Spiff

Moved by kokonutz and seconded by bhatnasx:

that charitable appeals in favor of Inveneo be added to the Flyertalk Cares charity list and be allowed to be posted on FT.

This vote will close 3 Mar 2008 at 8:00pm (EDT)

SanDiego1K

What is Inveneo?

gleff

I voted no. I know that saying no to a request for a charity will seem harsh to many, so I wanted to explain.

As I understand it, Inveneo works in rural parts of developing countries to provide internet and voice communication. A very laudable goal.

The specific request was to solicit for eVIP's. Normally I'd be biased against raising upgrades for a charity, (since it likely doesn't increase the amount of activity the charity undertakes). But I wouldn't want to fly all the way to Africa in coach either, so if it helped make the work of good people a little easier, that's fine. (In some sense, the workers at Inveneo are really the charitable recipients of such a request, but if they're doing good work that might be alright in theory.)

Howver, and while I'm sure the motives of everyone involved is good, I had some concerns about the organization's management and didn't feel comfortable in effect endorsing it to members of the community.

Looking over their most recent tax return (all US 501(c)3 non-profit tax returns are public documents), I noted that:

* Management expenses were 67% (!!) of their total expenses. This was explained as improper accounting practices, but that raises other concerns.

* About a third of their total revenue is accounted for by 'contributions to donor advised funds' which would mean holding the funds for a separate charity. This was explained, I think, as a restricted grant. If the explanation is correct it's improper accounting, if incorrect it raises concerns.

* They claim to have spent a total of $86 on fundraising They may not do a lot of fundraising, but more questionable accounting.

* The organization has negative net assets

* Two board members have made loans to the group, on which the group is accruing interest. So contributions in some sense really go to fund deficits and to fund interest on loans made by the charity's directors. This concerns me.

I am not opposed to the charitable mission. I hope that this organization does good work, and that the Flyertalker involved with them has all the luck in the world in pursuit of their mission.

But based on the available facts it didn't look like the charity has its house sufficiently in order that I had confidence donations to it would be well used.

If that makes me a grinch or something, so be it. There are plenty of worthy charitable causes. I don't think all comers ought to be solicited for here on Flyertalk. I also worry about oversoliciting, where we become deaf to important needs and well-run charities. So I do think approvals ought to be made somewhat sparingly... a medium bar at least, rather than an exceedingly low threshold.

Best,
Gary

kokonutz

Here is who they are:

http://www.inveneo.org/

"Inveneo creates highly sustainable and affordable ultra low-power ICT infrastructure technologies designed specifically for organizations that provide vital services -- education, healthcare, economic development -- in remote and rural areas in the developing world."

Beyond that I will leave it to the poster making the request to address your question.


As to gleff's comments, I have a radically different view as to the TB's role in approving or disapproving of charitable solicitations on Flyertalk.

I view the TB's role as simply performing due diligence to ensure that no obvious fraud is taking place. My support/motion/vote for a solicitation is not nor could it ever be seen as an endorsement of the charity nor the work being done by same.

We are a diverse community of posters with wide ranging passions. I am neither qualified nor comfortable in saying what charities are 'worthy' of being allowed on FT and which are not. All I am comfortable saying is 'this is not an obvious scam.'

Beyond that it is up to each individual poster to decide if a cause is worthy and beyond that whether a charity addressing that cause is worthy and/or effective.

I was initially a little queasy about gleff's points. But then I thought, well, just because I am queasy does not mean that others might feel passionately positive about this request and/or this charity....so who am I to judge.

So I understand and appreciate Gleff's perspective and vote but want to be just as clear about my own personal perspective and vote: all I will ever be saying about a request to make a charitable request on FT is: it is not an obvious scam.

tazi

Can we get this information included with the motion? Without knowing the nature of the request, it makes it very difficult to form an opinion.

kokonutz

Again, all we as the TB are doing is saying 'it's ok for this poster to solicit for this charity on FT.'

There currently are no standards for where or how or for what (money, time, in-kind) that poster solicits, although I personally think there should be and have said so in the private TB forum. But that is a separate discussion for a separate thread.

Obviously, if the solicitation is approved, then it will be up to the poster to make the solicitation and for each poster to judge for him or her self whether that request is worthy of THEIR consideration.

