Another charity misappropriating funds

foxy farmer

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/hse-gave-over-1m-to-charity-which-paid-84000-to-ceos-parents-799976.html

They say charity begins at home. This is taking it a bit far though. Can people abide by a code of ethics at all anymore? Daughter diverts charity funds to top up Mammy and Daddys pension. Im of the belief that many of these heads of charities ' moral compass is seriously out of sync with the real world. Fair enough they founded the charity but are they entitled to a under the counter payout?

bodhrandude

How do you know though and how can you tell this report is true.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

ED E

The HSE and the CRA are pretty strong sources.

Owryan

Well it is based on the allegations of a whistleblower who has left and set up his own support group. The hse investigated and what they found let them to report the charity to the regulator.

The regulator carried out their own investigation which uncovered the reported actions and abuse of charity funds. So it would appear to be legit

bodhrandude

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Dunno just bored I suppose.

Mrs OBumble

bodhrandude wrote: »

How do you know though and how can you tell this report is true.

This statement currently on the front of their website is a good hint:




Also, Friedreichs Ataxia is one of the brands used by the dodgy-looking lads who collect in the street. I would be surprised if there's not more dirt to do with this organisation.

Fr_Dougal

There's more to come.

There's a reason David Hall and three fellow directors stood down from Bumbulence

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/david-hall-cctv-shows-no-theft-in-bumbleance-352376.html

Fr_Dougal

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

There's more to come.

There's a reason David Hall and three fellow directors stood down from Bumbulence

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/david-hall-cctv-shows-no-theft-in-bumbleance-352376.html

Well I've never wanted to mention it for fear of pissing all over one of the most positive threads on this website, but does anyone know if there was any further light shed on this? It would be good to have some resolution, and hopefully a reassuring one.

Please don't tar all charities with the same brush. Some collect millions without expensive CEOs or fees. http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/after-raising-4m-cystic-fibrosis-charity-says-it-needs-no-more-money-448444.html

Fr_Dougal

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Well I've never wanted to mention it for fear of pissing all over one of the most positive threads on this website, but does anyone know if there was any further light shed on this? It would be good to have some resolution, and hopefully a reassuring one.

I'm not sure. But David Hall was called in to run Console when the poop hit the fan, he has an impeccable reputation. If felt it was bad enough to stand down and report them, you can be sure that something was amiss.

Hotblack Desiato

The Irish charity sector is rotten to the core. By no means all of them are dodgy, but far too many are, or are vanity projects/ego trips for the founders. Far too many of them duplicate each others' work, which means more money wasted in admin etc.

What's worse is some of them get most of their money from taxes. So we don't get a choice whether we "donate" to them or not. Many of these services e.g. for the disabled should be state services, instead the taxpayer gets less accountability and the service users are belittled by being left dependent upon charity instead of a rights based approach.

Nekarsulm

There are often dodgy looking "charities " collecting on the streets of Cavan town.
This was last Wednesdays "Professional" looking set-up, parked outside Tesco's.
Had a few middle-aged ladies shaking buckets at the street junctions.

http://i.imgur.com/IplFej4.jpg

TheQuietFella

Deleted User wrote: »

Please don't tar all charities with the same brush. Some collect millions without expensive CEOs or fees. http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/after-raising-4m-cystic-fibrosis-charity-says-it-needs-no-more-money-448444.html

Unfortunately in my mind they have become tarred with the one brush and to

be honest I wouldn't donate to a charity if it bought my way in to heaven!

Heaven for the climate, hell for the company!

_Brian

The thing that worries me is I could go out in tieronimg and set up a charity supporting say suicide families.
Get the ball rollong get feet on the ground collecting money, look for volunteer councillors and start paying myself serious cash because I'm the CEO of a charity.
Someone mentioned before that there is serious duplication and this is a waste of whatever money is being given by the public and tax payer.

Really charities shouldn't be given status if there is already a similar charity operating in the sector. How many suicide awareness or cancer charities does a small country need??

I find it suspicious at best.

The charities regulator should have the power to force amalgamation in the industries and ceo's eliminated from the payroll to save money.

Richard Hillman

To be honest I would tar a majority of the major charities as dodgy.

_Brian

Another thing.

See the charity shops that have sprung up about.

Many of these are set up by private individuals and they stick up the name of the charity above the door. Often the charity receives the " profits" from the shop.

Now, profits is after the person pays themselves. I'm aware of a person running three of these shops and paying themselves handsomely. The charity receives about a quarter of what the owner is receiving. And the shops are staffed by CE workers so there's no wages only the owner.

One charity is two years trying to get their name removed from above the shop but the owner refuses.

