Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Pieta
Options
Comments
-
You don't even understand the difference between a CEO and a manager but here you are wilfully displaying how your ignorance makes you grossly inadequate to discuss this topic.Professor Moriarty wrote: »And you come on to this thread but are unable to offer an opinion as to its premise. I trudged through your post. I won't waste my time with it. You obviously don't have any real managerial experience. So our engagement would indeed be pointless.
A 30 second internet search (e.g. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=ceo+vs+manager ) would have corrected you of your fundamental misconception as to what CEOs do, but you were too busy posting 33 times to actually spend a minute or two figuring out if you knew what you were talking about. You've had several users point out to you that CEOs are different from managers, but you've ignored every one of them to keep making the same incorrect argument. You're so unwilling to take on new information that not only do you refuse to verify your own arguments, you refuse to even listen to others when they do you the service of correcting your misinformed maunderings.
The most disappointing part is that it's clear you aren't trolling, you really are just this ignorant and argumentative.0 -
Professor Moriarty wrote: »Yes, but they aren't unpaid volunteers. 200 employees and 13 centres. That needs serious management skills. Anyway, we can agree that this is a service that should be provided by the HSE which would have obviated the need for Pieta House in the first place.
Management skills that can be provided for free by the right people who are passionate about the cause. It’s often been argued that people don’t want to, or the right people can’t be got, or people need to be paid, etc, but it’s simply not true.
Think of it like the voluntary organisations which provide their services to the State in education. They’re providing their services voluntarily, and if the State were to take over the administration of schools it would cost them more than it does to outsource the provision of education to education service providers. Boards of Management in voluntary schools are just that - voluntary, unpaid. That doesn’t mean they don’t have the skills to manage a school effectively. Some people do, some people don’t.
We can agree that it’s a service that should be and is provided by the HSE, and Pieta House and other organisations take a lot of their work from HSE referrals, but Pieta House is by no means the only organisation providing the support services they do. There are hundreds of localised organisations providing the same sort of support services which are just lesser well known, and that’s a credit to the CEO of Pieta House!0 -
Deleted User wrote: »You don't even understand the difference between a CEO and a manager but here you are wilfully displaying how your ignorance makes you grossly inadequate to discuss this topic.
A 30 second internet search (e.g. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=ceo+vs+manager ) would have corrected you of your fundamental misconception as to what CEOs do, but you were too busy posting 33 times to actually spend a minute or two figuring out if you knew what you were talking about. You've had several users point out to you that CEOs are different from managers, but you've ignored every one of them to keep making the same incorrect argument. You're so unwilling to take on new information that not only do you refuse to verify your own arguments, you refuse to even listen to others when they do you the service of correcting your misinformed maunderings.
The most disappointing part is that it's clear you aren't trolling, you really are just this ignorant and argumentative.
Oh dear. Somebody got out of bed on the wrong side this morning. I'll just put you on ignore. Bye.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »Management skills that can be provided for free by the right people who are passionate about the cause. It’s often been argued that people don’t want to, or the right people can’t be got, or people need to be paid, etc, but it’s simply not true.
Think of it like the voluntary organisations which provide their services to the State in education. They’re providing their services voluntarily, and if the State were to take over the administration of schools it would cost them more than it does to outsource the provision of education to education service providers. Boards of Management in voluntary schools are just that - voluntary, unpaid. That doesn’t mean they don’t have the skills to manage a school effectively. Some people do, some people don’t.
We can agree that it’s a service that should be and is provided by the HSE, and Pieta House and other organisations take a lot of their work from HSE referrals, but Pieta House is by no means the only organisation providing the support services they do. There are hundreds of localised organisations providing the same sort of support services which are just lesser well known, and that’s a credit to the CEO of Pieta House!
Having spent five years on a school BoM, I know how it works. The BoM oversees the work of a principal but the principal manages the school.
