The Aid Agencies........

Sleepy

One of the issues I'd have with Irish charities is simply the number of them that operate in the same areas.

Applying straight-forward enough thinking, less larger charities should, in principle, be more effective than a glut of smaller ones. There are arguments for keeping some activities small to be light of foot but with correct management this is possible in even behemoths like the Virgin Group. I can't see why the same can't be done in charities.

Fulton Crown

I am happy that there is some light being shed on this rather difficult and murky area.

While I accept that direct comparisons may be difficult - it does not excuse having minimal regulation and foot dragging which appears to be the case at the minute.

Take the Chuggers that you increasingly encounter on our streets - I have a fundamental disagreement with this form of collection - and will never donate because of the level of money going to the Chuggers and those who organise them.

However difficult comparisons may be I do not think it beyond the powers of a good financial journalist to do an analysis of the major charities - particularly those who, quite literally, swamp the airwaves with their appeals and indeed as pointed out by a previous poster seem to overlap in a lot of areas.

I certainly think it is an area on which the public requires more transparency.

While most are probably reputable and manage their affairs well - the proliferation of these agencies and the level of their spending on radio advts would raise suspicions in this cynical poster.

Uummmmm?

edanto

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

What I want to know if I donate my €100 to Charity X, is how much of that 100 Eurons reaches the bottom line.

I know where you're coming from. I guess all I'm trying to say is that it's a complicated sector, because charity work has evolved a long way from simply throwing money at the problem. Not all charities have evolved equally.

If you are trying to make a donation decision, sign up the charities newsletter, research what it is they spend their money on. Check out the charities website and see if they give you enough information.

If not, contact them directly and ask for the information.

If they aren't forthcoming with the information and as a result you don't trust them - then find a different charity.

On sleepy's point of the multitude of charities, it's very very true. There are 7,500 active orgs with CHY numbers (which means that they have charitable status with the Revenue).... but recent research from TCD indicates that there are upwards of 20,000 organisations in the community and voluntary sector. In time, perhaps some of them will merge, but many people want to support a charity where they know the people personally, so perhaps not.

I'd be interested to know what the first poster thinks of all this.

In a nutshell, the aid agencies are currently regulated by funding, and oversight is provided by having public accounts, boards of management and detailed reports to donors. If you can prove the work you are doing is effective and efficient, you'll get funding. If not, you'll run out of money and close.

FlutterinBantam

Scofflaw wrote: »

How does one tell what "goes to the area needed" consists of? Does lobbying and media spend "go to the area needed" for a charity involved in providing medical service in Africa?

If you try to use a metric like this, you'll run into the same problem all metrics have - they result in maximisation of the metric rather than anything else. If we use money "going to the area needed" versus "admin" as our metric, then the charity can maximise that metric by buying a load of food aid, and simply handing it over to "local powers" to distribute, because that's simpler and cheaper to administrate than working out how to get the food to the people that really need it. The result will look good on paper - on the ground it will result in the charity fostering corruption and the power of local elites. Is that a good use of your charity money? No, but it will look like one, on paper.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Intelligent post Scofflers,and indeed you have a very valid point.

However,what I am talking about is basically how many people it takes to RUN the Charity.

One may have a Charity which disperses say 10million Euro per year with 10 people in their ADMIN office

One may have a Charity which disperses 5 million Euro per year with 25 people in their ADMIN office.

I fully realise that different scenarios and needs require different modes of operation, but surely those accounts and expenses should be open to public scrutiny, so that the contributing public can make a judgment??

Kind of freedom of information act stuff?

edanto

They are open to the public!! Above a certain threshold, all companies (and charities are legally registered as companies) must register accounts with the CRO and you can download them for a small fee.

Some charities will have them on their websites....

For example - here are the Camara audited accounts.
http://camara.ie/web/about-2/what-we-do/audited-accounts/

But other, very reputable charities will choose not to have them on their website, perhaps because of the complicating factors that scofflaw and I have been outlining. For example, Habitat for Humanity are a very well respected, and efficiently run (I'm led to believe) charity, yet I can't see their accounts on their website http://www.habitatireland.ie/

But I'm sure if you called up Habitat, and said that you were interested in seeing their accounts, because you were considering a donations, that they'd send them out to you.

FlutterinBantam

I have just checked out the websites of Concern and Goal and despite a fairly extensive trawl, nowhere could I find any reference to the remuneration package of either CEO.

