Anonymous wrote:Top dollar compensation, plus $90,000 bonus and deferred compensation package for the CEO. Where does charity begin?

At the top.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait a minute. Before you bitch about lavish parties, how much do those parties raise? 60% is not bad. Organizations need to run and have overhead. If they went out of business, how much would go to vets?

NONE!

You're welcome to think this way, but I work too hard for my money to give it to an organization that keeps 40% or more for overhead, parties, etc. I prefer to give to a local organization that's smaller--like a local tutoring group that works with children from a particular school in the afternoons or a local residence for children who have been removed from their homes by DFCS.

This is ridiculous and why most charities can't make an impact. Dan Pallotta has written extensively about this. You want the best professionals, but you don't want to pay them. You would rather pay someone $40K and get mediocre instead of someone with an advanced degree. If I spend $5 million on fundraising, but raise $70M, isn't that better than spending $100K on fundraising and raising $2 million? Which way gets more money to the vets. I know the second makes you feel better, but the first has more of an impact.

5 million out of 70 million is not 40%. Nor 100k out of 2 million. Did you complete elementary school?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most charities don't even use that much for their intended recipients.

You don't know what you're talking about. "Charity" is another word for nonprofit, technically speaking. They are not all giving money to 'needy people' for example...

Most nonprofits/charities have overhead 25% or less -- but that money is needed to keep the place going, to pay for audits, for fundraisers, for lights and rent etc. http://overheadmyth.com explains it well.

Lots of places are charities -- the Brookings Institution and Cato Institute, for example. They don't have 'recipients' -- they do research. That is their intended purpose.

LOL!

Orgs like Cato weren't founded to do charity work, or any legitimate "research" for that matter - they were founded as shill front groups for their founders, the Koch Brothers. They will only "research" things to support their own agenda and their own narrative and disinformation.

Anonymous wrote:Most charities don't even use that much for their intended recipients.

You don't know what you're talking about. "Charity" is another word for nonprofit, technically speaking. They are not all giving money to 'needy people' for example...

Most nonprofits/charities have overhead 25% or less -- but that money is needed to keep the place going, to pay for audits, for fundraisers, for lights and rent etc. http://overheadmyth.com explains it well.

Lots of places are charities -- the Brookings Institution and Cato Institute, for example. They don't have 'recipients' -- they do research. That is their intended purpose.

There are many much better run vet organizations. Please find somewhere else to donate any money, there really is a huge need that WWP is not helping meet.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait a minute. Before you bitch about lavish parties, how much do those parties raise? 60% is not bad. Organizations need to run and have overhead. If they went out of business, how much would go to vets?

NONE!

You're welcome to think this way, but I work too hard for my money to give it to an organization that keeps 40% or more for overhead, parties, etc. I prefer to give to a local organization that's smaller--like a local tutoring group that works with children from a particular school in the afternoons or a local residence for children who have been removed from their homes by DFCS.

This is ridiculous and why most charities can't make an impact. Dan Pallotta has written extensively about this. You want the best professionals, but you don't want to pay them. You would rather pay someone $40K and get mediocre instead of someone with an advanced degree. If I spend $5 million on fundraising, but raise $70M, isn't that better than spending $100K on fundraising and raising $2 million? Which way gets more money to the vets. I know the second makes you feel better, but the first has more of an impact.

And if I spend 100k on fundraising and raise 100M isn't that even better? Are we just making up numbers? And I doubt anyone would have a problem with spending 5 mil to raise 70 mil if 65 mil went tpo programs for the vets, but that is not what is happening.

And the parties that are the source of criticism are not fundraisers.

Yes, they were internal "all hands" staff events, such as at the Biltmore in Colorado. And the CEO making a big splash at events reminds me of those over the top corporate affairs where the CEO rides onto the stage on a Harley or lands in a helicopter. In philanthropic organizations, it should be all about the mission, not about executive management.

When the IRS is all over them, they'll change their name and brand to "Wounded Worriers."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait a minute. Before you bitch about lavish parties, how much do those parties raise? 60% is not bad. Organizations need to run and have overhead. If they went out of business, how much would go to vets?

NONE!

You're welcome to think this way, but I work too hard for my money to give it to an organization that keeps 40% or more for overhead, parties, etc. I prefer to give to a local organization that's smaller--like a local tutoring group that works with children from a particular school in the afternoons or a local residence for children who have been removed from their homes by DFCS.

This is ridiculous and why most charities can't make an impact. Dan Pallotta has written extensively about this. You want the best professionals, but you don't want to pay them. You would rather pay someone $40K and get mediocre instead of someone with an advanced degree. If I spend $5 million on fundraising, but raise $70M, isn't that better than spending $100K on fundraising and raising $2 million? Which way gets more money to the vets. I know the second makes you feel better, but the first has more of an impact.

