• Fred Kaplan

    LOL the Board Chair takes over management?????? IF THE BOARD was doing their JOB they would have already have policies in place years ago. Most of the board should be replaced since THEY WERE NOT doing their duty to the donors nor the veterans! THEY allowed and perhaps even fostered this culture and attitude. I wonder how many volunteers, or employees left, got fed up or fired because they either brought this to the board and/or managements attention and NOTHING WAS DONE? I doubt any of the “good ole boy” board left since they probably are all friends and appointed each other. This is another example of a BOARDS FAILURE to do its JOB BEFORE they are forced to take action.

  • Why no defense for WWP at least from the Charity Defense Council (CDC) here or anywhere, especially on CDC’s website and social media channels?

    Steve Nardizzi helped create CDC with his early high-profile endorsement and as a member of the CDC Advisory Council. Nardizzi apparently broke no laws. He only executed the CDC vision, albeit with a flourish. If there were ever a time for CDC to test the mettle of its mission, this would be the time.

    Nardizzi is gone. What is on trial here is the CDC mission.

    Bold. That word is used twice in CDC’s standard three-sentence description ending with, “…changing the way people think about changing the world.”

    Where is this boldness now in defending CDC’s friend, let alone CDC’s mission?

    Here is CDC’s founder proposing that “Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan use their money for fundraising.”

    https://hbr.org/2015/12/why-mark-zuckerberg-and-priscilla-chan-should-use-their-money-for-fundraising?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=harvardbiz

    Pallotta uses two examples to support his case: Pallotta TeamWorks and WWP. One had to do with breast cancer and AIDS and the other with veterans. Both resulted in scandal when ordinary donors (not the investors) learned what percentage of their gifts actually went to relieving the pain of loved ones.

    There is never any problem when the donor knows upfront about the percentages. Yes, generous and enlightened philanthropists should and do fund overhead, even when it’s 44% as Pallotta proudly proclaims here in the case of WWP. But could WWP ever achieve its fundraising success if it forthrightly declared its 44% overhead on their television ads? There is FTC Truth-in-Advertising law at play here.

    In the end, changing the world results from great courage and sacrifice, but hardly ever as a result of money alone. The world’s ills that nonprofits work to heal are the result of wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, politics without principle. These ills will not go away with well funded solutions of the day.

    Charity scandals almost always involve easily exploited causes such as cancer and veterans. No one cares when a successful university football coach or president receives many multiples of what WWP paid Nardizzi. It has to do with truth in advertising. Just because there is an effort underway “to change the way people think about changing the world,” does not mean that people are changing they way they think about their loved ones who are in the balance.

    Let’s see how much money Pallotta or Nardizzi could raise for prison reform or legal aid. Those who do fight every day for these and so many “lost causes” would rather fail with honor than succeed by fraud (Sophocles). Their courage and sacrifice and their powerful witness more than whatever money they can raise will be what changes the world.