Re: EXCLUSIVE: Joint FBI-US Attorney Probe Of Clinton Foundation Is Underway Read mo
A former employer I used to work for used to hold donation drives for the United Way charity - until there was a scandal involving fat salaries and bonuses for the executives working at that charity - then we stopped donating to them.
So tell me - do you think that people working for a charity should be earning fat paycheques? Don't you think it's a crooked misrepresentation to be collecting donations for the poor, and then spending most of that money to fatten your own wallet instead of spending it on the poor?
I'm not avoiding your question, but there's no good way to answer that except to say that OF COURSE salaries at a non-profit ought to be appropriate, and no, it's not OK to collect donations for the poor and pay it out in "fat" pay for the senior officers.
But that's not really the point I was trying to make. At our charity for example, the founder and director who's been there 25 years this year and works 60-80 hours a week, about 50 weeks a year gets $60k. We would need two or three to do his job, and still probably would lose. The counselors make between $20-30k, no benefits. And my point is those salary expenses are absolutely critical for our charitable mission and are clearly, obviously, qualified charitable expenditures.
These days, during a major natural disaster, many big charities immediately tell people "don't donate blankets, don't donate food - just donate cash! Because we can easily spend that cash near the disaster area to get people what they need! This is easier than transporting your donated blankets and food all the way there! Just give us cash please!"
Tell me - what do you think is really going on when they insist so strongly on donations for cash, instead of traditional from-the-heart donations for blankets, food, and material goods? Where do you think that cash is going? Why do you think they're so emphatic and insistent that donations be in cash form rather than in the form of material goods?
Please give me your honest answer - don't give me your standard line. :roll:
I pretty much know it's a logistical nightmare to get material goods from a collection center in, say, Montana or New Jersey, consolidated with 20 or 200 other collection centers, sorted, the mounds of worthless crap (jumbo can of green beans that expired in 2011, some old underwear, etc.) that people love to give and get a write off for their taxes tossed, the worthwhile stuff then loaded on a truck, shipped 1,000 miles to a disaster area, where it's then organized again with lots of other trucks, a list made of what's needed but missing, then that ordered and shipped in, then you can assemble packages and get them sent out to those in need. It's much easier, quicker, effective for those in need if they need some black beans ,rice, tuna, bottled water, baby formula, blankets, etc. to take $100,000 and buy all that, and only that, cheaply, in bulk and get that delivered in a few trucks and then assembled and distributed.
Bottom line is I don't see their preference for cash during emergency relief as a problem. That's really independent of how much they pay their executive director in salary, or should be for any legitimate charity.
FWIW, why would I ever give my "dishonest" answer :roll:
