3 ms·
I see. The not-for-profit has grown from 8 people to over a hundred, and wants to become another corrupt, POS not-for-profit focused on executive fiefdoms and h
by woofie11 8y ago
I see. The not-for-profit has grown from 8 people to over a hundred, and wants to become another corrupt, POS not-for-profit focused on executive fiefdoms and headcount, rather than doing any good.
They have a monopoly position on .org, and so are able to do so if they choose.
Seems like the right response is to cap price increases to 0%, or at most inflation, rather than the current 10%.
- Aeolun 8y agoThat is exactly what I imagined when I read that summary. Dawut? We might not be able to run a profit, but we can certainly make sure to spend ever dollar spuriously.
- woofie11 8y agoI've been involved in several not-for-profits. The "not able to run a profit" part is a little bit misleading: 1) Base take-home salary is typically a million dollars for the CEO or similar senior positions. 2) A senior position also allows for massive additional sources of income. Not-for-profits actually have far fewer legal restrictions than for-profits. For-profits run with a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value (source: extended conversations with a lawyer specializing in wealth management). If a not-for-profit engages in research to benefit a board member's business, or the not-for-profit launches a for-profit subsidiary, or otherwise, all that seems to be kosher. See Clinton and Trump foundations for an example of how most not-for-profits work.