"Maxprop" wrote in message
hlink.net.
...

I guess I was more interested in the UW on the national
level. It has been
quite a while ago, but at one time the UW reported 90%
administrative and
10% pass-through. Of course the various media crucified
the UW for that,
and changes were brought about immediately. That some fat
cats were getting
rich on the UW didn't cut it with donors or potential
recipients. The news
of the organization's malfeasance hurt it severely for a
while. I'm
confident that your 10% administrative is probably not far
off the national
level now.

My wife and I contribute about $5000 to the UW each year.
While we'd like
to have the time to investigate which individual charities
might better be
served through direct donations, we find it more expedient
to use the UW. I
believe that's what the UW was chartered for in the first
place: folks like
us.

Next year you could give me that money, and I'll see that it
*all* goes to a worthy cause.

Give till it hurts!

Scotty

"Scotty" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
hlink.net.
..

I guess I was more interested in the UW on the national
level. It has been
quite a while ago, but at one time the UW reported 90%
administrative and
10% pass-through. Of course the various media crucified
the UW for that,
and changes were brought about immediately. That some fat
cats were getting
rich on the UW didn't cut it with donors or potential
recipients. The news
of the organization's malfeasance hurt it severely for a
while. I'm
confident that your 10% administrative is probably not far
off the national
level now.

My wife and I contribute about $5000 to the UW each year.
While we'd like
to have the time to investigate which individual charities
might better be
served through direct donations, we find it more expedient
to use the UW. I
believe that's what the UW was chartered for in the first
place: folks like
us.

Next year you could give me that money, and I'll see that it
*all* goes to a worthy cause.

Give till it hurts!

Sure thing, Scooter. Will ya take a check, heh, heh . . .

Max

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..
I stopped giving to UW when they insisted that fags could
join Boy Scouts.

When I was in the BSA, and later when I was a scoutmaster, I have no doubt
some of our kids were a bit limp of wrist. The only difference today is
that they can be out of the closet. Around the sort of Boy Scouts I knew,
I'd suspect that could be dangerous to their health.

Max

"Maxprop" wrote in message
news ..

we find it more expedient
to use the UW. I
believe that's what the UW was chartered for in the
first
place: folks like
us.

Next year you could give me that money, and I'll see
that it
*all* goes to a worthy cause.

Give till it hurts!

Sure thing, Scooter. Will ya take a check, heh, heh . . .


Yes, Visa and MC too.

Scotty

On Fri, 04 May 2007 03:24:50 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote:


"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 03 May 2007 21:49:44 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote:


"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 03 May 2007 07:33:40 -0400, katy
wrote:

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article ,
katy wrote:

Katy, katy... the point is that the lobbiest money is interfering
with
the process. Some would claim that it's a first amendement right of
theirs to pump big money to politicians to get their way, but the
effect is to subvert the will of the people.

If you don't think that's true, see how easy or difficult it is for a
private citizen to get a private meeting with the President vs. a big
sponsor. This is true for both parties. The Dems have claimed they're
going to address it, but so far, nothing has happened.



I wonder why?? )that's a rhetorical question) SOme of the largest
lobbying groups are liberal...like i mentioned: the NEA, the AMA, 2 of
the most powerful...but then, those groups are made up of people with
interests who use the group effort rather than the individual effort
to
make their mark...many regular old citizens contribute to those
groups,
not just the big money...so..if you really want this war to end..start
lobbying...get some big money behind you...obviously, big money isn;'t
interested in ending the war...


What does the political affiliation have to do with the access we're
talking about? You're really stretching if you think this is good for
the country.



..I give my money to organizations that represent my
interests...and not to blanket charities like United Way...


You should. Unless your local United Way is ineffective.

As a two term UW board member my eyes were opened to the effectiveness
of the UW. All I can say is I would hate to be the head of a charity
that goes before the UW allocation committee without all my ducks in a
row. A brutal ordeal.

Of course it is a local thing.

Frank--what percentage of the money collected by the United Way actually
goes to the various charities? What percent is considered "administrative
expenses?"

Max

As mentioned, it is a local thing. The local board controls the UW
administrative budget, campaign expenditures, compensation levels,
etc.

I haven't been on the board for several years (locally, two terms of
three years then off for at least one term), but when I was on the
administrative budget was about 10%. For that you get a very well run
campaign, with mostly volunteers as campaign coordinators and brutal
scrutiny of charities that have made application to recieve funds,
along with ongoing oversight.

Additionally, an endowed fund has been established so that at some
time in the future, the administrative expenses can come from income
from the endowed fund and 100% of the campaign can pass through. Not
there yet.

The board is all volunteer. The local UW had three full time
employee's when I was on the board, may have four now. The last
campaign was 2.2 million dollars..

But it is local. The efficiency depends on board members willing to
volunteer and provide the proper oversite. It took quite a bit of
time.