As an aside, here's an interesting definition of a CEO from Investopedia:
"A chief executive officer (CEO) is the highest-ranking executive in a company, whose primary responsibilities include making major corporate decisions, managing the overall operations and resources of a company, acting as the main point of communication between the board of directors (the board) and corporate operations and being the public face of the company"
Given her experience and degrees, Elaine Austin is eminently qualified to fulfill that role in Pieta House. As the chair of the BoM said, she was hired to provide leadership as a CEO. I can only assume "leadership" in that context means to manage the organisation as per the definition above.0 -
Professor Moriarty wrote: »And you come on to this thread but are unable to offer an opinion as to its premise. I trudged through your post. I won't waste my time with it. You obviously don't have any real managerial experience. So our engagement would indeed be pointless.
Lad's as a normal tradesman without any degree at 3rd level( bar open U)
Here's my simple viewpoint as long as they save some of our youngsters from self harming or worse I'd give them the moon.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
corks finest wrote: »Lad's as a normal tradesman without any degree at 3rd level( bar open U)
Here's my simple viewpoint as long as they save some of our youngsters from self harming or worse I'd give them the moon.
I agree completely. Counselling services for those with active suicidal ideation in our society are underfunded and should be the sole responsibility of the HSE. Not least because they would then be able to liaise and integrate much more easily with allied professions such as psychiatry, occupational therapy, social workers, hospitals etc.0 -
Professor Moriarty wrote: »Having spent five years on a school BoM, I know how it works. The BoM oversees the work of a principal but the principal manages the school.
The BOM manages the school on behalf of the Patron of the school? The Principal is not the Principal in their role as a member of the board of management, they are usually the secretary of the board, a role for which they may receive payment, but the rest of the membership are entirely voluntary roles -
The board of management/manager(s) is the body of persons or the person(s) appointed by the patron to manage the school on behalf of the patron. The functions of the board of management (the Board) are set out in section 15 of the Education Act, 1998 which provides, inter alia, that it shall be the duty of the Board to “manage the school on behalf of the patron and for the benefit of the students and their parents and to provide or cause to be provided an appropriate education for each student at the school for which that board has responsibility”. Section 15 of the Education Act, 1998 also provides that a “board shall perform the functions conferred on it and on a school by this Act”.
…
Boards of management/ETBs must be cognisant of the importance of encouraging and facilitating the principal, deputy principal and assistant principals in developing and effectively exercising their leadership role in the school. The Department has made considerable investment to build the professional competence of school leaders through its support services and through the Centre for School Leadership. The Centre’s responsibilities cover a range of leadership development for school leaders, from pre- appointment training and induction of newly appointed principals to continuing professional development throughout their careers.
Governance Manual for Primary SchoolsProfessor Moriarty wrote: »As an aside, here's an interesting definition of a CEO from Investopedia:
"A chief executive officer (CEO) is the highest-ranking executive in a company, whose primary responsibilities include making major corporate decisions, managing the overall operations and resources of a company, acting as the main point of communication between the board of directors (the board) and corporate operations and being the public face of the company"
Given her experience and degrees, Elaine Austin is eminently qualified to fulfill that role in Pieta House. As the chair of the BoM said, she was hired to provide leadership as a CEO. I can only assume "leadership" in that context means to manage the organisation as per the definition above.
I don’t disagree with the definition, nor am I arguing that Elaine Austin is eminently qualified to fulfil the role of CEO in Pieta House. Your original contention was that the role could not be fulfilled by a suitably qualified person without being commensurated as though the role of a CEO in a charity organisation is comparable to the role of CEO in the private sector and so they should be paid a similar salary. I provided evidence you asked for of a CEO of a similar organisation who is in an entirely voluntary role, and what she has achieved as CEO of the organisation without the experience or degrees of Elaine Austin.
It’s completely reasonable to suggest that if Elaine Austin brings in €7m in funding, that she is worth her salary, but that doesn’t contradict the fact that the same results could be achieved by someone in the same role who is taking on the role in a voluntary capacity, who is equally or even more qualified, who is passionate about the aims of the organisation, and would decide that they do not wish to take a salary because the aims of the organisation mean that the €100k could go towards the provision of services.