Maybe some might not consider this to be relevant to the operation of the Charity, but most certainly I do.

P. Breathnach

Fulton Crown wrote: »

... Take the Chuggers that you increasingly encounter on our streets - I have a fundamental disagreement with this form of collection - and will never donate because of the level of money going to the Chuggers and those who organise them...

Likewise, I avoid donating through such channels (and I would mention here that "charity" greetings cards sold in general outlets are even less effective as a means of supporting a good cause). Anything I give, I like to contribute through a no-cost or low-cost channel.

But here's the rub: if a chugger raises €1000 and gets €350 of it, the charity ends up with €650 that it might not, probably would not, otherwise have had. That €650 might save a few lives. And the chugger has not done anything dishonest or illegal -- perhaps distasteful in the eyes of some. Should we stop such activities?

Eliot Rosewater

P. Breathnach wrote: »

But here's the rub: if a chugger raises €1000 and gets €350 of it, the charity ends up with €650 that it might not

When I was working on behalf of Barnardos, they paid my employers €100 per direct debit. The average life of a direct debit is 5 years, thats 12 months times 5. €21 per month; €252 a year; €1260 altogether. And thats not considering tax-back that charities get if the donation is from a PAYE taxpayer.

When I was working I got that same argument "your will get the money". Its a silly argument because of above, but also because if we are to be thorough in applying that standard then charities shouldn't spend any money on getting more revenue. By the same standard ads in the papers and on the radio would be immoral.

Fulton Crown

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

When I was working on behalf of Barnardos, they paid my employers €100 per direct debit. The average life of a direct debit is 5 years, thats 12 months times 5. €21 per month; €252 a year; €1260 altogether. And thats not considering tax-back that charities get if the donation is from a PAYE taxpayer.

When I was working I got that same argument "your will get the money". Its a silly argument because of above, but also because if we are to be thorough in applying that standard then charities shouldn't spend any money on getting more revenue. By the same standard ads in the papers and on the radio would be immoral.

Thanks El..that really clears things up .....

Is it just me ................................

Eliot Rosewater

Its generally conductive to tell me what was so confusing, rather than just throwing some sarcasm, a few dot dot dots and three smileys together. Im happy to answer all your questions regarding "chuggers" given that I was one for all of 11 days.

tertials

I agree there needs to be some regulation in the charity sector. Some of the methods they employ to extract money is disturbing.

Yesterday I visited my elderly mother (87). She said a man representing a well-known charity organisation came to the door of her house and, as she always wants to help, she went to get some money to give him. Meanwhile, my father (86 and not very well) let the man in after he asked. My mother said the man said he couldn’t accept money. She said he was very persuasive and she ended up signing a direct debit of €21 per month for the Haiti appeal. As there is quite a bit to fill out on this form, the man must have been there for some time.

My mother said she worried all that night about what she had done and had to go to the bank the next day to see if everything was okay. Obviously I told her to not be letting anyone in to the house. At the bottom of the direct debit form it says that the charity employs a company to help raise funds and the charity then pays a fee to that company. It is disturbing to think that the fundraising operative would ask to get in the door and get elderly people to sign direct debits.

I rang the charity to outline my alarm at such methods. She apologised and agreed to cancel the direct debit. The lady said it was difficult for the fundraisers to know when not to pursue the matter when the people want to help. I outlined that they should use common sense when it is obvious that elderly people can be easily persuaded and do not always know what they are doing.

How many other elderly people have been persuaded to sign up I wonder.

walshb

My mother said the man said he couldn’t accept money. She said he was very persuasive and she ended up signing a direct debit of €21 per month for the Haiti appeal. As there is quite a bit to fill out on this form, the man must have been there for some time.


****ing disgusting human beings...Plain and simple, the best thing you can do is to
stop this, do whatever you have to to stop it. Ig it angers you, act, if not, then so be it.

You open your mouth about it and complain, and you are seen a s a racist to the poor people.

Edit, I see you did already, fair play. You are so right about opening the door to
people, forget the charity aspect, it's the safety aspect to your parents that would worry me.

Kalimah

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I have just checked out the websites of Concern and Goal and despite a fairly extensive trawl, nowhere could I find any reference to the remuneration package of either CEO.

Maybe some might not consider this to be relevant to the operation of the Charity, but most certainly I do.

