No, the idea isn't to bleed them dry, but to disincentivize decisions in direct opposition to what they promised to donors, and make them legally hard to do or with actual consequences.
It would be a guide rail for people at the top to align themselves with people at the bottom. To be aligned with the promises they use in fundraising from donors (of both time and money).
I'm torn with the "just don't give them money then" which a sibling commenter said, it might work short term, but what about everything people have poured into this throughout the decades? I think all that work deserves to be safeguarded, it would show that whatever resources, be it money or time, cannot just be turned on itself by a passing leadership, and that there would be a safeguard against "flushing everything down" as the only choice.
Furthermore, I just don't see a promise/company statement as being enough, after everything that has happened. There needs to be legal accountability and safeguards for not sinking a multi-generational ship.
It would be a guide rail for people at the top to align themselves with people at the bottom. To be aligned with the promises they use in fundraising from donors (of both time and money).
I'm torn with the "just don't give them money then" which a sibling commenter said, it might work short term, but what about everything people have poured into this throughout the decades? I think all that work deserves to be safeguarded, it would show that whatever resources, be it money or time, cannot just be turned on itself by a passing leadership, and that there would be a safeguard against "flushing everything down" as the only choice.
Furthermore, I just don't see a promise/company statement as being enough, after everything that has happened. There needs to be legal accountability and safeguards for not sinking a multi-generational ship.