Thread by @sunnshiiny

Who has ever raised funds for a charity?

When you did, were you compelled to request a breakdown of where every penny donated ended up?

The idea is preposterous.

There are charitable organizations that affix plaques in cases of large donations.

Like the Stollery Children’s Hospital in Edmonton. The Stollery’s donated a large sum and canvassed their wealthy friends and acquaintances to do the same.

Those donations were pooled to finish the project of building the hospital. But there were many other donors.

Many of their names were put on a wall beside a large photo of the Stollerys.

But I doubt the Stollerys or their co-donors asked for a detailed breakdown of where each diplomat donated was spent. Nor was there any attempt to list whose donations were used to purchase materials.

Or pay for labour, or for the accountant that paid the invoices as they arrived. Or the staff hired to solicit additional donations of much smaller amounts. Or the events organized to solicit donations. Or the people paid to run those events along with the materials they used.

My point in asking this is to refute the request from Charlie Angus and the American Sinclair Journalist who claim that the plaque erected in the name of the main donor was removed twice, so a detailed accounting of every donated dollar should be made available.

I’ve volunteered on a Board of Directors for a Youth support agency.

The budget to operate a facility isn’t the only line item.

Organizations have significant overhead above the cost of the building in which programs are housed.

A school is a building. But there are significant ongoing costs associated with the building (maintenance) and requirements for operations to continue. Teachers, desks, school supplies, uniforms, insurance, utilities, building maintenance, custodial services, student counselling.

These are all costs that require ongoing donations. Or for an endowment fund to be established that makes annual instalments.

When I was on the BOD, we reviewed the finances and approved the budget.

Donations unspent in one FY were carried over to the following FY.

Who donated them was irrelevant. Some people donated to targeted projects, but when more than what was required was raised, the remaining funds were transferred into general revenue.

And that’s what this situation sounds like.

It sounds like more than what was required was raised to build a few schools. The remainder of the funds were used to pay for ongoing annual costs to operate. And combined with other donations received by WE.

So how would WE provide a breakdown in expenses? They can’t.

Meaning the emotional manipulation used by the investigation witness was meant to elicit sympathy and suspicion. Not because this person has been denied information readily available . It’s not available in real terms.

I suppose WE could deduct dollar amounts for expenses until it reached the amount donated. But I doubt that is going to be sufficient.

Point being, unless you have experience with the inner workings of a large charity, how would you know that? You wouldn’t.

So bad actors can weep, make accusations and smear with reckless abandon because the casual observer doesn’t know any different.

One look at the history of this journalist and there is a plausible explanation for lost name plaques.

It’s not a pretty rationale, but in a charitable organization, you’re at the mercy of your donors and their political beliefs and ideology.

We’ve seen how the Keilbergers bent to the whims & demands of Alberta donors (some of the wealthiest because O&G).

When donors blew a gasket in Calgary when David Suzuki was featured in a WE event video for mere seconds, the WE organization responded by down playing climate concerns, not mentioning Suzuki and removing his image from the video.

Some purists may harshly judge the Keilbergers for caving to the whims of ideological nonsense, what they forget or ignore is that WE charity is dependent on those donations to meet the ever increasing costs of operating multiple schools and programs across the globe.

They can’t afford to insult wealthy donors with ideological virtue signalling.

So what does this have to do with this committee inquisition and the emotional guilt trip? Plenty I bet.

Here’s why. The person making the accusations is Reed Cowan. A journalist from Utah. Not nationally known, but popular enough that many would know his name. Or, easily obtain his back story.

He has a compelling backstory. His deceased son is only part of the story.

This is the reality of forcing people to pick sides in a hyper polarized political environment. Some people won’t pick sides. That doesn’t make them weak or spineless. It makes them fools to choose one side or the other, because it reduces the pool of potential donors.

And guess what folks. It isn’t the far left progressives who make large 6 or 7 figure donations. It’s the wealthy on the right who do. WE charity founders and fundraisers are no fools. Their job is to raise the donations required to keep operating.

So someone with a public history that may drive potential donors to turn away from WE charity is a risk too large to take. The actual aid for the children they wish to help is on the line.

Principles don’t pay the bills. Virtue signals are not for donor dependent charities.

You don’t bite the hand that feeds thousands. Or at the very least pays the ongoing expenses to keep your schools and programs open and operating effectively.

I forgot to mention, that charity I volunteered on BODs, I started volunteering in fundraising.

I’m fully aware of the schmooze fest donor solicitation requires. I didn’t like it. Because I was required to put aside my principles and plead for donations. Switched to board member after 6 months of that. It made me feel dirty.

I commend the people who have the inner confidence and are firmly grounded in ethics and morality. They regularly bend those ethics to get people to part with their money. But it’s that money that keeps the programs and operations running.

It wasn’t a role for me.

Look up Reed Cowan & his history (Wiki). There is nothing controversial for progressives. But if giving a tour to a wealthy potential donor, there is definitely history that could affect conservative donors.

Trying to get the Keilbergers to admit that publicly is dirty politics.

Dollar* damn spell check!