Leadership, Directors and a Troubled United Way
posted on: Friday, October 03, 2008
By Gary Snyder
It all began with calls from friends and subscribers to Nonprofit Imperative, a twice-monthly e-newsletter that I publish. All wanted to bring to my attention to the well-documented stories on the fiasco at the United Way of the Central Carolinas.
A Compromised Agency
Let us take a look at the specifics of the mid-sized United Way controversy:
• The Board signed an agreement with the agency President and CEO giving her the highest salary and benefits package in the entire United Way system;
• The Board gave the CEO a $36,000 a year expense account;
• The Board agreed to a bonus which is the biggest of a sampling of 14 agencies of similar or larger size;
• The Board added $822,000 to the executive’s retirement benefits last year, a seven-fold increase over the $108,000 paid the previous year;
Under almost catatonic pressure from media, donors and others, the Board realized that they had to extricate themselves from the obscene contract. So what did they do?
• They relieved her of her position
• The Board gave the President and CEO 2 1/3 years of salary ($675,700) or the equivalent by reducing the payments if she gets another job;
• The Board fulfilled its obligations under her retirement plan.
• All resulting in at least a million dollar payday for the executive.
At least three board members resigned, including its chairperson. In spite of its promise of transparency, the United Way has withheld records of expense accounts and board minutes.
A Compromised Sector
One wonders how boards made up of many of the areas brightest minds came to a conclusion to endorse such a contract? Furthermore, how did they think that the general public would agree to such an egregious agreements? How did this pass muster at the national United Way of America? Why haven’t we heard an outpouring by nonprofit leaders crying out about such abuse?
The answer to all of the aforementioned questions is that few people care about what happens to a nonprofit. Only those that are directly affected cry out and that is only for a short period of time.
As with so many organizations, nonprofits have a culture of denial. Few believe that any financial abuse could happen, especially in the pristine charitable sector. The Board is typically oblivious. The internal controls are frequently nonexistent. The executive may be either deceitful or unaware. All rules are fungible. This creates a climate for anyone that makes decisions about the financial resources of the agency to take advantage of his/her trusted position.
The nonprofit world has accepted that multi-million embezzlements are a cost of doing business. Routinely, the courts have subscribed to that belief ordering restitution (which are rarely paid in full) in lieu jail sentences. The denial culture is perpetuated.
But in all instances the real culprit is the board. In the very rare circumstances when the board fulfills its fiduciary responsibility, it often surrenders any implementation to the executive to carry out. The board relies on the executive so it can “skate” and shun its own responsibilities.
In most instances a close personal bond, and considerable trust, is established between the board and executive. Frequently the executive becomes invaluable in carrying out the board’s wishes (and often at the expense of agency’s mission). Resisting conflict is the watchword.
A Compromised United Way
We have seen such denial and disengagement in the United Way network for years resulting in abuse in the form of fraud, embezzlement and mismanagement.
Late last year, the chief executive of the United Way of Metropolitan Atlanta secured a seven-figure---$1.6 million---retirement package for himself promising him roughly $106,000 a year for life. In his final year before retirement, he collected $446,7000 and $1.2 million in his last three years, not counting the lump sum payment.
The board did not even vote on the increases.
The tone at the United Way of America headquarters was set in the early 1990s when national president, William Aramony, was convicted of fraud for misusing the agency’s assets. The trend continued with Oral Suer, who ran the United Way of the Capital Area for 27 years and pleaded guilty to defrauding the charity of almost $500,000. While the president and CEO of the United Way of New York City in 2007 was under investigation for handling assets and resigned, we learn that his predecessor had used $227,000 of the charity’s money to cover personal expenses.