Jenbel

OK, it should be remembered that before we bring a charitable request to a vote, we've already done upto a week's research on it. It is not possible to include all of that information in the motion. The TB member doing the research provides a summation of their research, which is then (generally) voted upon.

Secondly, I don't consider that we post these motions on there seeking member's input as to whether you think it's a good idea or not. If you think it's a good idea, then contribute. If you don't think it's a good idea, then don't contribute. But if you don't think it's a good idea, I don't see why you should try and stop other people contributing who do think it's a good idea, so I personally am unlikely to listen to what the members think of charitable requests. For me, we post this thread here to keep the members informed not necessarily to seek input. OTBMVMD.

If approved, the member making the request should provide full details of the charity and what they require in the thread they start.

tazi

If member input really isn't wanted, then just keep it private until a decision is made. Otherwise, if comments from the general membership are welcome (as indicated in the thread titles), then full details should be provided before a decision is made, not afterwards. Perhaps include the summation of the TB member that did the research.

Jenbel

We are required under an earlier motion to post all motions as they are made, unless asked for by Randy. Do you want us to break our own rules?

I'm sorry, I would not be willing to post my summaries publicly. They are very honest and very upfront. If they became for public fodder, they would have to be toned down accordingly - and that is not to the benefit of FT.

J-M

That's ok... it wouldn't be the first time.

Personally though, I feel that soliciting member input and then saying you will ignore it reeks of political games and/or a board member doing a poor job of representing the members.

tazi

Heck no! Change them instead.

gleff

Our guidelines currently allow TalkBoard members to vote to approve to disapprove a charitable request for whatever reason they wish. We haven't set agreed-upon standards. We've agreed to a process for expediantly handling requests... a week of research and a streamlined voting process.

Each TalkBoard member will have their own approach to what is appropriate. I think I've given some clues to my take above. I'm incredibly proud of this community and the responses it's had to important efforts in the past, the tsunami stands out especially in my mind but I think RussATL's annual AIDS walk is a notable endeavor.

In the past charitable solicitation has been clearly verboten, and instead of requiring members get Randy's attention explicitly for exceptions the TalkBoard agreed to review these requests.

I do think there ought to be some limit on the volume of requests, and I think the threshold needs to be something more than "it's ok since it isn't obviously a scam."

I've voted in favor of all so far except for this one, and while it's likely a very worthy cause and some very good people involved it seemed to me that the organization's track record was a bit concering to date and I didn't feel comfortable saying that an organization with negative net assets, interest owed to board members, two-thirds of its expenses going to management (although possibly explainable by improper accounting) met the threshold of something I feel it's ok to bring before our members.

wharvey

Jenbel,

I am confused.... I thought the Talkboard was approving charities that become part of the FlyertalkCares program?

As part of that program, approved charities can receive donations that members make to the general FlyertalkCares fund. As such, why would member input not be important on these charities? I do not see Randy coming back to the membership when it come times to make a FlyertalkCares donation... it would be made to organizations that have been approved by the Talkboard.

If this was just a motion for someone to have permission to post on FT for donations but NOT be part of FlyertalkCares, I could see where member input is not as important. However, since these charities become part of the approved FlyertalkCares program, seems like members needs to be able to have input and influence.

Granted, for some reason, these votes are only 7 days... so not much time to have input. Heck, betting that several TB members have already voted by the time this motion was even publicly posted...

wharvey

Gary,

I appreciate your perspective in this post and the earlier one.

I agree with your assessment... and honestly would not want to see it approved either!

That is putting a "Stamp of Approval" on the charity as it becomes part of FlyertalkCares, I assume?

William

Jenbel

IIRC, it still requires TB to ok a charity receiving funds from FTC. So my own personal view is that the bar is very much lower for a member soliciting for a charity (as in this case), since TB also (again IIRC, I'd need to look back and check the formal wording of the motion) needs to approve any donations on behalf of FTC, in that situation we would be seeking member input. Just because a charity is on the FTC list, doesn't mean that it will ever receive any donations from FTC.

It also should be remembered that since we set up this stuff, IB bought FT. Does FTC actually still exist or function? I asked about this recently and received no answer...