It’s easy for anyone to say that for all the good work they do, they should be given the moon, but I doubt Elaine would be happy to be paid in cheese :pac:0 -
There a couple of distinct elements to the discussion. Should CEOs of charities be paid and how much?
Do Pieta provide a valuable service?
Does it have a good money raising to cost ratio?
My answer to the first is in the region of €75/80K. As pointed out here earlier, a hospital manager would be quite capable. Such a manager has been the manager of Cork LA.
Yes Pieta helps in two ways, raising the profile of mental health and a practical help source.
On the third question, taking what Wettas sets out above, they are poor here.
The CEO having tackled the relaxed staffing issue, which was appropriate to a very small org, might make this her next task.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »The BOM manages the school on behalf of the Patron of the school? The Principal is not the Principal in their role as a member of the board of management, they are usually the secretary of the board, a role for which they may receive payment, but the rest of the membership are entirely voluntary roles -
The board of management/manager(s) is the body of persons or the person(s) appointed by the patron to manage the school on behalf of the patron. The functions of the board of management (the Board) are set out in section 15 of the Education Act, 1998 which provides, inter alia, that it shall be the duty of the Board to “manage the school on behalf of the patron and for the benefit of the students and their parents and to provide or cause to be provided an appropriate education for each student at the school for which that board has responsibility”. Section 15 of the Education Act, 1998 also provides that a “board shall perform the functions conferred on it and on a school by this Act”.
…
Boards of management/ETBs must be cognisant of the importance of encouraging and facilitating the principal, deputy principal and assistant principals in developing and effectively exercising their leadership role in the school. The Department has made considerable investment to build the professional competence of school leaders through its support services and through the Centre for School Leadership. The Centre’s responsibilities cover a range of leadership development for school leaders, from pre- appointment training and induction of newly appointed principals to continuing professional development throughout their careers.
Governance Manual for Primary Schools
I don’t disagree with the definition, nor am I arguing that Elaine Austin is eminently qualified to fulfil the role of CEO in Pieta House. Your original contention was that the role could not be fulfilled by a suitably qualified person without being commensurated as though the role of a CEO in a charity organisation is comparable to the role of CEO in the private sector and so they should be paid a similar salary. I provided evidence you asked for of a CEO of a similar organisation who is in an entirely voluntary role, and what she has achieved as CEO of the organisation without the experience or degrees of Elaine Austin.
It’s completely reasonable to suggest that if Elaine Austin brings in €7m in funding, that she is worth her salary, but that doesn’t contradict the fact that the same results could be achieved by someone in the same role who is taking on the role in a voluntary capacity, who is equally or even more qualified, who is passionate about the aims of the organisation, and would decide that they do not wish to take a salary because the aims of the organisation mean that the €100k could go towards the provision of services.
It’s easy for anyone to say that for all the good work they do, they should be given the moon, but I doubt Elaine would be happy to be paid in cheese :pac:
Okay. Here's the definition of the CEO's role in Focus Ireland:
"The Chief Executive is responsible for the overall management, control and operation of Focus Ireland in accordance with the policies and objectives set out by the Board."
Here's Shine's definition as per their CEO advert:
"Shine is now recruiting a CEO to lead its dedicated team, develop and deliver its next strategic plan, and set organisational goals and objectives which anticipate and explore future opportunities for the organisation. We are seeking applications from candidates with significant senior management experience and change management skills. As CEO, you will enable and encourage innovation and the continuous development of Shine’s services and programmes. You will have excellent analytical and creative problem-solving skills, with a strong focus on delivering quality outcomes for Shine’s service users."
So we can see that there is no difference between these charities' definition of a CEO's role and the definition I quoted earlier:
"A chief executive officer (CEO) is the highest-ranking executive in a company, whose primary responsibilities include making major corporate decisions, managing the overall operations and resources of a company, acting as the main point of communication between the board of directors (the board) and corporate operations and being the public face of the company"
So, to reiterate, Elaine Austin's qualifications and experience make her eminently suitable for the position of CEO of Pieta House based on the three definitions outlined above.0 -
Advertisement
-
Professor Moriarty wrote: »So, to reiterate, Elaine Austin's qualifications and experience make her eminently suitable for the position of CEO of Pieta House based on the three definitions outlined above.