Hector Bellend

nice bit of an aul misappropration

Hotblack Desiato

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

What's worse is some of them get most of their money from taxes. So we don't get a choice whether we "donate" to them or not. Many of these services e.g. for the disabled should be state services

I'll probably be accused of being some right-wing ideologue for this (I'm certainly not), but the outsourcing of social supports to genuine charities is a fantastic exercise in efficiency. It combines the competitive tendering process with a social conscience, along with knowledge on the ground.

I was in favour of statutory replacements for all of the main charity services, until I volunteered in one of them and discovered how they operate. They cut out waste with ruthless efficiency, and they maximise the benefits to the service users, or at least, that was the case in my one.

It's like as if the best of capitalism mated with the best of socialism, and they produced some kind of efficient, compassionate golden child.

But of course, in all families, you get the odd black sheep. That's why regulation must be robust.

corner of hells

_Brian wrote: »

Another thing.

See the charity shops that have sprung up about.

Many of these are set up by private individuals and they stick up the name of the charity above the door. Often the charity receives the " profits" from the shop.

Now, profits is after the person pays themselves. I'm aware of a person running three of these shops and paying themselves handsomely. The charity receives about a quarter of what the owner is receiving. And the shops are staffed by CE workers so there's no wages only the owner.

One charity is two years trying to get their name removed from above the shop but the owner refuses.

I thought only voluntary groups or not for profit groups that benefit their comnunuty can employ CE staff and these staff then must satisfy DSP criteria.

corner of hells

_Brian wrote: »

Another thing.

See the charity shops that have sprung up about.

Many of these are set up by private individuals and they stick up the name of the charity above the door. Often the charity receives the " profits" from the shop.

Now, profits is after the person pays themselves. I'm aware of a person running three of these shops and paying themselves handsomely. The charity receives about a quarter of what the owner is receiving. And the shops are staffed by CE workers so there's no wages only the owner.

One charity is two years trying to get their name removed from above the shop but the owner refuses.

I thought only voluntary groups or not for profit groups that benefit their comnunuty can employ CE staff and these staff then must satisfy DSP criteria.

Richard Hillman

The charities are still "not for profit" in that they don't have shareholders and produce dividends but they'll still pay their own salaries.

If you are a pretty much just a sole person running a charity shop, you'll just look at your revenue and say that's my salary for the month. It's a complete sham.

corner of hells

Richard Hillman wrote: »

The charities are still "not for profit" in that they don't have shareholders and produce dividends but they'll still pay their own salaries.

If you are a pretty much just a sole person running a charity shop, you'll just look at your revenue and say that's my salary for the month. It's a complete sham.

I didn't think as a sole person running a charity shop you could possibly make that much profit essentially selling second hand stuff. Especially after paying all your overheads.

Hotblack Desiato

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

but the outsourcing of social supports to genuine charities is a fantastic exercise in efficiency.

It really isn't. It's been a disaster for the taxpayer and for the users of services, and I include religious run schools and hospitals in that.

How often do we hear about top up scandals? The public sector pay scale isn't enough for these guys so they get more cash under the table 'because they're worth it'. Then (like the John of Gods did) when they retire the taxpayer pays an inflated pension because of the top-ups.

The lack of accountability and proper procedure in the voluntary sector is shocking and vast quantities of taxpayers' money are being wasted.

Annasopra

_Brian wrote: »

Another thing.

See the charity shops that have sprung up about.

Many of these are set up by private individuals and they stick up the name of the charity above the door. Often the charity receives the " profits" from the shop.

Now, profits is after the person pays themselves. I'm aware of a person running three of these shops and paying themselves handsomely. The charity receives about a quarter of what the owner is receiving. And the shops are staffed by CE workers so there's no wages only the owner.

One charity is two years trying to get their name removed from above the shop but the owner refuses.

Yeah

There is now "community shops" - they take your furniture away. Pay the manager a handsome salary, pay workers CE, pay little business rates, pay local schools or charities a small amount. Total scam.

Annasopra

corner of hells wrote: »

I didn't think as a sole person running a charity shop you could possibly make that much profit essentially selling second hand stuff. Especially after paying all your overheads.

Yeah but you get cheap overheads; reduced business rates, no VAT, wages of employees nothing cause government pay them.

Del2005

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It really isn't. It's been a disaster for the taxpayer and for the users of services, and I include religious run schools and hospitals in that.

How often do we hear about top up scandals? The public sector pay scale isn't enough for these guys so they get more cash under the table 'because they're worth it'. Then (like the John of Gods did) when they retire the taxpayer pays an inflated pension because of the top-ups.

The lack of accountability and proper procedure in the voluntary sector is shocking and vast quantities of taxpayers' money are being wasted.

This is because there's a lack of accountability and proper procedure in the public service which is supposed to monitor the charities, so we have 2 wasteful organisations wasting taxpayers money the charities and public servants who are supposed to monitor them

mikhail

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

...pay workers CE...

I'm not familiar with this abbreviation. What's CE?

Nekarsulm

mikhail wrote: »

I'm not familiar with this abbreviation. What's CE?

Community Employment scheme. Top-up to your dole.

SterlingArcher

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Well I've never wanted to mention it for fear of pissing all over one of the most positive threads on this website, but does anyone know if there was any further light shed on this? It would be good to have some resolution, and hopefully a reassuring one.

Yes saying nothing. The same approach the many committee members take who silently distance themselves from these charities when the issues first come to light.

Nobody wants to be that guy huh.

Nekarsulm

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Community Employment scheme. Top-up to your dole.

Not many charity shops would be eligible to use these. They have strict criteria. In our area only the Vincent dePaul can use them.

donegaLroad

It is not just the charity industry in Ireland that should be held to account.

In 2010, the Irish government made a foreign aid donation to Uganda, of €166 million (of taxpayers money). In exchange, an Irish company called Tullow Oil was awarded an oil exploration contract in Uganda, by the Ugandan government.

A couple of years later it transpired that much of the money that was donated never left some of the Ugandan senior official's bank accounts, and much of the money was 'squandered' on things such as €1,500 for a new flagpole outside the Ugandan president's office etc.

corner of hells

donegaLroad wrote: »

It is not just the charity industry in Ireland that should be held to account.

In 2010, the Irish government made a foreign aid donation to Uganda, of €166 million (of taxpayers money). In exchange, an Irish company called Tullow Oil was awarded an oil exploration contract in Uganda, by the Ugandan government.

A couple of years later it transpired that much of the money that was donated never left some of the Ugandan senior official's bank accounts, and much of the money was 'squandered' on things such as €1,500 for a new flagpole outside the Ugandan president's office etc.

My friend ,
I would be most gratefully obliged if you assist us in the purchase of our new flagpole.
It will cost only 81000 thousand US dollars.

Yours,

Prince Nelson Helsinki the third.

Del2005

donegaLroad wrote: »

much of the money was 'squandered' on things such as €1,500 for a new flagpole outside the Ugandan president's office etc.

That's good value for a flag pole.

The school beside my parents has 3 "Green" flags for recycling. They would have cost way more to install, at different times with heavy machinery and several workers, and wasted more materials than the school recycles in 20 years. But then the girls school with the same name, bar Boys or Girls, on the same site with a different principle and staff has 4 "Green" flags.

So if we are squandering our own money why would the people we give it to not squander it when there are no repercussions for anyone who wastes taxpayers money.

Hotblack Desiato

Del2005 wrote: »

This is because there's a lack of accountability and proper procedure in the public service which is supposed to monitor the charities, so we have 2 wasteful organisations wasting taxpayers money the charities and public servants who are supposed to monitor them

To all intents and purposes charities were basically not regulated at all until a couple of years ago.

Then when the charities regulator was brought in, it wasn't given the necessary legal powers or resources.

That's the fault of politicians, not public servants.

Hotblack Desiato

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It really isn't. It's been a disaster for the taxpayer and for the users of services, and I include religious run schools and hospitals in that.

How has it been a disaster? I am pretty sure that the likes of Crosscare, which I am familiar with, and the likes of Focus Ireland or the Peter McVerry Trust, deliver services far more efficiently than the State could, and at lower cost. These organisations rely heavily on volunteers, and the staff, where they exist, don't have a defined (public service) pension, if they have any pension at all.

Yet these volunteers and staff are personally driven, highly ethical individuals, and many of the volunteers have active careers elsewhere.

I just don't believe the State, with its existing budget, could afford to hire public servants AND deliver the same services with that kind of drive.

How often do we hear about top up scandals?

Very rarely, is the answer. How often do we not hear about scandals? Every day. And in the case of most regulated charities, never.

Witchie

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The Irish charity sector is rotten to the core. By no means all of them are dodgy, but far too many are, or are vanity projects/ego trips for the founders. Far too many of them duplicate each others' work, which means more money wasted in admin etc.

What's worse is some of them get most of their money from taxes. So we don't get a choice whether we "donate" to them or not. Many of these services e.g. for the disabled should be state services, instead the taxpayer gets less accountability and the service users are belittled by being left dependent upon charity instead of a rights based approach.

This is the reason that the charity fundraising group I am chair of only collect for local things such as helping a young kid get an operation to be able to walk or the local special needs training college.

The other group we get behind big time is the Kevin Bell Repatriation Trust as I wholeheartedly believe that these people are true and having worked in conjunction with them and seen how they have helped people in my town and saw first hand how they helped get Danielle McLoughlin's body home when I was in Goa, I know this is money that is being put to good use.

