| Advogado |
02-14-2011 10:32 PM |
The ACS
[quote=same;330864]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Advogado
(Post 330860)
Yeah. The Daily Sun sure made it appear that the Developer was making a contribution, when in fact, it was an investment.
The question that I still have is what the deal is between Moffitt and the developer regarding the Developer's fund-raising campaign for Moffitt. Maybe everything is above-board and truly arm's length. Maybe not. Certainly the Developer has some skin in the game, at the very least.
I struck out (not to my surprise, I will admit) with my request to the Moffitt Center for the details about its arrangements with the Developer. However, a little transparency would be nice since Moffitt is asking for our donations. Certainly, the misrepresentations in the Daily Sun and the Developer's attempt to shake down the American Cancer Society / Relay for Life certainly should cause one to be a little suspicious about what is going on.
In commenting on the subject, one should keep in mind that the controversy is not about whether Moffitt should come here. The controversy arises as a result of the Developer-backed fund-raising drive and the tactics used to raise those funds. If Moffitt, using its own funds, were simply going to establish an office here, hire one radiologist, and rent from the Developer, we wouldn't have Lauren Ritchie articles and a hundred or so posts in this Forum.[/QUOTE
From Wikipedia: The society’s allocation of funds for the fiscal year ending August 31, 2005 lists 70% of funds for Program Services (Research 14%, Prevention 20%, Patient Support 20%, Detection and Treatment 16%). The remaining 30% are allocated for supporting services (Fundraising 22%, and Management, General administration 8%) meeting the Better Business Bureau's Standards for Charity Accountability (At least 65% to program services and no more than 35% to overhead and fundraising expenses).[7]
Should "relay" pay the ACS 30% of the funds raised in The Villages: with the donations not going here?
|
Since you quote my post, I guess your question is addressed to me. I'm probably being dense, but I'm afraid I really don't understand what you are driving at.
Could you clarify your point in asking if Relay should pay ACS only 30% of the funds that the Relay specifically raised for ACS? What happens to the other 70% in your hypothesis? I'm not trying to defend ACS, which I know no more about than does the average person, but what is wrong with ACS getting 100% of the funds raised for it in The Villages, New York City, or any place else?
Just so you know where I'm really coming from on this matter: My wife is a breast-cancer survivor and has participated in the Relay. I find the Developer's actions regarding this year's Relay, at very best, disgusting-- and maybe worse, depending on the Developer's deal with the Moffitt Center. |