The argument was never about whether or not Elaine Austin is suitable for the position of CEO of Pieta House though? You took issue with my pointing out this -One eyed Jack wrote: »There are plenty of people who could manage a small organisation of 200 people with 13 centres and would do so on a voluntary basis. They can easily be got. Pieta doesn’t want to get them, what Pieta wants (and I can’t say I blame them) is to increase their public profile, in order to bring in more funding from the public and the HSE.
Managing 200 people across 13 branches of an organisation isn’t the Herculean task you’re making it out to be in order to justify a salary of €100k, and if that’s what Pieta House chooses to pay their CEO, I don’t have any issue with that. The issue I have is with their claims that they need more funding to provide services while paying their CEO €100k. Now do you see the issue?0 -
There are enormous legal, compliance, management aspects to a job like it would require full-time attention, it's not something someone is going to do voluntarily very few to none would have the time.0
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »The argument was never about whether or not Elaine Austin is suitable for the position of CEO of Pieta House though? You took issue with my pointing out this -
Managing 200 people across 13 branches of an organisation isn’t the Herculean task you’re making it out to be in order to justify a salary of €100k, and if that’s what Pieta House chooses to pay their CEO, I don’t have any issue with that. The issue I have is with their claims that they need more funding to provide services while paying their CEO €100k. Now do you see the issue?
I see your point. I don't agree with it. In order to spend funding properly, you need a properly run organisation. In order to have a properly run organisation, you need a CEO with the proper qualifications and expertise. In the absence of suitably qualified people who will do the job for free, you need to recruit suitably qualified people. In order to recruit these suitably qualified people, you must compete with other organisations who wish to also recruit them by offering a competitive salary.
If your organsiation is not being run by a suitably qualified person, then your organisation will not be efficient. If it is not efficient, it will waste money. Check out Austin's performance to date. You will see that she introduced many changes that enhanced efficiency.
Her role is extremely stressful and she will work very long hours. Anyone who knows anything about management will know this.0 -
mariaalice wrote: »There are enormous legal, compliance, management aspects to a job like it would require full-time attention, it's not something someone is going to do voluntarily very few to none would have the time.
Exactly. I can't believe there are people here who think a CEO is just a PR figure head! Maybe they haven't worked closely enough with any CEOs in the course of their own work to realise what's involved? Why should anyone be expected to work for nothing?0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »
Managing 200 people across 13 branches of an organisation isn’t the Herculean task you’re making it out to be in order to justify a salary of €100k
What should she be paid? 100k a year for a CEO isn't mind blowing, in my humble opinion!0 -
Professor Moriarty wrote: »I see your point. I don't agree with it. In order to spend funding properly, you need a properly run organisation. In order to have a properly run organisation, you need a CEO with the proper qualifications and expertise. In the absence of suitably qualified people who will do the job for free, you need to recruit suitably qualified people. In order to recruit these suitably qualified people, you must compete with other organisations who wish to also recruit them by offering a competitive salary.
If your organsiation is not being run by a suitably qualified person, then your organisation will not be efficient. If it is not efficient, it will waste money. Check out Austin's performance to date. You will see that she introduced many changes that enhanced efficiency.
Her role is extremely stressful and she will work very long hours. Anyone who knows anything about management will know this.
Again, I’m not denying that Ms. Austin is suitably qualified for the role. I’m contesting the claim that suitably qualified people cannot be found who are willing to take on the role in a voluntary capacity. I’d also contest the idea that it is solely the responsibility of the CEO to ensure that an organisation is run efficiently. That’s what management are for, and again the people who fulfil those roles can fulfil the role in a voluntary capacity.
