Walton Family Learns What Money Can't Buy
posted on: Wednesday, October 19, 2005
The Associated Press today reports that Wal-Mart heiress Elizabeth Paige Laurie, granddaughter of the founder of Wal-Mart, has returned her undergraduate degree from the University of Southern California. It seems one of her college roommates was doing the bulk of Laurie's college assignments for most of her time at the University. Laurie paid her roommate $20,000 for her services.
The Associated Press also reports that "after the homework allegations surfaced last November, the University of Missouri removed Laurie's name from a sports arena named for her." Her parents received naming rights for the arena after donating $25 million for its construction.
Seems like Laurie's roommate should have charged a bit more, doesn't it?
The Associated Press today reports that Wal-Mart heiress Elizabeth Paige Laurie, granddaughter of the founder of Wal-Mart, has returned her undergraduate degree from the University of Southern California. It seems one of her college roommates was doing the bulk of Laurie's college assignments for most of her time at the University. Laurie paid her roommate $20,000 for her services.
The Associated Press also reports that "after the homework allegations surfaced last November, the University of Missouri removed Laurie's name from a sports arena named for her." Her parents received naming rights for the arena after donating $25 million for its construction.
Seems like Laurie's roommate should have charged a bit more, doesn't it?
posted by NCRP at
10:47 AM
|
0 comments
links to this post
More Empty Rah-Rah-Rahing from Researchers on the Accountability Front
posted on: Thursday, October 13, 2005
Good news on the nonprofit accountability front, or yet another methodologically weak research project designed to thwart better public oversight of nonprofit organizations? You decide:
A new study from Lester Salamon, who directs the Center for Civil Society Studies at the Institute for Policy Studies at Johns Hopkins University, suggests that Senator Charles Grassley’s concerns about nonprofit accountability shortcomings are all for naught. Among other findings, the study’s executive summary reports that “The boards of overwhelming majorities (85-90 percent) of the nonprofit organizations surveyed are highly or significantly involved in the key strategic oversight functions that nonprofit boards are expected to perform.” Overall, the executive summary suggests that all is indeed well and good in the land of nonprofit accountability.
However, the full report reveals that the data are drawn from only 247 organizations, and that 207 of them are affiliated with at least one of the five umbrella organizations that are partners with Salamon’s group in the research. Yet Salamon still somehow concludes that his evidence “strongly suggests…that the presumed problems with the management and accountability of nonprofit organizations have been significantly exaggerated.” The report also states that “the dire assessments emanating from alarmist media accounts seem significantly overdrawn. The nonprofit sector is well along toward getting its organizational house in order and legislative fixes premised on worst-case scenarios should therefore be approached with considerable caution.”
Let’s assume, for the sake of argument and amusement, that Salamon is right: that 85 to 90 percent of nonprofit boards are doing just fine with oversight and accountability. With close to 1 million charities and foundations on file with the IRS in 2004, that leaves up to 150,000 organizations having boards that are not involved in “key strategic oversight functions,” and other significant accountability shortcomings.
Bottom line: It’s time for the Senate to act and for the nonprofit researchers to get back to doing credible research, rather than serving as cheerleaders for the sector.
A new study from Lester Salamon, who directs the Center for Civil Society Studies at the Institute for Policy Studies at Johns Hopkins University, suggests that Senator Charles Grassley’s concerns about nonprofit accountability shortcomings are all for naught. Among other findings, the study’s executive summary reports that “The boards of overwhelming majorities (85-90 percent) of the nonprofit organizations surveyed are highly or significantly involved in the key strategic oversight functions that nonprofit boards are expected to perform.” Overall, the executive summary suggests that all is indeed well and good in the land of nonprofit accountability.
However, the full report reveals that the data are drawn from only 247 organizations, and that 207 of them are affiliated with at least one of the five umbrella organizations that are partners with Salamon’s group in the research. Yet Salamon still somehow concludes that his evidence “strongly suggests…that the presumed problems with the management and accountability of nonprofit organizations have been significantly exaggerated.” The report also states that “the dire assessments emanating from alarmist media accounts seem significantly overdrawn. The nonprofit sector is well along toward getting its organizational house in order and legislative fixes premised on worst-case scenarios should therefore be approached with considerable caution.”
Let’s assume, for the sake of argument and amusement, that Salamon is right: that 85 to 90 percent of nonprofit boards are doing just fine with oversight and accountability. With close to 1 million charities and foundations on file with the IRS in 2004, that leaves up to 150,000 organizations having boards that are not involved in “key strategic oversight functions,” and other significant accountability shortcomings.
Bottom line: It’s time for the Senate to act and for the nonprofit researchers to get back to doing credible research, rather than serving as cheerleaders for the sector.
posted by NCRP at
3:48 PM
|
0 comments
links to this post
Ladner's Lavishness
posted on: Tuesday, October 11, 2005
The Benjamin Ladner compensation scandal at American University in Washington, DC once again shows why the Internal Revenue Service needs to establish better guidelines for nonprofit and foundation executive compensation, and why the US Congress needs to appropriate more funds for the agency’s tax-exempt oversight division.
American University itself, its trustees, Ladner, and the legions of attorneys representing all sides in the case have been arguing for months now over how much Ladner was actually compensated, what kind of compensation package the trustees approved, and whether his compensation was ethically and legally justifiable. Answers to these questions are not anticipated anytime soon.
The scandal also shows why foundations and nonprofits should bring diversity to their boards—and not just in terms of race and gender. Like most large nonprofits and foundations, many of the university’s board members are from the for-profit sector. Considering the lavish salaries most for-profit executives make, should they be setting compensation levels for the nation’s nonprofit and foundation executives? As Roy J. Nirschel, president of Roger Williams University, put it:
“Trustees and presidents move in similar social circles and can end up becoming friends. Combine those conditions with the fact that many trustees come from business, where lavish executive pay packages and rich perks are customary; it is only natural that they would want the chief executive of ‘their’ university, particularly if she or he is a personal friend, to enjoy the lifestyle of a CEO.”
It’s also interesting to point out that—once again—a nonprofit scandal was uncovered not by the IRS or other government oversight agency, but by an anonymous, inside whistle-blower.
The Washington Post has covered the Ladner case extensively, including a lengthy piece in today’s paper about American’s board of trustees ousting Ladner in a vote taken Monday night.
American University itself, its trustees, Ladner, and the legions of attorneys representing all sides in the case have been arguing for months now over how much Ladner was actually compensated, what kind of compensation package the trustees approved, and whether his compensation was ethically and legally justifiable. Answers to these questions are not anticipated anytime soon.
The scandal also shows why foundations and nonprofits should bring diversity to their boards—and not just in terms of race and gender. Like most large nonprofits and foundations, many of the university’s board members are from the for-profit sector. Considering the lavish salaries most for-profit executives make, should they be setting compensation levels for the nation’s nonprofit and foundation executives? As Roy J. Nirschel, president of Roger Williams University, put it:
“Trustees and presidents move in similar social circles and can end up becoming friends. Combine those conditions with the fact that many trustees come from business, where lavish executive pay packages and rich perks are customary; it is only natural that they would want the chief executive of ‘their’ university, particularly if she or he is a personal friend, to enjoy the lifestyle of a CEO.”
It’s also interesting to point out that—once again—a nonprofit scandal was uncovered not by the IRS or other government oversight agency, but by an anonymous, inside whistle-blower.
The Washington Post has covered the Ladner case extensively, including a lengthy piece in today’s paper about American’s board of trustees ousting Ladner in a vote taken Monday night.
posted by NCRP at
9:48 AM
|
0 comments
links to this post
