guess would be that that’s what happened here but that’s just my 2 cents. I have no relevant expertise.
I agree this seems likely. I think it’s bad to use misleading language to help neo-Nazi organizations pass bureaucratic checks, though, and I’m concerned that FLI showed no remorse for this.
My guess is that what happened here is related to Tegmark’s brother—the brother wanted SND to be registered and had the organization ask FLI for a letter. I’m not sure, though, and I think the information we’ve received so far from FLI is insufficient and likely deceptive.