Posted by electionguru on July 4, 2008 at 11:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dunnahoo serves on the Boy Scouts Board and the United Way Board ... I wonder how he voted? Did he vote for or against Boy Scout funding? I guess that information isn't public?

Posted by hspower2003 on July 5, 2008 at 12:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What is the United Way's new vision?

It looks like they may have lost their vision and have cast a blind eye toward what has been their guiding principles for years.

They will lose more than 68,000 in pledges next year, just from their bad press.

Posted by wbarloww on July 5, 2008 at 6:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree hspower. I am planning to go one further and I suggest that everyone that disagrees with the United Way position to cut funding for the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts do this. Cut out and save this article. If your employer sends out the United Way pledge cards and envelopes, cut up the pledge card and put it and the copy of the article in the envelope and turn it in. That way they not only see you were unhappy with them, but also why.

Posted by TxBetts on July 5, 2008 at 8:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

wbarloww and hspower2003,

The United Way asked for our opinions on what we thought their community vision should be. They published a survey and urged us all to complete and return it. Did you let them know what you thought they should focus on?

They compiled the results and let us know what we told them. They listened and grouped our opinions into 5 categories. Did you protest when the vision goals were published in the paper?

When they wrote the guidelines for funding were you there to make certain the rules were clear and fit the vision goals of our community?

They asked for our participation in determining which agencies should receive funding. Community members spend many hours visiting, interviewing, and reviewing the applications for fundings. Did you serve as a United Way volunteer? Did you volunteer to help your favorite non-profit write their application? Or did you volunteer to help your favorite non-profit find ways to measure their success?

Maybe the bad press should be about the Citizens of Abilene. We love to let other people do the work and then we love to criticize what they did.

Maybe we should commit to being a part of the process instead of saving a clipping to send in with a cut up pledge card.

Posted by wbarloww on July 5, 2008 at 8:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And if they got peoples opinion and ignored them for their own pet projects? Then the people need to show their displeasure. Or do you feel the people do not have the right to redress their grievences?

Posted by electionguru on July 5, 2008 at 8:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

wbarloww, I would encourage you to do some research about how the UNited Way decides who gets funded and who doesn't. The United Way doesn't actually decide, it's a group of community volunteers who review each program and make an educated decision.

TxBetts has it correct, next year, sign up to be a United Way volunteer so you can help the Boy Scouts out.

Posted by electionguru on July 5, 2008 at 9:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm going to put this out there too.

Mr. Dunnahoo said that $68,000 was 8% of their budget. Doing the math, that makes their budget around $850,000.

Mr. Kent Brown, from the Boy Scouts, makes an annual salary of $96,000.

Doing the math, that means Mr. Brown's salary is more than 8.8% of the Boy Scouts total budget. THAT'S INSANE!!

Put that into other Abilene organizations ... AISD budget is over 100 million dollars. People might complain about how much Polnick makes, but if they use the Boy Scout method, Polnick would make a million dollars a year!

Why is this kind of news not being reported by the ARN?

Posted by wbarloww on July 5, 2008 at 10:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well electionguru,

Maybe if enough people put a copy of this article in the empty United Way envelope when they are passed around at work, maybe that will educate the ones who make decisions.

Posted by temec on July 5, 2008 at 11:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Since it seems United Way desires to ensure basic human needs are met for all citizens, and Boy Scouts of America doesnt, the truest test of United Ways position would be whether they fund Adventure Scouts USA's scout programs.

Posted by wild_bill on July 5, 2008 at 1:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To heck with the United Way. Anyone who donates to an umbrella organization is either lazy, careless or clueless. "I can't make up my mind who deserves my money, so I'll give someone else a percentage of the money I donate to make the hard decisions for me." Nonsense! I quit supporting the United Way many years ago and refused the guilt-tripping tactics that sought to force my unwilling donations. I make direct donations to the people, organizations and causes that I choose, not what some "commitee of volunteers" might choose for me.

If you want to donate to an organization, do so directly and get rid of the bureaucratic middleman. Thus there is no problem of supporting any organization you don't agree with nor of leaving a favored organization unfunded.