I’m well aware that the role is stressful, but for the person with the right mentality, it will also be incredibly rewarding. Anyone who knows anything about management will know this too. I have plenty of experience of in management in voluntary roles in the charity sector and in the private sector. It’s precisely because of my experience that I suggest that it IS absolutely possible to find the right people who are passionate about the aims of the organisation that they would contribute their skills and time in a voluntary capacity.
There is no shortage of suitably qualified people who are perfectly capable of performing in the role of CEO of a charity organisation who would do so voluntarily. They’re just not interested in being CEO of organisations which don’t appeal to them, regardless of whether or not it’s a paid position.0 -
What should she be paid? 100k a year for a CEO isn't mind blowing, in my humble opinion!
The CEO position in any charity organisation should be a voluntary position IMO. That same €100k goes a long way to providing services that the charity aims to provide to people who they determine are in need of their services.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »Again, I’m not denying that Ms. Austin is suitably qualified for the role. I’m contesting the claim that suitably qualified people cannot be found who are willing to take on the role in a voluntary capacity. I’d also contest the idea that it is solely the responsibility of the CEO to ensure that an organisation is run efficiently. That’s what management are for, and again the people who fulfil those roles can fulfil the role in a voluntary capacity.
I’m well aware that the role is stressful, but for the person with the right mentality, it will also be incredibly rewarding. Anyone who knows anything about management will know this too. I have plenty of experience of in management in voluntary roles in the charity sector and in the private sector. It’s precisely because of my experience that I suggest that it IS absolutely possible to find the right people who are passionate about the aims of the organisation that they would contribute their skills and time in a voluntary capacity.
There is no shortage of suitably qualified people who are perfectly capable of performing in the role of CEO of a charity organisation who would do so voluntarily. They’re just not interested in being CEO of organisations which don’t appeal to them, regardless of whether or not it’s a paid position.
Here are the CEO definitions again:
Focus Ireland:
"The Chief Executive is responsible for the overall management, control and operation of Focus Ireland in accordance with the policies and objectives set out by the Board."
Shine's definition as per their CEO advert:
"Shine is now recruiting a CEO to lead its dedicated team, develop and deliver its next strategic plan, and set organisational goals and objectives which anticipate and explore future opportunities for the organisation. We are seeking applications from candidates with significant senior management experience and change management skills. As CEO, you will enable and encourage innovation and the continuous development of Shine’s services and programmes. You will have excellent analytical and creative problem-solving skills, with a strong focus on delivering quality outcomes for Shine’s service users."
Investopedia:
"A chief executive officer (CEO) is the highest-ranking executive in a company, whose primary responsibilities include making major corporate decisions, managing the overall operations and resources of a company, acting as the main point of communication between the board of directors (the board) and corporate operations and being the public face of the company"
According to those definitions, the CEO would be responsible for the efficient running of an organisation. Put it this way, if the organisation is not running efficiently, it would be the CEO who be pointed at first.
Otherwise, I don't think there's much difference in our positions other than you believe that there are suitable people who will do a CEO job such as Pieta House's for free and I don't.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »There is no shortage of suitably qualified people who are perfectly capable of performing in the role of CEO of a charity organisation who would do so voluntarily. They’re just not interested in being CEO of organisations which don’t appeal to them, regardless of whether or not it’s a paid position.
Are saying there is an abundance of people willing to manage a 13m euro organisation for free? Ludicrous
Do you get a salary yourself or is it just other people who should work for free?0 -
Professor Moriarty wrote: »According to those definitions, the CEO would be responsible for the efficient running of an organisation. Put it this way, if the organisation is not running efficiently, it would be the CEO who be pointed at first.
Otherwise, I don't think there's much difference in our positions other than you believe that there are suitable people who will do a CEO job such as Pieta House's for free and I don't.
Again, I’m not disagreeing with those definitions. They’re fine. I’m saying it is not solely the responsibility of the CEO to ensure the efficient running of an organisation. Of course the CEO who will be immediately answerable if an organisation is not being run efficiently, because as I said it’s a figurehead position, but the management of the organisation is the responsibility of the Board -
The HSE report said: “Given the outcome of the analysis and the resulting financial gap for the organisation, it is recommended that the Board of Pieta House put in place a comprehensive review of its structure and operations to develop a sustainable model for the organisation going forward.”
