Global Fund article breaks my heart :( - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-22-2007, 09:04 PM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,271
Local Time: 01:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Check out The Missionary Position by Christopher Hitchens (written back when some would say he was still on the right side)
Or when he was still sober...

As far as the expensive champagne, I don't really understand the outrage. Are people so unfamiliar with how fundraising among the ultra rich works? You could run a wine auction that nets you $75K and you have $10K of expenses. Now you can say that it's ridiculous that they spent $10,000 when the people (Africans) they are raising $ for could have been fed and clothed, but let's get real here. Fundraising events are just that - EVENTS. Some of the ultra rich care about the causes, but many if not most show up to put in face time and network and contributing to a cause is an added bonus. If you want somebody to shell out $50K to your cause, you have to treat them like gold and pour them expensive champagne and have waiters in tuxedos calling them Sir and Madam. It's how it works.

Is it the most efficient way to fundraise? Debatable. Is it wasteful? Maybe partially. But you still end up with a large profit and a large sum of money in comparison to what you've invested.
__________________

__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 06-22-2007, 09:19 PM   #17
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:00 PM
Quote:
Or when he was still sober
Was he ever?
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-23-2007, 12:45 AM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Jeannieco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A HEART THAT IS BROKEN IS A HEART THAT IS OPEN
Posts: 4,954
Local Time: 10:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


Or when he was still sober...

As far as the expensive champagne, I don't really understand the outrage. Are people so unfamiliar with how fundraising among the ultra rich works? You could run a wine auction that nets you $75K and you have $10K of expenses. Now you can say that it's ridiculous that they spent $10,000 when the people (Africans) they are raising $ for could have been fed and clothed, but let's get real here. Fundraising events are just that - EVENTS. Some of the ultra rich care about the causes, but many if not most show up to put in face time and network and contributing to a cause is an added bonus. If you want somebody to shell out $50K to your cause, you have to treat them like gold and pour them expensive champagne and have waiters in tuxedos calling them Sir and Madam. It's how it works.

Is it the most efficient way to fundraise? Debatable. Is it wasteful? Maybe partially. But you still end up with a large profit and a large sum of money in comparison to what you've invested.
Here is where I have a problem, from the article I posted...
...."Feacham frequently dipped into the office's petty cash, once spending $225.86 to rent a suit for a wedding involving the Dutch royal family -- and then double-billed the organization for the suit, the report said."

How is double billing an organization considered a necessary evil of fund raising for the ultra rich???
That is called STEALING no matter how you want to paint it.
I understand your point to a degree, but this just reeks of dishonesty ( I am being kind) and leads me to believe that if this man would commit such a seemingly minor offense ( not minor to me) what else does he steal and then justifies it so he can sleep at night??
That is twisted and what is even sadder to me is that people turn a blind eye to this sort of thing, accepting it as... "oh that's just the way it works, get over it... bla bla bla....
__________________
Jeannieco is offline  
Old 06-23-2007, 06:48 AM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 07:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Jeannieco


Here is where I have a problem, from the article I posted...
...."Feacham frequently dipped into the office's petty cash, once spending $225.86 to rent a suit for a wedding involving the Dutch royal family -- and then double-billed the organization for the suit, the report said."

How is double billing an organization considered a necessary evil of fund raising for the ultra rich???
That is called STEALING no matter how you want to paint it.
I understand your point to a degree, but this just reeks of dishonesty ( I am being kind) and leads me to believe that if this man would commit such a seemingly minor offense ( not minor to me) what else does he steal and then justifies it so he can sleep at night??
That is twisted and what is even sadder to me is that people turn a blind eye to this sort of thing, accepting it as... "oh that's just the way it works, get over it... bla bla bla....
Talking about "this is how it works" we meant the expenses for champagne etc. And there it would be helpful to know what exactly happened there, and whether this money was translated into even more money from a rich donor.

The double billing is another story, and I think that is inarguably wrong. I can't think of any justifiable reason you would double bill an organisation.
It's really necessary to have a control instrument installed that double checks every expenses before they occur.