So as not to be undone, smaller United Way agencies have had their share of mismanagement and fraud. The Controller of the Capital Area United Way (Lansing Michigan) was successfully prosecuted for stealing about $1.9 million to fund her addiction to quarter horses. At the San Joaquin County local an employee embezzled over $200,000 and pleaded guilty to forgery and fraud. We have been able to document mismanagement and fraud at a number of affiliates including Chicago (IL), Tucson (AZ), Sacramento (CA), Bay area (CA), Santa Clara (CA), Toledo (OH), Harvey (IL), Freeborn (MN), Youngstown (OH), Story County (IA), Florida, Albemarle Area (NC), Orange (NJ), Pottawatomie (OK), Arizona, Montana, Stateline (IL), Iron County (UT), Shiawassee (MI), Wells County (IN), Washington, DC.
Some United Way affiliates, in an attempt to make contributions look more robust, were directed to count as their own contributions money that which was actually handled by other organizations. Some were also directed to count the value of volunteer’s time, a practice that is frowned upon by fundraising pundits. The practice of double counting was aimed at trying to show that it was recovering from scandals. When caught, cries of deception exploded.
Finding out about United Way malfeasance is challenging, to say the least. Beyond the flurry of press clippings about the merits of the United Way of America, we have been able to find over thirty affiliates that have been involved in wrong doing, amounting to tens of millions of dollars. Just last month, in New Jersey, a local got hit for embezzlement for over $500,000.
The problems are rampant. The solutions are somewhat complex.
The combination of poor leadership, compromise practices, weak governance, fraud, embezzlement and mismanagement in the United Way network has resulted in a broken organization.
The United Way star is falling from grace. Some want to blame it on the economy and others on its business model. It may, in part, be both. But the old and tired approaches, sugar-coated by press releases, have not worked. The public relations campaigns are not swaying corporate America, unions and especially significant donors. Many United Way benefactors question the organization’s decision-making and are directing their gifts to their favorite causes instead of having the organization distribute the money.
There is irrefutable evidence that such scandals have had an effect on donations. After the Aramony affair, United Way donations decreased by 11%. Similar results showed in Lansing Michigan and New York fundraising after their respective malfeasance schemes became publicized. Similar results will most assuredly happen at the United Way of the Central Carolinas.
But the first to realize that the organization was broke were the recipient-agencies. They saw relations breaking down between the U-W and their agencies, they saw their input diminishing, they saw U-W volunteers reporting back that their input was being ignored and then they saw competition by America’s Charities and others. Their beliefs have come true as the number of U-W agencies began shrinking, contributions falling and the United Way dropping as a percentage of total giving. Many of the United Ways staunches supporters are bailing.
Another big kid on the block is exposed as vulnerable. We have seen it before---American Red Cross, Smithsonian Institution. Both are bleeding red ink and going to the taxpayers for a bailout. What is the next iteration that the United Way will use to keep it afloat in order to deny that there are any misdeeds?
Gary Snyder is managing partner of Nonprofit Imperative and author of Nonprofits: On the Brink and Nonprofit Imperative. He can be reached at http://gary.r.snyder.com. His website is: http://garyrsnyder.com.
In all fairness, a correction is important. As a matter of record, some of the local agencies have indicated that their misdeeds are only allegations, not documented. Labels: accountability, Best Practices, United Way, workplace giving
It all began with calls from friends and subscribers to Nonprofit Imperative, a twice-monthly e-newsletter that I publish. All wanted to bring to my attention to the well-documented stories on the fiasco at the United Way of the Central Carolinas.
A Compromised Agency
Let us take a look at the specifics of the mid-sized United Way controversy:
• The Board signed an agreement with the agency President and CEO giving her the highest salary and benefits package in the entire United Way system;
• The Board gave the CEO a $36,000 a year expense account;
• The Board agreed to a bonus which is the biggest of a sampling of 14 agencies of similar or larger size;
• The Board added $822,000 to the executive’s retirement benefits last year, a seven-fold increase over the $108,000 paid the previous year;
Under almost catatonic pressure from media, donors and others, the Board realized that they had to extricate themselves from the obscene contract. So what did they do?
• They relieved her of her position
• The Board gave the President and CEO 2 1/3 years of salary ($675,700) or the equivalent by reducing the payments if she gets another job;
• The Board fulfilled its obligations under her retirement plan.
