Eight for ‘08
As we head boldly into this brand new year of possibilities and opportunities for growth and learning, I have eight things that I’m planning on doing this year that I felt worth sharing. A tad eclectic, but all related in a fashion:
- Take a new course or learn a new skill outside of business and expand the horizons of communities online and off (I’m doing both - refreshing my seriously degraded abilities in French and learning how to knit by starting with the "Szechwan Scarf" kit I got this holiday… wish me luck, my uncoordinated fingers will need it… there’s the reason I quit piano way back when!)
- Commit to becoming a fully active community member of at least one social network or tool (I’m still undecided but leaning towards FB and del.icio.us)
- Clean up current RSS feeds and actively seek out and discover new blogs and fresh perspectives (I plan on starting this journey by clicking on blogs I haven’t read yet via my regular ‘must-read’ bloggers blogrolls)
- Reduce. Reuse. Recycle. — Think Green. (‘nough said, this one’s a no-brainer, but I could improve in my consumption and daily habits!)
- Visit museums and art galleries in person and leave the camera at home (sometimes the memory of the piece takes on a whole new meaning without the archived visual cue)
- Get involved with volunteering online via a site like - givemeaning.org (not only are you giving back, but you’re involved in a vibrant community of interest and intent)
- Think about touchpoints while going about everyday life — how and why are they meaningful to the individual; what does it mean, and how can it be leveraged and added to in the transactional economy? (think integrated)
- Unplug completely one evening a week (take time to reflect and recharge)
Wishing everyone a joyous and rewarding 2008!
Are any of these on your list this year? Anything you’re planning to do that trumps them all? :)
[photo credit: p.du.v via Flickr]
Great resolutions! Be mindful, when considering #6, that givemeaning is not as it appears on the surface. Here’s an excerpt of article in The Vancouver Sun newspaper of January 19, 2008:
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=b76ff000-c8e8-4789-9ed8-806df2c2945a
During the year ending Sept. 30, 2006, GiveMeaning received $234,643 in donations for which it gave tax receipts, according to a financial statement filed with Canada Revenue Agency. Tom Williams said these are largely donations from individuals.
It received another $730,350 from other registered charities. Williams said these donations were made specifically to pay GiveMeaning’s overhead.
He refused to identify any of these donors. I found this strange: My sense is that, while some donors request anonymity, most registered charities or foundations publicly report where they are placing their money, not so much for recognition as for transparency.
More generally, I do not understand why certain undisclosed charities would give money to pay overhead for what is essentially a charitable conduit.
In the case of GiveMeaning, that overhead is disproportionately large. Of the $982,705 in total donations it received (and issued tax receipts for), GiveMeaning spent $666,070, or 68 per cent, on administrative expenses.
Those expenses included $199,043 for professional and consulting fees; $153,646 for salaries, wages and benefits; $28,433 for advertising and promotion; and $24,019 for travel.
I asked Williams whether he receives a salary. Well, yes, $90,000 per year. And his wife, country singer Jessie Farrell, who works part-time for the foundation “when she can,” gets $30,000. So together they collect $120,000 per year, plus expenses.
After subtracting overhead costs, just over $300,000 was available for charitable purposes in 2006, but only $172,000 was actually given to charities (the remainder is still on the foundation’s books). That $172,000 represents just 17.5 per cent of total donations.
But that’s not the end of it. Many of the charities that receive money have their own overhead. So the net amount available for true charitable purposes is even less.
Williams insists that, whenever a person gives money for a particular charity, 100 per of that money gets to the named beneficiary. That may be true, but it does not mitigate the fact that the vast majority of the overall money collected during 2006 went to administration.
Williams says this was due largely to start-up costs: “Yes, we have spent more than we have given away. Just like any other start-up business, it takes time to get profitable,” he said.
He said the financial return for the year ending Sept. 30, 2007, which is just now being filed, will show a greater percentage of overall donations going to charity. We shall see.
The Vancouver Sun January 19, 2008
Posted on 21-Jan-08 at 2:30 pm | Permalink