I would rather see people donate money because they want to do so. But let's stay real her, donating isn't always that noble.
Just think about it. You've donated $115 to the Global Fund and want every cent of it going directly to Africa. Instead, they are taking this money, buy a bottle of champagne, drink it with some crazy billionaire who loves all the photos taken, and gives say $2 million.
So you would rather see the $115 go to Africa providing medicine for say 50 people instead of sacrificing this money to see $2 million going to about 870,000 people?
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 06-23-2007, 09:37 AM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
love2bmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: running down the road like loose electricity
Posts: 5,529
Local Time: 11:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Vincent Vega


So you would rather see the $115 go to Africa providing medicine for say 50 people instead of sacrificing this money to see $2 million going to about 870,000 people?

it's not that simple.

also, I'd like to think we can have both, of course you have to spend money to make money, but these are extravagant expenses and the point is that they were not approved. The lack of oversight is disturbing, and the fact that he took advantage of that lack for his own personal gain is what is sickening about it.
__________________
love2bmama is offline  
Old 06-23-2007, 10:33 AM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 07:00 AM
Perfectly right. In this case there are many open questions, and it really isn't looking good here. I've mentioned before that there needs to be a stricter control.

In general, if I got an extravagant donation from the expense of an extravagant wine and dine, I would take it. Of course the donation has to exceed the expenses greatly.
Here, we can only speculate about the outcome of these expenses. If they aren't worth it, there needs to be some change in the structure of the Global Fund.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 06-23-2007, 11:36 AM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,271
Local Time: 01:00 AM
The double billing is wrong, always. This is why you should run good, exhaustive audits to catch things like that.

Wining and dining...I really have no problem with. It looks ugly, but it's how things work with large-scale donors. They should clearly be approved first, but I wonder whether even if they were approved, there would be people here who would take issue with the spending.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 06-23-2007, 12:12 PM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Jeannieco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A HEART THAT IS BROKEN IS A HEART THAT IS OPEN
Posts: 4,954
Local Time: 10:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by love2bmama



it's not that simple.

also, I'd like to think we can have both, of course you have to spend money to make money, but these are extravagant expenses and the point is that they were not approved. The lack of oversight is disturbing, and the fact that he took advantage of that lack for his own personal gain is what is sickening about it.
Exactly.
__________________
Jeannieco is offline  
Old 06-23-2007, 12:39 PM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
love2bmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: running down the road like loose electricity
Posts: 5,529
Local Time: 11:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
The double billing is wrong, always. This is why you should run good, exhaustive audits to catch things like that.

Wining and dining...I really have no problem with. It looks ugly, but it's how things work with large-scale donors. They should clearly be approved first, but I wonder whether even if they were approved, there would be people here who would take issue with the spending.
Well, even if approved, extravagant spending would still bug me, but it wouldn't be nearly as disturbing as the fact that it seems like there are people in the upper echelons of the GF who are corrupt.
__________________
love2bmama is offline  
Old 06-23-2007, 12:55 PM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 07:00 AM
I'm only interested in how many lives get saved or at least improved at the end of the day.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 06-25-2007, 01:27 PM   #26
Blue Crack Addict
 
Varitek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: on borderland we run
Posts: 16,861
Local Time: 01:00 AM
Yeah, but Vincent, isn't the question here what would maximize life saving or improving? If there was no this or that would they do more or less?
__________________
Varitek is offline  
Old 06-25-2007, 02:46 PM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 07:00 AM
Sorry, but I don't quite get what you're aiming at. Who would do more or less if there wasn't what this or that?

As I said before, in this case it's not clear why the money was spent, and what resulted from that. As long as this is not clear, I'm not gonna judge this particular case, but comment on the hypothesis, that spending this money resulted in more money going to the cause.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 06-25-2007, 04:04 PM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 01:00 AM
Perhaps part of the problem is that apparently the GF (and those that encouraged people to donate to it) didn't feel that they'd get as many donations from the "ordinary guy" by explaining that some of the money would be plowed back into the organization including the "wining and dining" of high profile donors--who let's face it may not be too hip on piling into a taxi and running down to McDonalds.

What I sense as a problem is the lack of transparency about how funds are divied up (which of course makes the temptation to abuse the use of money much easier as well).

We'd like to think that when we donate $5, that $5 will find it's way directly to Africa and into the hands of the needy. But that's just not how it works. I hope that if the GF can be open and transparent about how their funds are used people can understand that.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 06-25-2007, 04:48 PM   #29
Blue Crack Addict
 
Varitek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: on borderland we run
Posts: 16,861
Local Time: 01:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Vincent Vega
Sorry, but I don't quite get what you're aiming at. Who would do more or less if there wasn't what this or that?

As I said before, in this case it's not clear why the money was spent, and what resulted from that. As long as this is not clear, I'm not gonna judge this particular case, but comment on the hypothesis, that spending this money resulted in more money going to the cause.
Sorry I was unclear, I think I was getting at the same thing you say here - I was making fun of people trying to evaluate based on a bunch of contingencies they don't know the specifics of, e.g. if they hadn't had that bottle of wine 100 kids would have lived or 4000 would have died or whatever.
__________________

__________________
Varitek is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com