And if I spend 100k on fundraising and raise 100M isn't that even better? Are we just making up numbers? And I doubt anyone would have a problem with spending 5 mil to raise 70 mil if 65 mil went tpo programs for the vets, but that is not what is happening.

And the parties that are the source of criticism are not fundraisers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You'd be considered extremely naive. That's absolutely nothing wrong with protecting a brand you've created.

Allowing other groups to infringed on your name, at risk of tarnishing it should be just as big of a liability to donors and potential donors.

Also little wrong with working with celebrity endorsers. Fact is, it would be more shameful of the celebrity to charge full price for this work. I would imagine the work is being done in concert with their CPA.

This argument is ridiculous. You are saying that it makes sense for them to spend big bucks to develop a "brand" and then to spend big bucks to "protect" the brand. They don't need an effing "brand" and they certainly don't need to argue with other groups helping vets-- they just need to actually help vets, and everyone will be happy to help them.

I also like how on the one hand you tell us it would be "shameful" for a celebrity to charge full price for this work, but on the other hand the message is that they need to pay top dollar to their execs and run it like a business. Why is it shameful for a celebrity to charge full price, but not for the charity to spend money on unnecessary CEO perks?

+1 Exactly!!

Top dollar compensation, plus $90,000 bonus and deferred compensation package for the CEO. Where does charity begin?

Anonymous wrote:

You'd be considered extremely naive. That's absolutely nothing wrong with protecting a brand you've created.

Allowing other groups to infringed on your name, at risk of tarnishing it should be just as big of a liability to donors and potential donors.

Also little wrong with working with celebrity endorsers. Fact is, it would be more shameful of the celebrity to charge full price for this work. I would imagine the work is being done in concert with their CPA.

This argument is ridiculous. You are saying that it makes sense for them to spend big bucks to develop a "brand" and then to spend big bucks to "protect" the brand. They don't need an effing "brand" and they certainly don't need to argue with other groups helping vets-- they just need to actually help vets, and everyone will be happy to help them.

I also like how on the one hand you tell us it would be "shameful" for a celebrity to charge full price for this work, but on the other hand the message is that they need to pay top dollar to their execs and run it like a business. Why is it shameful for a celebrity to charge full price, but not for the charity to spend money on unnecessary CEO perks?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is lots of room to fudge these numbers-- so I am sure if they are reporting 40% to overhead it's higher. The article points out a few ways they did that (like calling their own promo materials "education").

Exactly!

I have no issue with 501(c)3's paying market rates for top talent, but senior executives should not necessarily expect to get what they would in a for profit business. And it's not the salaries, but some of the other expenses that I found distasteful -- for example the flashy, expensive employee functions where the CEO made grand entrances, like rappelling down the side of a building. It seems that the CEO and his team have a serious ego issue like some notorious senior execs in certain Fortune 500 companies. Charities do not need to pay for activities to feed a a "cult of the CEO"

Charities are a business (that provide something of positive social value). Funding is a business function of that business. The charity needs the best talent to achieve that goal and they have to pay for it.

Many of us will choose to not fund what we view as excessive costs of those business functions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having 40% overhead and administrative cost seems exceptionally high to me. Imagine if the Federal government spent 40% of taxes on overhead and administrative cost. Almost everyone would be upset about that.

Ha ha ha ha. LOL!!

What do find so funny? Currently government spends about 4.5% on overhead.

"Running the government, including overhead costs and spending on various agencies and offices, such as the FBI and immigration services, comes in at 4.5%. "
http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/11/pf/taxes/how-federal-income-taxes-are-spent

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is lots of room to fudge these numbers-- so I am sure if they are reporting 40% to overhead it's higher. The article points out a few ways they did that (like calling their own promo materials "education").

Exactly!

I have no issue with 501(c)3's paying market rates for top talent, but senior executives should not necessarily expect to get what they would in a for profit business. And it's not the salaries, but some of the other expenses that I found distasteful -- for example the flashy, expensive employee functions where the CEO made grand entrances, like rappelling down the side of a building. It seems that the CEO and his team have a serious ego issue like some notorious senior execs in certain Fortune 500 companies. Charities do not need to pay for activities to feed a a "cult of the CEO"

Charities are a business (that provide something of positive social value). Funding is a business function of that business. The charity needs the best talent to achieve that goal and they have to pay for it.

But there are parameters which are considered acceptable, which is try charity watchdogs rate them. Moreover, there are legal and tax-related constraints on paying excess compensation, particularly top leadership.

Business class tickets for domestic travel?! Most companies wouldn't pay for that.