From a bit of insider information I got I believe that the CEO of Concern was on 170k a year but took a 10% percent pay cut last year. Most of the admin staff in Conern are on less than 30k. The "chuggers" are on a fixed salary.

FlutterinBantam

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/top-charities-defend-fat-cat-ceo-salaries-1062042.html


Why can't these people pony up and tell us what they get out of the charity?

This kind of stuff just breeds distrust..

Put all salaries out in the open for God's sake

Fulton Crown

Kalimah wrote: »

From a bit of insider information I got I believe that the CEO of Concern was on 170k a year but took a 10% percent pay cut last year. Most of the admin staff in Conern are on less than 30k. The "chuggers" are on a fixed salary.

This is no surprise,,,it's the classic drawbridge technique employed by companies...establish a very small coterie of fat cats....pull up the drawbridge and keep overall admin expenses within reasonable limits by paying buttons to the ordinary worker.

I'm pretty sure by the way that the 170k was supplemented by a company car and expenses.

Sounds to me like a package well over 200k...which is not to be sniffed at.

That is why in my initial post I referred ONLY to the senior execs.....

Where is our media on this one .....it's a while now since 2007.

Scofflaw

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/top-charities-defend-fat-cat-ceo-salaries-1062042.html


Why can't these people pony up and tell us what they get out of the charity?

This kind of stuff just breeds distrust..

Put all salaries out in the open for God's sake

While I'd favour that, I'd have to point out that the Concern CEO's package of €140k in 2007, even if it rose to €170k, is very far behind the curve for similar posts. The CEO of an SME - one far smaller than even Concern's operation in Ireland - would expect to make that:

According to a Sunday Independent survey average Irish CEO pay was €814,000 in 2003 representing an annual increase of 8.5 per cent. In addition, many CEO's would have significant wealth from shares allocated in their companies.

I don't see the Concern CEO's level of remuneration as at all unreasonable. Higher remuneration would attract the kind of people who were only in it for the money, but lower than that and you're really not going to be able to keep someone with adequate experience and ability, even if they're keen to do the job.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Eliot Rosewater

walshb wrote: »

****ing disgusting human beings

Lovely. Dont bother thinking that there was clearly a breach of etiquette here. Much easier to just go haywire and brand all those who have worked as "chuggers" "****ing disgusting human beings".

walshb wrote: »

stop this, do whatever you have to to stop it.

As I said, there clearly was a breach of etiquette and the person who posted here was right in phoning the charity. In fact, these kind of complaints do get through. When I was on the job the team leader would regularly come around to us and tell us to stay away from certain shops.

Though I don't know if you really want to hear this. Theres nothing worse than realizing that "****ing disgusting human beings" are actually human beings.

FlutterinBantam

=Scofflaw;64335459While I'd favour that, I'd have to point out that the Concern CEO's package of €140k in 2007, even if it rose to €170k, is very far behind the curve for similar posts. The CEO of an SME - one far smaller than even Concern's operation in Ireland - would expect to make that:

jaysus! small med ent CEO on €140k. doubt it to be honest.

=Scofflaw;64335459
I don't see the Concern CEO's level of remuneration as at all unreasonable. Higher remuneration would attract the kind of people who were only in it for the money, but lower than that and you're really not going to be able to keep someone with adequate experience and ability, even if they're keen to do the job.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Agree with you there, although there is always the nagging feeling that some small band of people are doing very well out of charity fundraising.

Goal should publish salaries and dispel the cynics like me:cool:

Easiest in the long run.

Fulton Crown

The range of salaries for CEO'S is far to wide to be relevant - the issue is comparison wit SIMILIAR orgs ..seemsto me that there is a definate case to answer.

Come clean boys ..ifn you got nothing to hide ?

Scofflaw

Fulton Crown wrote: »

The range of salaries for CEO'S is far to wide to be relevant - the issue is comparison wit SIMILIAR orgs ..seemsto me that there is a definate case to answer.

Come clean boys ..ifn you got nothing to hide ?

Well, here's a US salary survey of SMEs. That's 500 employees or less - Concern Ireland has 300 employees on payroll in Ireland, but it's actually a small multinational with what's claimed to be 4000 employees. Certainly it will have more than the 300 in Ireland, but we can use that to put in the SME class - and the salary for Concern's CEO in 2007 is a good chunk below the median salary in that survey.

Here's another Finfacts article, from 2007:

CEOs in Information Technology & Telecommunications earn an average of €324,000 while their equivalent in Semi-state and Not-for-Profit earn an average of €151,900, this year’s survey found.

And from irishjobs.ie, 2006:

Size|Dublin|Regional
Managing Director (T/O > 10m)|150,000-240,000|120,000-180,000
Managing Director (T/O < 10m)|100,000-130,000|85,000-110,000

Concern is Dublin-based, and has a turnover well in excess of €10m, so the expected salary range in 2006 for the MD would have been €150k - €240k. In fact, it was €140k a year later in 2007.

Calling this a "fat cat" salary is a piece of populist journalistic rubbish that the author should have been ashamed of.

cordially,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

Scofflaw wrote: »

... Calling this a "fat cat" salary is a piece of populist journalistic rubbish that the author should have been ashamed of...

I am much taken with the idea that journalists might have a sense of shame.

Scofflaw

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I am much taken with the idea that journalists might have a sense of shame.

Yes, it's an amusing piece of whatiffery. Leads to all kinds of places which totally fail to resemble the real world.

cordially,
Scofflaw

FlutterinBantam

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, here's a US salary survey of SMEs. That's 500 employees or less - Concern Ireland has 300 employees on payroll in Ireland, but it's actually a small multinational with what's claimed to be 4000 employees. Certainly it will have more than the 300 in Ireland, but we can use that to put in the SME class - and the salary for Concern's CEO in 2007 is a good chunk below the median salary in that survey.

Here's another Finfacts article, from 2007:



And from irishjobs.ie, 2006:

Size|Dublin|Regional
Managing Director (T/O > 10m)|150,000-240,000|120,000-180,000
Managing Director (T/O < 10m)|100,000-130,000|85,000-110,000

Concern is Dublin-based, and has a turnover well in excess of €10m, so the expected salary range in 2006 for the MD would have been €150k - €240k. In fact, it was €140k a year later in 2007.

Calling this a "fat cat" salary is a piece of populist journalistic rubbish that the author should have been ashamed of.

cordially,
Scofflaw

With all due respect I would not equate Concern strictly with a Dublin based sme.

It's a charity to which people contribute money to.

Not a commercial operation competing in the open market.

Scofflaw

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

With all due respect I would not equate Concern strictly with a Dublin based sme.

It's a charity to which people contribute money to.

Not a commercial operation competing in the open market.

Which is why the CEO salary is somewhat below the going rate. It's not ridiculously low, because then Concern couldn't attract someone of sufficient experience - and when it comes to senior management, Concern certainly is competing in the open market, albeit with a slight non-financial advantage.

Someone with sufficient experience and seniority to run something like Concern is not going to take the job unless the remuneration is in the appropriate ballpark. Offering €70k isn't going to get you that someone.

cordially,
Scofflaw

FlutterinBantam

Again I can fully see what you are saying, which makes it all the more mysterious why Goal are so secretive about their admin and management costs.

As the OP and myself and others said, if you have nothing to hide , put it all out in the open.

I wouldn't contribute one brown Euro cent to Goal till I had that information.

P. Breathnach

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Again I can fully see what you are saying, which makes it all the more mysterious why Goal are so secretive about their admin and management costs.

As the OP and myself and others said, if you have nothing to hide , put it all out in the open.

I wouldn't contribute one brown Euro cent to Goal till I had that information.

The tone of your posts shows a good reason why it would be disadvantageous to put the figures in the public domain: they would then have to expend a lot of time justifying the justifiable, and there would likely be some negative effect created by the mean-spirited.

I have a suspicion that some of those who make noise about the pay levels of charity executives are doing little more than seeking an excuse for not making contributions to the work of those charities.

FlutterinBantam

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The tone of your posts shows a good reason why it would be disadvantageous to put the figures in the public domain: they would then have to expend a lot of time justifying the justifiable, and there would likely be some negative effect created by the mean-spirited.

I have a suspicion that some of those who make noise about the pay levels of charity executives are doing little more than seeking an excuse for not making contributions to the work of those charities.

Aaah now Walshy that's no way to view the public.

If they have to spend a lot of time justifying the justifiable, then there is something wrong. The public generally aren't idiots, and can sniff out malpractice very well indeed.

I like to know where my charity donations go, and I would expect full information on the people running it, so as I can form an opinion of how much of my charity money is being used before it hits the front lines.