• All resulting in at least a million dollar payday for the executive.
At least three board members resigned, including its chairperson. In spite of its promise of transparency, the United Way has withheld records of expense accounts and board minutes.
A Compromised Sector
One wonders how boards made up of many of the areas brightest minds came to a conclusion to endorse such a contract? Furthermore, how did they think that the general public would agree to such an egregious agreements? How did this pass muster at the national United Way of America? Why haven’t we heard an outpouring by nonprofit leaders crying out about such abuse?
The answer to all of the aforementioned questions is that few people care about what happens to a nonprofit. Only those that are directly affected cry out and that is only for a short period of time.
As with so many organizations, nonprofits have a culture of denial. Few believe that any financial abuse could happen, especially in the pristine charitable sector. The Board is typically oblivious. The internal controls are frequently nonexistent. The executive may be either deceitful or unaware. All rules are fungible. This creates a climate for anyone that makes decisions about the financial resources of the agency to take advantage of his/her trusted position.
The nonprofit world has accepted that multi-million embezzlements are a cost of doing business. Routinely, the courts have subscribed to that belief ordering restitution (which are rarely paid in full) in lieu jail sentences. The denial culture is perpetuated.
But in all instances the real culprit is the board. In the very rare circumstances when the board fulfills its fiduciary responsibility, it often surrenders any implementation to the executive to carry out. The board relies on the executive so it can “skate” and shun its own responsibilities.
In most instances a close personal bond, and considerable trust, is established between the board and executive. Frequently the executive becomes invaluable in carrying out the board’s wishes (and often at the expense of agency’s mission). Resisting conflict is the watchword.
A Compromised United Way
We have seen such denial and disengagement in the United Way network for years resulting in abuse in the form of fraud, embezzlement and mismanagement.
Late last year, the chief executive of the United Way of Metropolitan Atlanta secured a seven-figure---$1.6 million---retirement package for himself promising him roughly $106,000 a year for life. In his final year before retirement, he collected $446,7000 and $1.2 million in his last three years, not counting the lump sum payment.
The board did not even vote on the increases.
The tone at the United Way of America headquarters was set in the early 1990s when national president, William Aramony, was convicted of fraud for misusing the agency’s assets. The trend continued with Oral Suer, who ran the United Way of the Capital Area for 27 years and pleaded guilty to defrauding the charity of almost $500,000. While the president and CEO of the United Way of New York City in 2007 was under investigation for handling assets and resigned, we learn that his predecessor had used $227,000 of the charity’s money to cover personal expenses.
So as not to be undone, smaller United Way agencies have had their share of mismanagement and fraud. The Controller of the Capital Area United Way (Lansing Michigan) was successfully prosecuted for stealing about $1.9 million to fund her addiction to quarter horses. At the San Joaquin County local an employee embezzled over $200,000 and pleaded guilty to forgery and fraud. We have been able to document mismanagement and fraud at a number of affiliates including Chicago (IL), Tucson (AZ), Sacramento (CA), Bay area (CA), Santa Clara (CA), Toledo (OH), Harvey (IL), Freeborn (MN), Youngstown (OH), Story County (IA), Florida, Albemarle Area (NC), Orange (NJ), Pottawatomie (OK), Arizona, Montana, Stateline (IL), Iron County (UT), Shiawassee (MI), Wells County (IN), Washington, DC.
Some United Way affiliates, in an attempt to make contributions look more robust, were directed to count as their own contributions money that which was actually handled by other organizations. Some were also directed to count the value of volunteer’s time, a practice that is frowned upon by fundraising pundits. The practice of double counting was aimed at trying to show that it was recovering from scandals. When caught, cries of deception exploded.
Finding out about United Way malfeasance is challenging, to say the least. Beyond the flurry of press clippings about the merits of the United Way of America, we have been able to find over thirty affiliates that have been involved in wrong doing, amounting to tens of millions of dollars. Just last month, in New Jersey, a local got hit for embezzlement for over $500,000.
The problems are rampant. The solutions are somewhat complex.