Arcade_Tryer

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I'll probably be accused of being some right-wing ideologue for this (I'm certainly not), but the outsourcing of social supports to genuine charities is a fantastic exercise in efficiency.

There is only really incentive for private business to enter the charity market if the market has been allowed to become sufficiently big enough by lack of Government spending to support decent profits. That is not a good situation for a society to be in.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I just don't believe the State, with its existing budget, could afford to hire public servants AND deliver the same services with that kind of drive.

Of course it could. It, we, choose not to. C'est la vie.

Hotblack Desiato

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

How has it been a disaster?

The state has pumped billions into school buildings, hospitals, running costs, wages, etc. and still doesn't have control or ownership of these entities. Religious orders have built up private healthcare empires worth billions on the back of this public funding (literally mortgaging assets paid for by the state) and we're repeating the same mistakes all over again building a new maternity hospital at a cost of hundreds of millions of euro but giving ownership of it away for nothing to some unaccountable 'trust'.

Meanwhile we have the likes of John of Gods with their illegal salary top-ups, now saying that due to being caught out by the HSE and having to refund the top-ups they are at risk of having to cut services. Services funded by the taxpayers on behalf of the state but which are outsourced to an organisation with no real accountability and no proper controls, and where the service should be an entitlement to a state service not charity.

Vincent's hospital group has also had huge rows with the HSE over what they use funding for - funding provided by the state but they think they can do what they like with it.

Again in education we have the vast majority of schools funded by the state but with no real state control, they hire and fire who they want on sectarian religious grounds, and enrol who they want on sectarian religious grounds, and the state is powerless to stop them as it does not own the schools it pays to run and in most cases paid to build.

These organisations rely heavily on volunteers, and the staff, where they exist, don't have a defined (public service) pension, if they have any pension at all.

Whatever about volunteers, bit bad if they are taking advantage of the good will of their employees to treat them poorly.
However there are tens of thousands of people in health, education and social care who are nominally on the payroll of a 'charity' but in reality are on public sector scales (executive top-ups aside) and T&Cs - the problem is that their employer is not a public sector body and not held properly accountable.

I just don't believe the State, with its existing budget, could afford to hire public servants AND deliver the same services with that kind of drive.

This poor mouth mentality is a relic of 80 or 100 years ago, and was ruthlessly exploited by the churches to gain control of the nascent state and keep the state weak.

Problem is that they are accountable to no-one at all but themselves and not subject to democratic oversight and control. I'd rather have cabinet ministers making decisions about education and health not church ministers, thank you very much.

Very rarely, is the answer. How often do we not hear about scandals? Every day. And in the case of most regulated charities, never.

It would be more than a bit naive to think that we've heard about all that's going on. Trust isn't damaged, it's destroyed and yet the taxpayer keeps stumping up funds. Charities should be funded by voluntary donations not compulsory taxes.

ChikiChiki

As much as there are good volunteers on the ground in many charities there seems to be a directly proportionate amount of greed filled scum involved too. Whats wrong with these people. How can the be so callous?

737max

Deleted User wrote: »

Not many charity shops would be eligible to use these. They have strict criteria. In our area only the Vincent dePaul can use them.

Simon Community shops use "volunteers" from work schemes.

Del2005

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

To all intents and purposes charities were basically not regulated at all until a couple of years ago.

Then when the charities regulator was brought in, it wasn't given the necessary legal powers or resources.

That's the fault of politicians, not public servants.

Politicians are public servants, they are employed by the state to look after their constituents.

Del2005

Witchie wrote: »

The other group we get behind big time is the Kevin Bell Repatriation Trust as I wholeheartedly believe that these people are true and having worked in conjunction with them and seen how they have helped people in my town and saw first hand how they helped get Danielle McLoughlin's body home when I was in Goa, I know this is money that is being put to good use.

A charity for people who are willing to spend hundreds or thousands on a holiday but not willing to pay a few Euro for travel insurance. If this type of charity didn't exist maybe more people would look themselves instead of getting strangers to look after them.

Witchie

Del2005 wrote: »

A charity for people who are willing to spend hundreds or thousands on a holiday but not willing to pay a few Euro for travel insurance. If this type of charity didn't exist maybe more people would look themselves instead of getting strangers to look after them.

Not always the case. Some are people living and working out there and sometimes it isn't the money to bring them home, it is the support, the getting people to deal with the red tape for the family in some remote spots. They basically tell the family to just start planning the funeral and they will do everything else.

Travel insurance doesn't do that.

Hotblack Desiato

Del2005 wrote: »

Politicians are public servants

Incorrect, and also irrelevant.