Put it this way, you won't find the Flutthers hard earned eurons heading to any 'House of Prayer' charity.

Publish your figures lads, number of admins, who they are and qualifications. If you are ok, the public will quickly know yea or nay.No supercilious arguments about justifying anything.

John Q Public will easily make up their own mind;)

Cannibal Ox

I haz no access to my old account, but I've been looking at this thread and wanted to post so...

FlutterinBantam wrote:

With all due respect I would not equate Concern strictly with a Dublin based sme.

It's a charity to which people contribute money to.

Not a commercial operation competing in the open market.

This isn't quite true. NGOs do compete with other NGOs. Locally, for donors, and for Irish Aid funding. Internationally, they compete with other NGOs to do work, to get funding from supra-national organisations and other governments.

FlutterinBantam wrote:

Again I can fully see what you are saying, which makes it all the more mysterious why Goal are so secretive about their admin and management costs.

As the OP and myself and others said, if you have nothing to hide , put it all out in the open.

This is not quite true either. Firstly, NGOs aren't secretive about their admin and management costs. If they were, that would imply that all other companies publish their admin and management costs, which they patently don't.

Secondly, if you really want to find out how much an admin staff member gets paid, keep an eye on activelink.ie, wait for a position to be posted, and you'll see how much they get paid.

Thirdly, how many people on boards would be happy if their salaries were made public? I can understand a CEO, or a board member, making their salaries public, but I don't think administrative staff, or IT staff, or fundraising staff, or campaign staff, or overseas staff, should have their salaries published. I think they have a right to privacy around their salaries.

FlutterinBantam wrote:

If they have to spend a lot of time justifying the justifiable, then there is something wrong. The public generally aren't idiots, and can sniff out malpractice very well indeed.

Oddly enough, they do spend a lot of time justifying what they do. There are billions of euros being spent in aid, and there is an entire industry based around foreign aid. There are hundreds, possibly thousands, of academics that work on foreign aid, how its spent, how its used, what it does. There are hundreds of people within NGOs that research how their aid is spent, how its used, what it does. I wouldn't be worried that they spend so much time justifying themselves, I would be worried if they didn't employ some kind of oversight and some kind of reflection on what it is they're doing.

Also, if the public were so good at sniffing out malpractice well...the Catholic Church, Fianna Fail, builders, etc, etc, etc.

FlutterinBantam wrote:

I like to know where my charity donations go, and I would expect full information on the people running it, so as I can form an opinion of how much of my charity money is being used before it hits the front lines.

Ring them, email them, they will tell you where your donation goes. You want information on the people running them, find a wiki page, find a newspaper article, look at their websites, do an interview with them, pay a psychic, what ever floats your boat, it isn't that difficult with a bit of effort.

FlutterinBantam wrote:

Publish your figures lads, number of admins, who they are and qualifications. If you are ok, the public will quickly know yea or nay.No supercilious arguments about justifying anything.

I have a fair idea of what the answers to those questions are, and I don't think there's any reason for them to published. Without even getting into questions of privacy, I think it'd be a waste of time, money, and resources.

Besides which, if you really wanted to find out, you could. You could ring and ask them or you could look at job postings and search the internet.


There was some other stuff.

Why does an NGO ask for a specific number for emergency donations? An NGO will normally know how much money it's going to need, will have an idea of how many people will donate, and will base the number they're asking for based on that. It isn't being cheaky, it's being efficent and well run.

Street fundraisers. Personnaly, I don't like them. NGOs get lots of complaints about them, some of them haven't a clue what they're talking about, I've met more than one that have lied and exaggerated, and one thats shouted after me. I do not like street fundraisers. I think they give NGOs a bad name. But, NGOs get an awful lot donors from street fundraising. They are, unfortunately, successful at what they do. That is why they use them, because they work.

Accountability of aid agencies? Dochas is the umbrella organisation in Ireland, it has rules and standards for its members. The government has regulations for running NGOs (and businesses in general). NGOs like Oxfam are part of an international group of NGOs and are accountable to the overall grouping.

Beyond all of that, their is an entire academic profession of watching NGOs, how they make money, how they spend it, and how they act. There are people on this planet who make their living out of watching NGOs, and NGO practice. A good example, William Easterly, his blog = aid watch. Read a few posts there, and you'll get a better idea of development practice in general and the issues around it. If you type development, or aid, into an amazon search and you'll get lots of good books on NGOs and how they're run.