Posted by ranger56 on July 5, 2008 at 1:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Dunnahoo is not the only United Way Board member with ties to another organization. Many of the members also serve on other boards. They are required to disclose any conflicts of interest, and they may not vote on allocations involving those agencies.

As the ARN article points out, it is a multi-stage process for an organization to receive UW funding, including how its goals fit in with UW community goals, along with what kind of measurable results can they show, and do they exercise prudent financial management. An organization must meet all those criteria in order to receive funding.

And as several have pointed out, funding decisions are locally made, by local volunteers who visit local programs, interview agency personnel, etc. Every United Way pledge form has a box to check at the bottom, for someone to get involved in the investment review process. No special qualifications are required, other than the willingness to serve.

Personally, I give through United Way, NOT because I'm too lazy to give directly, but because I'm glad to know that someone is holding agencies accountable for doing what they say they're doing.

It seems to me that those who are blaming United Way for this decision are shooting the messenger. There is no finer organization than the Boy Scouts, but if this many volunteers are raising a red flag about this council and its management, then perhaps there is a serious problem, and those who love Scouting need to find out why this has happened.

Posted by shopgirl on July 6, 2008 at 1:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Does anyone know what the CEO of United Way makes in salary??

Posted by electionguru on July 6, 2008 at 3:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

shopgirl - it's public information, www.guidestar.org is the place to look. you have to register, but it's free.

Posted by Shootstir on July 6, 2008 at 4:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm with Wildbill- the U.W. takes too much of our dollars before passing it along to those who actually are in need.

Cut out the middleman (United Way) and donate directly to the charity of your choice. It's the only responsible way to make a difference in our community.

As for UW casting a vision and letting the people of Abilene review/write in about it- I read the paper most days- and I never heard/read ONE WORD about this. Perhaps UW should have sent out a direct mailer to the citizens who support their organization? That is the best way to inform in the digital age...

Posted by dalai-llama on July 7, 2008 at 1:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There's nothing wrong with giving directly to the charity of your choice. You can be sure that 100% of your money will go to that agency, whereas a donation to United Way will be shared among all of their agencies.

Giving to the United Way, however, is not a waste of money. As mentioned above, one of the functions of United Way is accountability. The United Way does an excellent job of holding their agencies accountable in both the provision of services (is this agency helping people like they say they are?) and proving that they are fiscally responsible (how transparent are their finances and how wisely are they spending the money?)

The main service that the United Way provides is reach. If you give directly to the charity of your choice, that charity will get your dollar. Meanwhile, the United Way is out gathering dollars from your coworkers, the folks at Dyess, and businesses and individuals throughout the entire community. Your $100 contribution will provide a hundred dollars' worth of support to your agency of choice, but it is not going to be as valuable as the $35,000 or the $100,000 or the $200,000 that the United Way gives your favorite charity from the $2M raised by its annual campaign.

Furthermore, the United Way supports not just your agency of choice, but all of the other agencies. A dollar given to the United Way may only provide 20 cents to your favorite charity (let's say the Medical Care Mission, which is one of my favorites), but it also provides 20 cents to the Day Nursery that watches the kids while the Mission's client is getting her tooth pulled, and it provides 20 cents to Faithworks so she can learn how to get a job, and it provides 20 cents to the Christian Service Center so she can get some nice shoes for a job interview to put herself in a position where she doesn't have to rely on the Medical Care Mission. Abilene has a lot of agencies, and they aren't islands; a dollar given to United Way helps your favorite charity by helping them all.

Yeah, some money goes to overhead. Running campaigns costs money, but the benefits of the campaign far outweigh the benefits of not having it. Some people will donate regularly to their charity of choice, but most of us wouldn't if we had to do anything more than sign a slip of paper once a year to take five bucks out of our monthly pay.

Giving straight to your charity of choice is great. I'm not knocking that. I'm just saying that giving to United Way is an easy way to do a lot of good, to make sure that your dollar is being wisely invested, and to leverage more than a dollar's worth of services out of a dollar's contribution.

(Full disclosure: I've spent a lot of time around these organizations. I've heard their spiels a lot, and I'm not entirely unbiased.)

