Comments: 
It seems that we have here someone who is attempting to wear many, perhaps too many, professional hats at once. Model Standard IV's last sentence "commission-based compensation for Gift Planners who are employed by a charitable institution is never appropriate" does not preclude this person from earning part of her living as a broker and part as a Planned Giving Officer, as long as the commissions are earned for services rendered as a broker, and not for her work as a Planned Giving Officer. Additionally, as a broker, there is no prohibition against earning a commission on sales made as a part of her service to an individual client who also happens to be a donor. 

Perhaps the following example might help illustrate: 
A charity has a professional advisors committee made up of lawyers, bankers, brokers and accountants. They are all volunteers. The charity asks them to help identify potential donors. If an investment advisor suggests to a client that she include the charity as one of the organizations she gives stock to, and he takes a commission on the transfer, this would be acceptable. If a part-time planned giving officer for the charity, who is also a broker, suggests to an investment client that she make a gift to the charity that employs him, and makes this suggestion on his own time and in his capacity as her advisor/broker, and takes a commission on the transfer, a case could be made that this is also acceptable, but the issue is much murkier. However, if that same planned giving officer first meets a prospect via his work for the charity, and in the course of events suggests that she make a gift of stock, and then offers to act as her broker in the transaction and takes a commission on the transfer, there is definitely a conflict of interest. 

The issue is the reason for which the commissions are being paid. If the commissions are earned as a result of transactions that occur because of his work as a planned giving officer, then there is a significant conflict. If a "donor" contributes securities in response to the planned giving officer's request, that "donor" should not then become a "client" who generates commission for the planned giving officer as a broker. 

There may also be significant concerns about liability on the part of both employers, the charity and the brokerage firm. For example, the charity may subject itself to liability for improperly providing investment advice. Finally, there is clearly a need for significant disclosure to the donor and the governing board of the charity as to the multiple roles this person is playing with the client/donor. 

Each case must be addressed on its facts. Some questions to raise are these: 

• What is the role that the gift planner serves for the charity in the transaction? 

• What is the role that the gift planner serves for the donor in the transaction? Is the donor represented by separate counsel? 

• How is the gift planner compensated in the transaction? (Include all revenue whether from the charity in the form of salary, or commissions from a securities firm, or compensation paid by the donor) 

• Are all parties aware of the relationships and compensation arrangements? 

In summary, the mere fact that this individual works as both a salaried planned giving officer and as a commissioned broker is not necessarily a conflict. However, on a case-by-case basis this individual and the charity need to be extraordinarily careful to be mindful of the conflicts created by his dual employment and scrupulous about full disclosure to all parties involved.