I'm sure there's lots that I've missed out on, if there's any other questions I'll give them a shot, but I don't know that much about organisations like Vincent de Paul or Focus or NGOs that work specifically within Ireland.

FlutterinBantam

Oxless Cannibal wrote: »

I haz no access to my old account, but I've been looking at this thread and wanted to post so...


This isn't quite true. NGOs do compete with other NGOs. Locally, for donors, and for Irish Aid funding. Internationally, they compete with other NGOs to do work, to get funding from supra-national organisations and other governments.


This is not quite true either. Firstly, NGOs aren't secretive about their admin and management costs. If they were, that would imply that all other companies publish their admin and management costs, which they patently don't.

Secondly, if you really want to find out how much an admin staff member gets paid, keep an eye on activelink.ie, wait for a position to be posted, and you'll see how much they get paid.

Thirdly, how many people on boards would be happy if their salaries were made public? I can understand a CEO, or a board member, making their salaries public, but I don't think administrative staff, or IT staff, or fundraising staff, or campaign staff, or overseas staff, should have their salaries published. I think they have a right to privacy around their salaries.


Oddly enough, they do spend a lot of time justifying what they do. There are billions of euros being spent in aid, and there is an entire industry based around foreign aid. There are hundreds, possibly thousands, of academics that work on foreign aid, how its spent, how its used, what it does. There are hundreds of people within NGOs that research how their aid is spent, how its used, what it does. I wouldn't be worried that they spend so much time justifying themselves, I would be worried if they didn't employ some kind of oversight and some kind of reflection on what it is they're doing.

Also, if the public were so good at sniffing out malpractice well...the Catholic Church, Fianna Fail, builders, etc, etc, etc.



Ring them, email them, they will tell you where your donation goes. You want information on the people running them, find a wiki page, find a newspaper article, look at their websites, do an interview with them, pay a psychic, what ever floats your boat, it isn't that difficult with a bit of effort.


I have a fair idea of what the answers to those questions are, and I don't think there's any reason for them to published. Without even getting into questions of privacy, I think it'd be a waste of time, money, and resources.

Besides which, if you really wanted to find out, you could. You could ring and ask them or you could look at job postings and search the internet.


There was some other stuff.

Why does an NGO ask for a specific number for emergency donations? An NGO will normally know how much money it's going to need, will have an idea of how many people will donate, and will base the number they're asking for based on that. It isn't being cheaky, it's being efficent and well run.

Street fundraisers. Personnaly, I don't like them. NGOs get lots of complaints about them, some of them haven't a clue what they're talking about, I've met more than one that have lied and exaggerated, and one thats shouted after me. I do not like street fundraisers. I think they give NGOs a bad name. But, NGOs get an awful lot donors from street fundraising. They are, unfortunately, successful at what they do. That is why they use them, because they work.

Accountability of aid agencies? Dochas is the umbrella organisation in Ireland, it has rules and standards for its members. The government has regulations for running NGOs (and businesses in general). NGOs like Oxfam are part of an international group of NGOs and are accountable to the overall grouping.

Beyond all of that, their is an entire academic profession of watching NGOs, how they make money, how they spend it, and how they act. There are people on this planet who make their living out of watching NGOs, and NGO practice. A good example, William Easterly, his blog = aid watch. Read a few posts there, and you'll get a better idea of development practice in general and the issues around it. If you type development, or aid, into an amazon search and you'll get lots of good books on NGOs and how they're run.

I'm sure there's lots that I've missed out on, if there's any other questions I'll give them a shot, but I don't know that much about organisations like Vincent de Paul or Focus or NGOs that work specifically within Ireland.

Fair play excellent post there.

Now if you can tell me how much John o'Shea earns and Lisa O' Shea and their top management team, I'll go to bed happy.

I'll even contribute to their Haiti fund if the figures are not too skewed.


Publish the frikken figures!!!

Cannibal Ox

Goal Annual Report 2007, link to a pdf. Try page 87. If I'm reading it right, there are two people in goal recieving wages between 85k€ and 105k€ in 2007. That ain't a lot, you'd make more as a senior-ish figure more working for the EU, UN, or some governments, and universities. The directors don't get paid either.

Apparently John O'Shea was a volunteer until 1992. Someone cannonize the man