The combination of poor leadership, compromise practices, weak governance, fraud, embezzlement and mismanagement in the United Way network has resulted in a broken organization.
The United Way star is falling from grace. Some want to blame it on the economy and others on its business model. It may, in part, be both. But the old and tired approaches, sugar-coated by press releases, have not worked. The public relations campaigns are not swaying corporate America, unions and especially significant donors. Many United Way benefactors question the organization’s decision-making and are directing their gifts to their favorite causes instead of having the organization distribute the money.
There is irrefutable evidence that such scandals have had an effect on donations. After the Aramony affair, United Way donations decreased by 11%. Similar results showed in Lansing Michigan and New York fundraising after their respective malfeasance schemes became publicized. Similar results will most assuredly happen at the United Way of the Central Carolinas.
But the first to realize that the organization was broke were the recipient-agencies. They saw relations breaking down between the U-W and their agencies, they saw their input diminishing, they saw U-W volunteers reporting back that their input was being ignored and then they saw competition by America’s Charities and others. Their beliefs have come true as the number of U-W agencies began shrinking, contributions falling and the United Way dropping as a percentage of total giving. Many of the United Ways staunches supporters are bailing.
Another big kid on the block is exposed as vulnerable. We have seen it before---American Red Cross, Smithsonian Institution. Both are bleeding red ink and going to the taxpayers for a bailout. What is the next iteration that the United Way will use to keep it afloat in order to deny that there are any misdeeds?
Gary Snyder is managing partner of Nonprofit Imperative and author of Nonprofits: On the Brink and Nonprofit Imperative. He can be reached at http://gary.r.snyder.com. His website is: http://garyrsnyder.com.
In all fairness, a correction is important. As a matter of record, some of the local agencies have indicated that their misdeeds are only allegations, not documented.
Labels: accountability, Best Practices, United Way, workplace giving
posted by Gary at
10:55 AM
|
1 comments
links to this post
Looking Beyond United Way
posted on: Tuesday, July 15, 2008
By Lisa Ranghelli
In late June Charlotte’s WCNC-TV and The Charlotte Observer broke a story that the board of directors of United Way of Central Carolinas (UWCC) approved a compensation package for its president that topped $1.2 million in fiscal year 2007. This represented a jump of more than $800,000 to the executive’s employee pension plan, reportedly to retroactively provide increases promised since 2001.
NCRP’s executive director, Aaron Dorfman, commented in The Charlotte Observer, “Nonprofit executives deserve fair compensation packages, but this is outrageous. Why do people believe that we can retain the trust of the public when we pay people at outrageous levels like this?”
The Charlotte news outlets subsequently reported that many local United Way donors were outraged and pledged to stop supporting the organization.
In a message to NCRP, Charlotte resident Steve Hofstatter urged continued attention to this issue. “Charlotte is a caring community where conformance and group think is overwhelming, particularly when it comes to workplace giving and accepting the foibles of a routinely reckless United Way agency,” he wrote. “I wish there was something more I could do beyond writing letters to the editor and consoling my many corporate-employed friends who are coerced to pledge more and more by their overzealous employers.”
Whether or not the compensation package given to the UWCC president was justified, Steve raises an important point—many people who give through the workplace have no alternative to the United Way.
Luckily, this is not always the case. A Columbus Dispatch article by Rita Price, which was published only a few days after the UWCC scandal broke the news, reported on the alternative workplace giving options available in Central Ohio. A handful of federations in Central Ohio are competing with the United Way for charitable donations and are experiencing growth, while United Way donations are down. These include Earth Share and Community Shares. Earth Share donations go to environmental causes, and Community Shares typically distributes funds to organizing, advocacy, and activist groups. These regional federations help increase resources for charities that are often denied the opportunity to become a United Way partner agency or are underrepresented in United Way because they are not traditional social service agencies.