Posted by wild_bill on July 7, 2008 at 7:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You know dalai-llama, somehow your disclosure fails to surprise me. :)

If the United Way is so worthwhile, why isn't it run by volunteers? Volunteers are good enough for mayor and city council-person, why aren't volunteers good enough for the top jobs at the United Way? I don't know what the director or upper-echelon groups' salary is, but I'll bet it is a above the median income in Abilene. Why do they need so much for overhead and administration when so many think it is a worthwhile cause? Apparently giving is only for the lower-echelons and "donors" but not the elite command staff.

The United Way's approach reminds me of Cable/Satellite TV's bundling gambit vs ala cart pricing. There are channels on your cable/ satellite you never watch, but you still pay for the bundled program. There are several organizations that might receive little or no support without the UW. There may be a good reason for that too.

I have more limited funds now than I did back when I was regularly solicited for UW donations at work. I want to make sure every cent I donate goes to the causes I choose to support and no where else.

Posted by dalai-llama on July 7, 2008 at 10:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"I want to make sure every cent I donate goes to the causes I choose to support and no where else."

Nothing wrong with that at all. There are a lot of people who feel very strongly about donating to a single cause, and that's fine. Condemning the United Way approach because it is different than yours, however is unwarranted.

Attacking them because their staff members get paid is, likewise, unwarranted. Most non-profits have paid staff members. Why should the head of the United Way, a CEO, make the median income? Directing an organization that brings in $2 million dollars a year requires a skill set that is in high demand, and it is guaranteed that the officers at United Way are taking a pretty hefty pay cut by working there rather than in the private sector. With most non-profits, the non-social work employees make significantly less than they would if they were to take their skills into the for-profit world. The United Way's 990s are online, by the way, and include a line that details the agency's compensation for officers; I think you'll be surprised by what you find.

Yeah, I'm biased. The United Way provides hefty amounts of support to organizations that need it, and I know people whose lives have been changed by some of these organizations. A lot of them wouldn't have the same operating budget without United Way not because they're unworthy, but because individual donors can't match the fundraising power of United Way, particularly if it's not a hot charity like saving cute puppies (compare the amount donated to animal causes to the amount donated to help humans with developmental disabilities) or whatever the celebrity cause of the week is.

Like I said, if you have particular causes that you want to get 100% of your support, that's all good, but don't knock U.W. for working on the big picture.

Posted by wild_bill on July 8, 2008 at 3:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So the United Way, a mere $2 million organization by your account, requires a highly compensated staff, but the City of Abilene can get by with popularly elected volunteers running it? Wow Norm, you are being grossly undercompensated! Actually your statement "the non-social work employees make significantly less than they would if they were to take their skills into the for-profit world" is a pretty good description of most city employees I've known over the years.

I think if volunteers are good enough to run the highest ranks of City government, volunteers should be good enough for a charity organization that involves far less money. Besides, didn't you say there is a volunteer group of community representatives who decide what charities get what percentage of the donations? So what do the paid staff do for their salaries? If U.W. charities are important enough to deserve my few dollars, then I think their employees' efforts should either be donated or compensated at minimum wage levels. I staunchly oppose "administrative costs" in any charity organization.

Worthy causes (by definition) receive whatever the public believes they are worth and not a cent more. The ones that cannot raise enough funds on their own merrits is a good indication of their actual value to the community. How much funding would the Spotted Owl get if it had to rely on public donations? Same story here.

I have two problems with the UW. The first is their assumption that they can decide better than I what charities are worthy of my donations. The second problem is the coercive tactics used by the United Way for fund raising. I resented being given a form each year and told it's my "fair share" to donate x percent of my salary per month but have no choice on which charities get my money. They first insult my intelligence then try to guilt-trip or strong arm me into giving.

If all you want to do is give money to the UW so you can feel good about yourself and let them decide who deserves your money, then go ahead. I don't mind. Personally I've always found casting "bread upon the waters" usually ends up with a lot of soggy bread and a bunch of loud, demanding ducks. If you truly care how your charitable donation is spent, give it directly to the people or organizations of your choice.

I stand by my original statement: "Anyone who donates to an umbrella organization is either lazy, careless or clueless."

Posted by dalai-llama on July 9, 2008 at 9:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"...I think their employees' efforts should either be donated or compensated at minimum wage levels...worthy causes (by definition) receive whatever the public believes they are worth and not a cent more..."

These are ridiculous, unrealistic standards. That anyone would actually believe this, let alone publicly argue it, is precisely the reason the United Way is necessary.

Posted by ranger56 on July 9, 2008 at 9:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

wildbill, a couple of observations:

Your analogy is flawed. Granted, the mayor and city council members are volunteers, but they are supported and assisted by a city manager and city staff members who ARE paid a full-time salary. The "volunteer" administrators would have a hard time doing their job without the hard work and dedication of the staff.

As I have previously stated, I have been a UW volunteer, and I have sat in on investment panel discussions. Those decisions are made by volunteers. UW staff supports the volunteers, much in the same way the professional city staff supports the mayor and council.

You are further incorrect when you allege that you are told to give but "have no choice on which charities get my money." As several people have pointed out, UW is ALWAYS looking for volunteers who will serve on boards and investment panels. It's on the bottom of every pledge form. Did you ever take the time to actually read one?

You complain about administrative costs, but the fact is, any professionally run organization has some overhead. Do you give to a church? Someone has to pay the light bill. And unless you're using volunteers, someone has to pay for the staff, from the pastor to the janitor. And volunteers have very limited time they can devote to such organizations.

Besides, Jesus said the worker is worthy of his wages.

If you don't want to give, fine, don't give. If you want to give to a favorite charity, fine, do that. But don't simply assume that anyone who gives through UW is "lazy, careless or clueless." Some of us really do have concern for the bigger picture, and UW is the only organization with the vision and dollars to make a real difference across a broad spectrum of community needs.

Posted by wild_bill on July 9, 2008 at 6:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So again, it's okay for others to sacrifice to the UW, but it's "unrealistic" to expect the people who work for UW to do the same? dalai-llama, do you honestly think that everyone who gives to the UW would give an equivalent amount to every UW client if given the opportunity to do so?

ranger56, the City Council, with the Mayor, has ultimate responsibility over everything in the city. They hire and fire the City Manager, the Fire Chief and the Police Chief on down. They go over every item on the budget, adding and cutting what they choose. They authorize studies, set tax rates, issue ordinences do many other vital and important things. They oversee staffs who are as porportionally underpaid as the UW workers. They also are known for over-riding those same staffs at their own whims. Would the administrator of the UW do so for free? Would he/she do so for minimum wage? THAT is my point. Paid fund raiser indeed. Maybe that's what the City needs and we could do away with these pesky taxes.

You talk about the form. Only once in 30 years was I ever given the opportunity to direct where my donations to the UW went; who they were spent on, etc. I never saw an application for volunteer board members on any of my pledge forms either, but admitedly, I wasn't looking for it so it could have been there. I worked evenings or mids for all but 8 weeks of my 30 year career. I never had the time, nor the inclination, to sit on any board neither church, city nor charity. Now that I have the time, I have even less inclination to do so.

You and dalai have personal knowledge of the UW and how it works, as well as who it works for. You obviously are not "lazy, careless or clueless". You are also not operating on trust BECAUSE of your personal knowledge and experience. Good for you but what about everyone else who gives without knowing?

When I give directly, I have an obligation to know who's getting my money and what they intend to do with it. Giving to an umbrella organization requires much less observation, knowledge, effort and time but requires a much greater trust (or a lack of caring) in that organization. To me, people who would rather their money be diluted among unknown entities, some of which they may not agree with, rather than to take the time and effort to research the beneficiaries of their largese are either "lazy, careless or clueless".

It's right up there with tossing a coin into a begger's cup at a stop light. Makes you feel good, but what good does it actually do? If you have the urge to "do good" but don't want to put any REAL time or effort into it, go ahead and give to the United Way with my blessing. You don't need my permission, but you have it anyway. I know where my money goes and who gets it.

Posted by dalai-llama on July 10, 2008 at 10:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"So again, it's okay for others to sacrifice to the UW, but it's "unrealistic" to expect the people who work for UW to do the same?"

Do we expect firefighters and the police to sacrifice their salaries for the good of the community? Should the licensed doctors and dentists who work for the Medical Care Mission not be paid? Charity work is work, just like any other job. The people doing it get paid less than their peers in the for-profit sector already. Requiring that they do their work for free is, I'm sorry, asinine. That you would expect people who put in more than full-time days (using skills that are in high demand) to work for free is an unreasonable standard so divorced from reality it's hard to even address it.

"dalai-llama, do you honestly think that everyone who gives to the UW would give an equivalent amount to every UW client if given the opportunity to do so?"

No. Most of the people who give through the United Way's campaign wouldn't give at all without it. We would have $2 million less to feed, house, and clothe the least of these in our community.

"To me, people who would rather their money be diluted among unknown entities..."

The entities aren't unknown. There's a whole list of them. That you feel the money is "diluted" among the different entities shows that you don't fully understand what you're arguing. Social services are not a string of islands. They are part of a net. United Way strengthens the ENTIRE net; all of these services and agencies are interdependent. In fact, United Way was instrumental in promoting a program called "Tapestry" that helps agencies cooperate with each other to benefit shared clients AND helps prevent abuse of the system.

"...rather than to take the time and effort to research the beneficiaries of their largese are either "lazy, careless or clueless"."

Can you tell me, honestly, that you did the following for the last agency to which you donated:

- Reviewed their 990
- Interviewed the Director and Financial Officer
- Toured the facilities and interviewed staff
- Talked to clients and reviewed their evaluations of the agency
- Audited the policies and procedures
- Audited the financials

United Way does that with every organization they fund.

Most people are comfortable giving to United Way because they're reputable and because they LIKE the idea that their money is going to support a wide variety of agencies. It's an easy way to make a big difference. The U.W. Board of Directors, Loaned Executives, and review panels (all volunteers, by the way) come from all walks of life and from outside the agency, ensuring accountability to the community.

Again, I'm not quibbling with the desire to give to a single entity that you know well or particularly care about. I do the same. But trashing people who give to a good agency that provides community-wide support is uncalled for.

Posted by wild_bill on July 10, 2008 at 9:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dalai-llama I realize this is another circular discussion because we are both hard-headed and staunch in our opposed beliefs, but I'll take another whack at it. Since you brought it up let me remind you Police and Firefighters potentially risk their lives ever single time they put on the uniform. They leave their families, and time spent with them, behind as both professions require shift work with holidays frequently sacrificed. Do the UW workers? No. They work a nice safe job with all holidays and weekends off.

The doctors, dentists, nurses and other health-care PROFESSIONALS sacrificed to get where they are and are already making a sacrifice in their earnings by working at the MCM. Surely you are not claiming they are making what they could in private or group practice? Are the UW workers paid the average salary? How about the directors? Are they losing or sacrificing ANYTHING by working for the UW or is the job, for most of the workers, just a nice job that pays well enough? What would most of them be doing if there was no United Way? The point is simple. The United Way wants me to sacrifice either time or money. I simply want to know what they are giving up in return.

I expect nothing out of anyone but myself. It cuts down on my disappointments. I can honestly tell you I have no idea what a "990" is, nor does that ignorance bother me. Nor do I need a “suit” to tell me why I should give to any organization.

If all I wish is to give to Breakfasts on Beech Street, or Loving Care Ministry or The Women of Grace, then YES my money is being diluted by giving it to UW. Most people who give to the UW do NOT know who all the recipient agencies are. Perhaps that is their own fault, but there you go. I don't doubt YOU or ranger56 know, but how many of the other donors know, or even care, who their money goes to. Like you say "it's an easy way ...".

dalai-llama I am glad you care and are so knowledgeable about the United Way. I'm glad you are a passionate defender for them also. I am the same way about the Fire and Police departments in case you hadn't noticed. Like your opinion of Obama, I do not share your opinion of the UW. And that's fine for both of us. Agreement is not required.

You chose to take me to task for my characterization of people giving to umbrella organizations as "lazy, clueless and careless". It's still my opinion. I never felt like I was "trashing" anyone. My words either described them or they did not. It never described you, but if you choose to be offended by them, feel free to do so. Having everyone agree with me has seldom been of great importance to me.