3 ms·

"Morally reprehensible," in this situation, could be something like "bribe a corrupt official." If it takes bribing a corrupt official to save lives, I don't th

by scarmig 11y ago

"Morally reprehensible," in this situation, could be something like "bribe a corrupt official." If it takes bribing a corrupt official to save lives, I don't think most donors would have a real issue with that. However, admitting that publically would embarrass the official (if named), remove the efficacy of all future bribes (which are by nature secret), and could even open the organization up to legal action. I don't, FWIW, think that's what's going on here, but it's a plausible enough line. Certainly better than "I already told you everything you need to know!"

noonespecial 11y ago
If I were a "big bad charity" I'd much rather spend my millions hiring Blackwater to go bust a few corrupt heads than pay them off. If we're going down the conspiracy theory path, at least make it exciting!
- scarmig 11y ago
  Actually, a charity devoted to rooting out corruption in developing countries would probably end up being one of the most efficient and effective for raising living standards. Hire someone to offer the bribe. Target a well-known corrupt official, and gather lots of evidence to make it obvious that a bribe has happened. Publish the results, get a scalp. On top of punishing the individual corrupt official, if every official knows that any bribe offered might be a trap, they'd be much more likely to turn it down. Certainly makes the cost of bribery for bribers a lot more expensive to account for the extra risk. Hell, you don't even need to hire someone. Just have an open offer that if someone can prove they successfully bribed an official, you'll pay them three times the bribe amount.
  - MichaelGG 11y ago
    I doubt it. Right now, in Guatemala, they have an ex president in prison. And the current tax admin under investigation. And the vice president resigning because she was stealing all over. And on and on. Same thing every 4 years. It's no secret, nothing happens or changes. Busting lower level folks probably won't fix anything. You'll just get mired in their terrible slowness and endless rules, pointless paperwork and so on. At least bribing folks, you can get stuff done.
Alupis 11y ago
> If it takes bribing a corrupt official to save lives, I don't think most donors would have a real issue with that. Except in this case it seems they bribed so many corrupt officials that there was nothing left for actual aide... I think it's far more plausible they just waste the money away on "Administrative" fees and project mismanagement at enormous scale. This is a "charitable" organization which has run rampant and unchecked for a long, long time. Nobody has dared to question the organization before because of the stone wall of "charitable projects and relief" they've constructed. The fact that they are a "not-for-profit" foundation that survives on donations (2.9 Billion USD in 2014) yet wont disclose financials really turns me off. I can't help but feel there is corruption within the organization leading to purposeful waste of income as well as possible embezzlement by high ranking executives.
- scarmig 11y ago
  Agree wholeheartedly. Something about non-profits seem to make them sacrosanct. If you criticize them among friends, it's almost certain that someone will rip into you for being miserly and not caring about the poor $VICTIMS. Cynically, I think the root of this tendency is the fact that many people don't care about the efficacy of a donation, as such, but only about how it indicates the giver is a morally superior being, over all those non-givers. Whether the organization blows the money on coke and hookers (or, more plausibly, ineffective staffing and programs) is besides the point. Especially organizations with powerful brands, like the Red Cross.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  When people expect you to pay far below market rates for management (and sometimes expect it to be volunteer only), it is inevitable that you will suffer massive mismanagement. Even organizations with great management make massive expensive blunders.
  - reagency 11y ago
    ARC pays massive salaries
    - 11y ago

by scarmig 11y ago

noonespecial 11y ago

If I were a "big bad charity" I'd much rather spend my millions hiring Blackwater to go bust a few corrupt heads than pay them off. If we're going down the conspiracy theory path, at least make it exciting!

scarmig 11y ago
Actually, a charity devoted to rooting out corruption in developing countries would probably end up being one of the most efficient and effective for raising living standards. Hire someone to offer the bribe. Target a well-known corrupt official, and gather lots of evidence to make it obvious that a bribe has happened. Publish the results, get a scalp. On top of punishing the individual corrupt official, if every official knows that any bribe offered might be a trap, they'd be much more likely to turn it down. Certainly makes the cost of bribery for bribers a lot more expensive to account for the extra risk. Hell, you don't even need to hire someone. Just have an open offer that if someone can prove they successfully bribed an official, you'll pay them three times the bribe amount.
- MichaelGG 11y ago
  I doubt it. Right now, in Guatemala, they have an ex president in prison. And the current tax admin under investigation. And the vice president resigning because she was stealing all over. And on and on. Same thing every 4 years. It's no secret, nothing happens or changes. Busting lower level folks probably won't fix anything. You'll just get mired in their terrible slowness and endless rules, pointless paperwork and so on. At least bribing folks, you can get stuff done.

Alupis 11y ago

> If it takes bribing a corrupt official to save lives, I don't think most donors would have a real issue with that. Except in this case it seems they bribed so many corrupt officials that there was nothing left for actual aide... I think it's far more plausible they just waste the money away on "Administrative" fees and project mismanagement at enormous scale. This is a "charitable" organization which has run rampant and unchecked for a long, long time. Nobody has dared to question the organization before because of the stone wall of "charitable projects and relief" they've constructed. The fact that they are a "not-for-profit" foundation that survives on donations (2.9 Billion USD in 2014) yet wont disclose financials really turns me off. I can't help but feel there is corruption within the organization leading to purposeful waste of income as well as possible embezzlement by high ranking executives.

scarmig 11y ago
Agree wholeheartedly. Something about non-profits seem to make them sacrosanct. If you criticize them among friends, it's almost certain that someone will rip into you for being miserly and not caring about the poor $VICTIMS. Cynically, I think the root of this tendency is the fact that many people don't care about the efficacy of a donation, as such, but only about how it indicates the giver is a morally superior being, over all those non-givers. Whether the organization blows the money on coke and hookers (or, more plausibly, ineffective staffing and programs) is besides the point. Especially organizations with powerful brands, like the Red Cross.
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
When people expect you to pay far below market rates for management (and sometimes expect it to be volunteer only), it is inevitable that you will suffer massive mismanagement. Even organizations with great management make massive expensive blunders.
- reagency 11y ago
  ARC pays massive salaries
  - 11y ago