As NCRP recounted in its 2007 report, Charitable Fundraising in the Workplace:
“Many of the early workplace funds were set up in a time of movement building
when the groups that were going to benefit from the funds raised were not as
easily marketable as most mainstream social service organizations. These pioneer
funds were created to raise money for specific communities of color, for civil
and human rights work, for environmental causes, for women’s rights and
pro-choice organizations, for gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender
populations, and for groups promoting social justice, community organizing
or advocacy.”
These types of organizations continue to suffer from underfunding. Despite the growth of alternative workplace giving options, these funds raise less than 10% of the total raised by United Way affiliates. And foundation support for social justice causes accounts for only 11% of all grants.
As the Charlotte story suggests, having a monopoly on workplace charitable giving may be bad for governance, but it is also bad for society – locking out many important constituencies and causes from needed resources.
So if you’re looking to support nonprofits through payroll contributions but would like an alternative to United Way, you might want to visit Our Giving Community, which lists various alternative workplace giving funds. Encourage your employer to consider partnering with OGC and ask your friends to do the same.
Lisa Ranghelli is a senior research associate at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP).
Labels: United Way, workplace giving
By Lisa Ranghelli
In late June Charlotte’s WCNC-TV and The Charlotte Observer broke a story that the board of directors of United Way of Central Carolinas (UWCC) approved a compensation package for its president that topped $1.2 million in fiscal year 2007. This represented a jump of more than $800,000 to the executive’s employee pension plan, reportedly to retroactively provide increases promised since 2001.
NCRP’s executive director, Aaron Dorfman, commented in The Charlotte Observer, “Nonprofit executives deserve fair compensation packages, but this is outrageous. Why do people believe that we can retain the trust of the public when we pay people at outrageous levels like this?”
The Charlotte news outlets subsequently reported that many local United Way donors were outraged and pledged to stop supporting the organization.
In a message to NCRP, Charlotte resident Steve Hofstatter urged continued attention to this issue. “Charlotte is a caring community where conformance and group think is overwhelming, particularly when it comes to workplace giving and accepting the foibles of a routinely reckless United Way agency,” he wrote. “I wish there was something more I could do beyond writing letters to the editor and consoling my many corporate-employed friends who are coerced to pledge more and more by their overzealous employers.”
Whether or not the compensation package given to the UWCC president was justified, Steve raises an important point—many people who give through the workplace have no alternative to the United Way.
Luckily, this is not always the case. A Columbus Dispatch article by Rita Price, which was published only a few days after the UWCC scandal broke the news, reported on the alternative workplace giving options available in Central Ohio. A handful of federations in Central Ohio are competing with the United Way for charitable donations and are experiencing growth, while United Way donations are down. These include Earth Share and Community Shares. Earth Share donations go to environmental causes, and Community Shares typically distributes funds to organizing, advocacy, and activist groups. These regional federations help increase resources for charities that are often denied the opportunity to become a United Way partner agency or are underrepresented in United Way because they are not traditional social service agencies.
As NCRP recounted in its 2007 report, Charitable Fundraising in the Workplace:
“Many of the early workplace funds were set up in a time of movement building
when the groups that were going to benefit from the funds raised were not as
easily marketable as most mainstream social service organizations. These pioneer
funds were created to raise money for specific communities of color, for civil
and human rights work, for environmental causes, for women’s rights and
pro-choice organizations, for gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender
populations, and for groups promoting social justice, community organizing
or advocacy.”
These types of organizations continue to suffer from underfunding. Despite the growth of alternative workplace giving options, these funds raise less than 10% of the total raised by United Way affiliates. And foundation support for social justice causes accounts for only 11% of all grants.
As the Charlotte story suggests, having a monopoly on workplace charitable giving may be bad for governance, but it is also bad for society – locking out many important constituencies and causes from needed resources.
So if you’re looking to support nonprofits through payroll contributions but would like an alternative to United Way, you might want to visit Our Giving Community, which lists various alternative workplace giving funds. Encourage your employer to consider partnering with OGC and ask your friends to do the same.
Lisa Ranghelli is a senior research associate at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP).
Labels: United Way, workplace giving
posted by NCRP at
2:29 PM
|
0 comments
links to this post