Fury as top 3 bosses at struggling charity Pieta earn almost €300,000 between them while finances hang by a thread
There ARE suitably qualified people who would be capable of running an organisation like Pieta House in a voluntary capacity, but I can understand why anyone wouldn’t want to touch it with a forty foot barge pole in their current predicament.0 -
Advertisement
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »The CEO position in any charity organisation should be a voluntary position IMO. That same €100k goes a long way to providing services that the charity aims to provide to people who they determine are in need of their services.[/QUOTE
How would that position be filled?
And if you couldn't get someone with the skill sets to run a multifaceted organisation and to do that full time for free, what then?0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »Again, I’m not disagreeing with those definitions. They’re fine. I’m saying it is not solely the responsibility of the CEO to ensure the efficient running of an organisation. Of course the CEO who will be immediately answerable if an organisation is not being run efficiently, because as I said it’s a figurehead position, but the management of the organisation is the responsibility of the Board -
The HSE report said: “Given the outcome of the analysis and the resulting financial gap for the organisation, it is recommended that the Board of Pieta House put in place a comprehensive review of its structure and operations to develop a sustainable model for the organisation going forward.”
Fury as top 3 bosses at struggling charity Pieta earn almost €300,000 between them while finances hang by a thread
There ARE suitably qualified people who would be capable of running an organisation like Pieta House in a voluntary capacity, but I can understand why anyone wouldn’t want to touch it with a forty foot barge pole in their current predicament.
It will be interesting to see if the board retains Austin as CEO after the review. If they don't, their next CEO recruitment process will be fascinating. CEO wanted, must work for free!0 -
I don't understand some of the viewpoints on here. I'm not convinced about the integrity of Pieta. In my opinion they pay their therapists far too little and perhaps their CEO a bit too much.
However I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone in a high managerial position should be expected to work for free. Volunteering is admirable but an organisation the size of Pieta needs full time operational input.
How on earth can a person volunteer their time and skills to such an endeavour and receive no monetary award? Not to mention how payment can be attached to value and worth and is so important to be in receipt of.0 -
Maybe in time??there will be less need for pietas services,if we all came to terms with the fact that,we won't always,sometimes never ever agree with others ways,opinions,methods e.t.c & learned not to be so bloody judgemental & offensive to one & other.
Live & let live & alot less of the high ground stance among us.i could go on,but that would be a rant. (Oh,& lighten up a little.board's can seem a heavy place to hang out in at times. )0 -
It will be interesting to see what happens and also can they get suitably qualified counsellors to take up the positions. They have sacked the old staff and now want to pay counsellors 25 euro an hour for counselling and 15 euro an hour for assessments. I am currently doing my masters in psychotherapy. It's costing 10,000 a year for my training. To become completely qualified you have to give 550 voluntary counselling hours to organisations and pay for your own supervision. I couldn't afford to pay off my loans for my course and keep a roof over my head with that pay.
This work isn't easy and you put your heart and head into supporting people as best as you can. Counsellors get burnt out in this kind of environment. I hear you it is important to get value for money. Be with the client for 50 minutes and for forbid the client is upset and you've to get them out the door to do your notes up quickly to see the next client. The max number of session a client could assess has recently to maxed at 10 it used to be just 6! But you've to advocate for 10 as a therapist.
The government this week said about there not enough psychologist and counsellors. I believe there is but more and more are leaving this kind of work. This work isn't valued. It's scandalous to me that the hse isn't putting into mental health. That those most vulnerable in our society are being cared for my a charity run with a business model0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »Again, I’m not denying that Ms. Austin is suitably qualified for the role. I’m contesting the claim that suitably qualified people cannot be found who are willing to take on the role in a voluntary capacity. I’d also contest the idea that it is solely the responsibility of the CEO to ensure that an organisation is run efficiently. That’s what management are for, and again the people who fulfil those roles can fulfil the role in a voluntary capacity.
