Yep - zero.
Sometimes Charities Make me Sick
- Thread starter Commodore
- Start date
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Actually, its 50 hours. http://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template...mplate=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=13033
"Should aspire" does not equal dictate. I have no requirement to report pro bono hours and it is not a requirement for me to keep my license to perform even a single second of pro bono service.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
I never said it dictated that you had to do it. But the rule is there for a reason. If you dont want to perform pro bono services to the poor thats between you and the Texas bar. But the bar there does recommend that its members do 50 hours annually to give back to citizens of the state....not zero.
Just makes sense when the bar puts it this way:
dIZZyBlIZZy
Batteries not included
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
The bar assocation does 'dictate' (i.e. mentions) the number of hours its members should do each year. I never said it 'forced' them to do it.
If I parsed that in a confusing way i'm sorry. But my clarification should help.
It's not between me and the Texas Bar. They make a recommendation and I choose whether or not to follow it. There is no consequence on not following it and the State Bar does not pry because it is not a mandatory obligation. To keep my license from year-to-year, I must do two things - 1. Pay State Bar Dues and the related taxes and license fees; and, 2. Have the right mix of 15 hours of continuing legal education.
If I do that, the only way I can have my license yanked is a formal proceeding based on some sort of malfeasance, malprctice, incompetence, o incapacity. Lack of pro bono hours will not get my license yanked.
Nevertheless, my firm averages more pro bono hours per lawyer than every single large firm in Texas that has reported its per lawyer pro bono hours.
Yeah, it is confusing. In this neck of the woods "mentions" and "dictates" are not synonymous.
BasketCase
Username sez it all
Not true. Everything else is expendable. Lose a limb, lose an eye. Lose a lung. Brain keeps on going. Lose some of your heart tissue, your brain keeps going. Which is exactly what happens if you have a heart attack, by the way--oxygen starvation causes a piece of your heart to actually die. The rest of your heart keeps pumping.
But if you lose ANY brain tissue, bad things happen. Memory goes bad, motor control goes bad, speech gets slurred, you have hallucinations. Every other tissue in the human body is expendable. Brain is not.
Endpoint of the analogy: the leader is the most important part of an organization. Without the figurative brain, the figurative body is merely a disorganized mob of people who, being both disorganized and a mob, cannot accomplish anything except breaking store windows and flipping cars on their backsides.
So the Apple campus is now a mess?
BasketCase
Username sez it all
Continuing to carry the analogy.....
We'll see. All depends how good the replacement brain is......
We'll see. All depends how good the replacement brain is......
classical_hero
In whom I trust
You're using lawyer talk, so it would be better to say it in lain English, to make it easier for us to understand.
Very true. I like to try to analyse these things, though.
My time is valuable, because I've got a good set of skills. If I work for a charity (or donate time to a charity) using those skills, then my 'net donation' is a decent sum (effectively). If I give time to a charity, but am donating a lower set of skills, then my net donation isn't as much (even if it's the same amount of time). It might even be more effective for me to work, and give money to the charity, so they can hire someone to do the low-skill work. That would be true, even if the charity was less than efficient.
As well, there're some charity efforts that I just cannot contribute to. There's almost no way for me to personally help reduce the malaria burden in the world, or the polio burden. I would have to go through some pretty major career changes, and even then I'd need some type of paycheque to help subsidise my efforts. So, I'd need donations regardless. If I want to help those fronts, I pretty well have to do it with cash donations, and try to spend that money efficiently. In some regions, there're no other opitions but to support the imperfect charities. But, since those charities are helping real people (in real time), and not just theoretical people, I have to choose whether to help against the specific issues.
So, ideally, I like to give time if the charity is making good use of my skills (or, obviously, if I have spare time). I like to give money if the charity can hire people to do stuff more effeciently than I could than by donating time. And sometimes, I think it's worthwhile to actually work for a charity (for a paycheque) and choose either the market rate for your skills or as much of a discount as I want to give. In the end, a charity that hires us at a market rate is being given money to get a task done. It's better the task get done at its market price than not at all.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,374
Returns above anything else? You really think that is the most adequate mindframe for people running a charity?
The logic of corporate executives is - these days, at least, and that's a loss for everyone - oriented towards making profit, accumulating money and increasing the size of the little empires they control. Whereas a charity is supposed to be about not making a return. It's about giving stuff away, at a loss! Put that kind of executive running them, and you'll have very "efficient" charities, only efficient at perpetuating the charity and the power of the executives running them. The charity mission? They'll be just a means towards that power. The people to be aided? Tools.
No, sorry but corporate executives do not seem adequate for running charities.
No, it's not. I do not share your cult of heroic leaders. I do not fall for that myth. Leaders must be replaceable, and if someones builds an organization where the leader is not replaceable, that organization is doomed. Because - fortunately - we're all mortal! That covers the practical aspect of the "importance of the leader". Now to the theoretical aspect: leaders exist within an organization to serve that organization, just as every other member, for the mutual benefit of everyone. While their role is to be respected within its duties (accepting the "chain of command", it's their office which is respected, not the person. As people they are no better than any other member.
Only fools would meekly accept any other social contract, one where leaders were held to be personally invested of heroic superpowers. We had that thing with kinds, divine right, and whatever,. It ended with heads rolling.
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
How do I do that?
carmen510
Deity
Executives running an international organization generally have MBAs, an MIB, a Master's Degree in Economics, or a PhD in management. If you go to university in order to get an MBA, I doubt that your original intention was to become an executive officer at the Red Cross. Certainly, some people are convinced to join humanitarian organizations after getting their degree, but that's usually due to their experiences in university, growing up in an LDC, or volunteering overseas.
BasketCase
Username sez it all
The Laws of Evolution (as applied to economics) have already spent six thousand years of recorded history proving that wrong. Good leaders cannot be replaced by anybody except a better leader. History is full of incidents where good leaders were removed from their posts, after which the organization from which they were removed, promptly failed.
Further (to carry the human-body analogy yet again!
): your brain, innonimatu, is not replaceable. Without it, you're doomed.The leader is the most important part of any organization.
You lost the argument the instant you wrote that. The argument "Anybody who disagrees with X is a fool" is never acceptable in a debate.
wolfigor
Emperor
I have been looking at http://www.charitynavigator.org/ an organization dedicated to check the efficiency and trustworthiness of charity organization (only USA, and only those that submit tax returns).
If you really want to spend money in charity, I suggest you to use this website to check what will happen to your money.
For the American Redcross they give top score (4 stars):
92.1% of their total budget is spent on the programs and services it exists to deliver.
In fundraising they spend only $0.11 for each dollar raised.
Total budget: $3,587,775,430
Their CEO, Gail J. McGovern, earns $995,718 (0.02% of total budget)
Very different from Washington, D.C. Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial Project Foundation:
They spend only 28.7% of their budget on their programs.
They also spend $0.63 for each dollar raised!
Their CEO, Harry Johnson, earns $277,045 (7.08% of the total budget)
If you really want to spend money in charity, I suggest you to use this website to check what will happen to your money.
For the American Redcross they give top score (4 stars):
92.1% of their total budget is spent on the programs and services it exists to deliver.
In fundraising they spend only $0.11 for each dollar raised.
Total budget: $3,587,775,430
Their CEO, Gail J. McGovern, earns $995,718 (0.02% of total budget)
Very different from Washington, D.C. Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial Project Foundation:
They spend only 28.7% of their budget on their programs.
They also spend $0.63 for each dollar raised!
Their CEO, Harry Johnson, earns $277,045 (7.08% of the total budget)
Ooh!
Rotary International (warning, link has automatic sound
)
General Manager $156,699 (0.06% )
Program Expenses (89.6%)
Administrative Expenses (3.2%)
Fundraising Expenses (7.0%)
Rotary International (warning, link has automatic sound
)General Manager $156,699 (0.06% )
Program Expenses (89.6%)
Administrative Expenses (3.2%)
Fundraising Expenses (7.0%)