I guess I was more interested in the UW on the national level. It has been
quite a while ago, but at one time the UW reported 90% administrative and
10% pass-through. Of course the various media crucified the UW for that,
and changes were brought about immediately. That some fat cats were getting
rich on the UW didn't cut it with donors or potential recipients. The news
of the organization's malfeasance hurt it severely for a while. I'm
confident that your 10% administrative is probably not far off the national
level now.

I remember that, and also the scandal caused by a large California
local that went bankrupt amid corruption allegations. As with any
transfer of money, proper oversight is required, or corruption is
guaranteed.

Our volunteer board was diverse, having CPA's, (financial statements
and audits) investment brokers (to invest temporary funds and the
endowed fund), A Human resources V.P.(hiring, compensation and
benefits for the few permanent employee's), a local TV newscaster
(publicity), and many others. All in all about 25 board members with
staggered terms at any given time.

The fee paid to national is included in that 10% admin budget and is
very small. However, the national ad package and PR are worth the
fee.

My wife and I contribute about $5000 to the UW each year. While we'd like
to have the time to investigate which individual charities might better be
served through direct donations, we find it more expedient to use the UW. I
believe that's what the UW was chartered for in the first place: folks like
us.

Good, and you're right, if you can trust your board, you don't have to
worry about good stewardship.

Max

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 May 2007 03:24:50 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote:


"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 03 May 2007 21:49:44 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote:


"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 03 May 2007 07:33:40 -0400, katy
wrote:

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article ,
katy wrote:

Katy, katy... the point is that the lobbiest money is interfering
with
the process. Some would claim that it's a first amendement right of
theirs to pump big money to politicians to get their way, but the
effect is to subvert the will of the people.

If you don't think that's true, see how easy or difficult it is for
a
private citizen to get a private meeting with the President vs. a
big
sponsor. This is true for both parties. The Dems have claimed
they're
going to address it, but so far, nothing has happened.



I wonder why?? )that's a rhetorical question) SOme of the largest
lobbying groups are liberal...like i mentioned: the NEA, the AMA, 2
of
the most powerful...but then, those groups are made up of people
with
interests who use the group effort rather than the individual effort
to
make their mark...many regular old citizens contribute to those
groups,
not just the big money...so..if you really want this war to
end..start
lobbying...get some big money behind you...obviously, big money
isn;'t
interested in ending the war...


What does the political affiliation have to do with the access we're
talking about? You're really stretching if you think this is good
for
the country.



..I give my money to organizations that represent my
interests...and not to blanket charities like United Way...


You should. Unless your local United Way is ineffective.

As a two term UW board member my eyes were opened to the effectiveness
of the UW. All I can say is I would hate to be the head of a charity
that goes before the UW allocation committee without all my ducks in a
row. A brutal ordeal.

Of course it is a local thing.

Frank--what percentage of the money collected by the United Way actually
goes to the various charities? What percent is considered
"administrative
expenses?"

Max

As mentioned, it is a local thing. The local board controls the UW
administrative budget, campaign expenditures, compensation levels,
etc.

I haven't been on the board for several years (locally, two terms of
three years then off for at least one term), but when I was on the
administrative budget was about 10%. For that you get a very well run
campaign, with mostly volunteers as campaign coordinators and brutal
scrutiny of charities that have made application to recieve funds,
along with ongoing oversight.

Additionally, an endowed fund has been established so that at some
time in the future, the administrative expenses can come from income
from the endowed fund and 100% of the campaign can pass through. Not
there yet.

The board is all volunteer. The local UW had three full time
employee's when I was on the board, may have four now. The last
campaign was 2.2 million dollars..

But it is local. The efficiency depends on board members willing to
volunteer and provide the proper oversite. It took quite a bit of
time.

I guess I was more interested in the UW on the national level. It has
been
quite a while ago, but at one time the UW reported 90% administrative and
10% pass-through. Of course the various media crucified the UW for that,
and changes were brought about immediately. That some fat cats were
getting
rich on the UW didn't cut it with donors or potential recipients. The
news
of the organization's malfeasance hurt it severely for a while. I'm
confident that your 10% administrative is probably not far off the
national
level now.

I remember that, and also the scandal caused by a large California
local that went bankrupt amid corruption allegations. As with any
transfer of money, proper oversight is required, or corruption is
guaranteed.

Our volunteer board was diverse, having CPA's, (financial statements
and audits) investment brokers (to invest temporary funds and the
endowed fund), A Human resources V.P.(hiring, compensation and
benefits for the few permanent employee's), a local TV newscaster
(publicity), and many others. All in all about 25 board members with
staggered terms at any given time.

The fee paid to national is included in that 10% admin budget and is
very small. However, the national ad package and PR are worth the
fee.

My wife and I contribute about $5000 to the UW each year. While we'd like
to have the time to investigate which individual charities might better be
served through direct donations, we find it more expedient to use the UW.
I
believe that's what the UW was chartered for in the first place: folks
like
us.

Good, and you're right, if you can trust your board, you don't have to
worry about good stewardship.

We've known personally most of the people on our local UW board for the past
decade or so.

Max