I’m well aware that the role is stressful, but for the person with the right mentality, it will also be incredibly rewarding. Anyone who knows anything about management will know this too. I have plenty of experience of in management in voluntary roles in the charity sector and in the private sector. It’s precisely because of my experience that I suggest that it IS absolutely possible to find the right people who are passionate about the aims of the organisation that they would contribute their skills and time in a voluntary capacity.
There is no shortage of suitably qualified people who are perfectly capable of performing in the role of CEO of a charity organisation who would do so voluntarily. They’re just not interested in being CEO of organisations which don’t appeal to them, regardless of whether or not it’s a paid position.
There are plenty of people who are suitably qualified on a voluntary basis for roles on a board of a charity, but it is different for the role of CEO.
The problem isn't the salary in this case, the problem is the proliferation of charities, all paying top dollar for CEOs.
Do we really need Pieta House when we have Aware, Samaritans, YSPI, Suicide or Survive, among the 48 charities involved in suicide prevention?
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/48-charities-are-directly-involved-in-suicide-care-in-ireland-34869153.html
Duplication means inefficiency, but if the CEO of Pieta was being 180k to manage all 48 merged into 1, I would say that was money well spent.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »The CEO position in any charity organisation should be a voluntary position IMO. That same €100k goes a long way to providing services that the charity aims to provide to people who they determine are in need of their services.
Ok, so she should be working for nothing. Thanks for clarifying.0 -
Another gravy train
I think your statement is nonsense in this context. Personally speaking one family member and availed of it and it saves their life. Another family member refused to avail and ended up taking theirs at another point. I went myself with someone else again and seen the amount of young people needing support at a given time.
They do a lot more for suicide prevention than the state. That's for sure.
I really think some people have no clue unfortunately about the importance of it and throw out nonsense statements like this.
120k to run such an important organisation is peanuts!0 -
There are plenty of people who are suitably qualified on a voluntary basis for roles on a board of a charity, but it is different for the role of CEO.
The problem isn't the salary in this case, the problem is the proliferation of charities, all paying top dollar for CEOs.
Do we really need Pieta House when we have Aware, Samaritans, YSPI, Suicide or Survive, among the 48 charities involved in suicide prevention?
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/48-charities-are-directly-involved-in-suicide-care-in-ireland-34869153.html
Duplication means inefficiency, but if the CEO of Pieta was being 180k to manage all 48 merged into 1, I would say that was money well spent.
The problem is very much salaries, when the organisation is a charity. The number of charities is definitely not the issue as they each have their own reasons for their establishment. This is an example from the UK (I can’t find a source for Ireland tbh) -
A recent study by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations reported that 91 per cent of the charities registered in the United Kingdom have no paid staff and are run by volunteers.
Why Do Charities Need Volunteers?
You simply can’t run a charity organisation like it’s a business, using funds raised to buy in expertise in growing the organisation to the point where it becomes unsustainable and too top-heavy in administration. It’s simply a reality that as a charity organisation, it must rely on the altruistic model of charity which requires that everyone involved are volunteers, people willing to give their time, skills and expertise for causes they are passionate about.
One of the issues in the charity sector in Ireland is that they are basically providing an outsourcing model for the HSE and the HSE needs them, as much as they need the HSE, so the HSE are unlikely to let Pieta House fold up their operations and will continue to drip feed funding to keep them from having to wind down the charity.0 -
Advertisement
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »
You simply can’t run a charity organisation like it’s a business, using funds raised to buy in expertise in growing the organisation to the point where it becomes unsustainable and too top-heavy in administration. It’s simply a reality that as a charity organisation, it must rely on the altruistic model of charity which requires that everyone involved are volunteers, people willing to give their time, skills and expertise for causes they are passionate about.
You won't even get retired CEO/CFO/COO level people working for free, OEJ.
Only way that happens is if you return the running of these organisations to the Religious orders.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement