Interesting piece on Livestrong

[Polish]

Just as a comparison - here are the audited accounts for the Cancer Coalition for 2008.

The Cancer Coalition raised over $150 million.
Their combined travel and meals was $121,266.
Telemarketing was $1,399,283 and Advertising & Public Relations was a paltry $5,090

The LAF total was just over $35 million.
Travel was $1,922,995.
Advertising $4,195,187.

That is not an Apples to Apples comparision.

The Cancer Coalition does NOT have a Rock Star on their payroll.
You guys have to get over the fact that Rock Stars increase costs.

 

[D-Queued]

Thats one of those clinic numbers that some will say over and over in hopes that somebody will believe its true. Like LA's camp saying he was the youngest world champion. Another good clinic bs line is to compare all of the expenses of LAF to the president of American Cancer Society and feign disgust.

Well, the number is true. Sorry to burst the bubble.

For detailed information:
http://www.livestrong.org/Who-We-Are/Our-Strength/Financial-Information

From page 27 of 33 (2008 and 2009 consolidated):

Travel
Total: 1,922,995
Program: 1,652,246
Mgmt & General: 83,069
Fundraising: 187,680

Dave.

 

[JRTinMA]

Well, the number is true. Sorry to burst the bubble.

For detailed information:
http://www.livestrong.org/Who-We-Are/Our-Strength/Financial-Information

From page 27 of 33 (2008 and 2009 consolidated):

Travel
Total: 1,922,995
Program: 1,652,246
Mgmt & General: 83,069
Fundraising: 187,680

Dave.

Show me a jet fuel line item.

 

[miloman]

At least part of these expenses (appearance fees, jet rental) probably fall under 'Fund Raising' ($4.19m) and/or 'Administrative' ($2.4m) expenses. Neither of these are broken down in the bbb link.

In fact, Expenses were $4m greater than income when these are included and the net assets have decreased by that amount.

In terms of the breakdown that is provided, why do they need $1m ($997,955) for government relations? Normally this is code for 'lobbying'? Who does this go to and for what? What do they need to lobby for - more cancer?

Dave.

How about health care reform? Getting employers and insurance companies to provide portable cancer insurance without preexisiting exemptions. What about cancer patient rights under employment contracts? Discrimination? There is a lot of lobbying that goes on regarding healtcare. These are just a few ideas I have heard.

 

[D-Queued]

Just as a comparison - here are the audited accounts for the Cancer Coalition for 2008.

The Cancer Coalition raised over $150 million.
Their combined travel and meals was $121,266.
Telemarketing was $1,399,283 and Advertising & Public Relations was a paltry $5,090

The LAF total was just over $35 million.
Travel was $1,922,995.
Advertising $4,195,187.

You might also want to compare Legal and Professional.

Cancer Coalition: $33,791
LAF: $9,418,842

That is A LOT of L&P expense (279x as much). What was Fabiani's daily rate again?

Salaries and Wages (9.6x):
Cancer Coalition: $622,120
LAF: $5,958,391

Dave.

 

[patricknd]

At least part of these expenses (appearance fees, jet rental) probably fall under 'Fund Raising' ($4.19m) and/or 'Administrative' ($2.4m) expenses. Neither of these are broken down in the bbb link.

In fact, Expenses were $4m greater than income when these are included and the net assets have decreased by that amount.

In terms of the breakdown that is provided, why do they need $1m ($997,955) for government relations? Normally this is code for 'lobbying'? Who does this go to and for what? What do they need to lobby for - more cancer?

Dave.

look up the texas cancer initiative, that's why they lobby

 

[D-Queued]

How about health care reform? Getting employers and insurance companies to provide portable cancer insurance without preexisiting exemptions. What about cancer patient rights under employment contracts? Discrimination? There is a lot of lobbying that goes on regarding healtcare. These are just a few ideas I have heard.

Government relations cannot by defnition include working with employers, health care companies or insurance providers.

If they want to pitch an 'awareness' program to these groups, then that is a program expense - not government relations.

Again, what business is it for a Charity to engage in lobbying?

Dave.

 

[miloman]

Government relations cannot by defnition include working with employers, health care companies or insurance providers.

If they want to pitch an 'awareness' program to these groups, then that is a program expense - not government relations.

Again, what business is it for a Charity to engage in lobbying?

Dave.

Well, unfortunately, that is how it works. Legislators need to be convinced that items like this are worth supporting. Legislation like smoking restrictions in public places are a result of this kind of lobbying. Reps from LAF I am sure meet with state and federal representatives all the time. Lobbying make the world go round!

 

[Anonymous]

Where is the link? I would like to see it. I think until someone more informed can interpret those numbers, I will rely on The Better Business Bureau’s recommendations . . . no offense!

Probably not your best option.

BBB has been a pay-to-play organization for some time. Any organization can buy their grade.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/business-bureau-best-ratings-money-buy/story?id=12123843

 

[JRTinMA]

You might also want to compare Legal and Professional.

Cancer Coalition: $33,791
LAF: $9,418,842

That is A LOT of L&P expense (279x as much). What was Fabiani's daily rate again?

Salaries and Wages (9.6x):
Cancer Coalition: $622,120
LAF: $5,958,391

Dave.

From their 990 the top three officers make 527k per year on a total of 622k. Comparing what NCC does to LAF is as bad as trying to compare them to the Red Cross, which was also stupid.

990

 

[Semper Fidelis]

You might also want to compare Legal and Professional.

Cancer Coalition: $33,791
LAF: $9,418,842

That is A LOT of L&P expense (279x as much). What was Fabiani's daily rate again?

Salaries and Wages (9.6x):
Cancer Coalition: $622,120
LAF: $5,958,391

Dave.

Did those numbers come from the time period where Fabiani was hired? I thought I read it was an independent audit from 2008 and 2009?

This bit is not in reply to your post Dave. I tried to make a point in an earlier post that there is no need to compare LAF.org to any other foundation or charity. All you have to do is look at how many paid employees they have and also look at the CEO's salary. Does dude have another job other than that? Sure I bet he does. He spends time globe trotting in ultra-marathons in the freaking Himalayan's. Nice gig, sit answer a few questions for the fish hacks and go off around the world doing fun interesting marathon's etc. I need that job.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

From their 990 the top three officers make 527k per year on a total of 622k. Comparing what NCC does to LAF is as bad as trying to compare them to the Red Cross, which was also stupid.

990

Robert Landry - President - $284,058
Hall Overall - CFO - $105,291
D Thomas Roane -Vice President - $137,042
A grand total $528k of their $622k wages is a good return as they raised $150million

Doug E. Ulman - President - $285,000
Betty S Otter-Nickerson - COO - $213,122
Philippe G. Hills - EVP Development - $293,200
Greg D.Lee - CFO - $162,942.
Morgan L. Binswanger - Chief of Staff - 191,935
John A. Miller - EVP Mission - $145,396
Melissa Douthit - EVP Advocacy & Engageme $124,010
Mona Patel - EVP People & Organisation - $119,193
Katherine A. McLane - Highly Compensated Employee- $114,060
Ronald A. Kolenic - Highly Compensated Employee - $109,212
Which comes in at $1,778,070 of the $4 million wage bill.

 

[miloman]

I think a lot of post here are out of line. It is a charity. It meets certain requirements to operate. You may not like the man who presides over the charity and that is your prerogative, but that still doesn’t change the fact that it meets the requirements established to be a 501(c)(3) charity. Blame the Federal government! I don’t know the CEO or Board of Directors of any of the other charities mentioned on this thread, but I would bet you could find people out there that would say derogatory things about them as well. The point being, just because you don’t like them, doesn’t mean the charity is bogus and they don’t do worthwhile things. I think many of you would be wise to withhold making any claims until which time some kind of fraud or corruption is proved within LAF. Otherwise, you look foolish, petty and punitive and are guilty of behaving much like many of you claim Armstrong does.

 

[thehog]

Robert Landry - President - $284,058
Hall Overall - CFO - $105,291
D Thomas Roane -Vice President - $137,042
A grand total $528k of their $622k wages is a good return as they raised $150million

Doug E. Ulman - President - $285,000
Betty S Otter-Nickerson - COO - $213,122
Philippe G. Hills - EVP Development - $293,200
Greg D.Lee - CFO - $162,942.
Morgan L. Binswanger - Chief of Staff - 191,935
John A. Miller - EVP Mission - $145,396
Melissa Douthit - EVP Advocacy & Engageme $124,010
Mona Patel - EVP People & Organisation - $119,193
Katherine A. McLane - Highly Compensated Employee- $114,060
Ronald A. Kolenic - Highly Compensated Employee - $109,212
Which comes in at $1,778,070 of the $4 million wage bill.

Most of these people have weird backgrounds. Almost all of them have little to no experience in charity organisations. It was like they were plucked from somewhere and placed into an executive position so they'd just shut up and not ask any questions.

 

[thehog]

I think a lot of post here are out of line. It is a charity. It meets certain requirements to operate. You may not like the man who presides over the charity and that is your prerogative, but that still doesn’t change the fact that it meets the requirements established to be a 501(c)(3) charity. Blame the Federal government! I don’t know the CEO or Board of Directors of any of the other charities mentioned on this thread, but I would bet you could find people out there that would say derogatory things about them as well. The point being, just because you don’t like them, doesn’t mean the charity is bogus and they don’t do worthwhile things. I think many of you would be wise to withhold making any claims until which time some kind of fraud or corruption is proved within LAF. Otherwise, you look foolish, petty and punitive and are guilty of behaving much like many of you claim Armstrong does.

The key to effective government is strong opposition. Its important to ask questions. I think this debate has brought out some interesting information. I'd like to understand more about the wage bill and the travel. I should be able to ask and get the information, yes?

Perhaps someone on this board could email and see if they can get some form of response. Might clear up the issue. Saying nothing and asking nothing won't get us anywhere.

 

[AussieGoddess]

I think a lot of post here are out of line. It is a charity. It meets certain requirements to operate. You may not like the man who presides over the charity and that is your prerogative, but that still doesn’t change the fact that it meets the requirements established to be a 501(c)(3) charity. Blame the Federal government! I don’t know the CEO or Board of Directors of any of the other charities mentioned on this thread, but I would bet you could find people out there that would say derogatory things about them as well. The point being, just because you don’t like them, doesn’t mean the charity is bogus and they don’t do worthwhile things. I think many of you would be wise to withhold making any claims until which time some kind of fraud or corruption is proved within LAF. Otherwise, you look foolish, petty and punitive and are guilty of behaving much like many of you claim Armstrong does.

Sorry Miloman - you do not have to be a GOOD charity to meet those requirements. And there are ways to meet the requirements and still rort the system - which is what we are talking about.

I do agree that it is difficult comparing this charity to others because of its purpose. The stated goad of the LAF/Livestrong is to promote cancer awareness and join the various cancer charities in the fight. That does mean extensive lobbying. It does mean a large entertainment budget - you cannot get charities and government agencies to work together by ringing them up .... it means flying there, meeting with them, putting up proposales (that take time and money to put together). So it is understandable that the entertainment, government relations and travel bills are more .... that is their goal.

But it does make it difficult to judge the success and the spending of the charity.

As far as wages - I think Dr Mas hit it on the head. The wages for the top execs at Livestrong and those at NCC should be both be somewhat reflective of the size of the organisation. Livestrong is incredibly top heavy .... and those 'top' have questionable skills and experience for the salary they are paid.

 

[D-Queued]

Robert Landry - President - $284,058
...
So and so - Chief of Staff - 191,935
...
Which comes in at $1,778,070 of the $4 million wage bill.

I think a lot of post here are out of line. It is a charity. ....

Ok, but it is a Charity. Its books are open to review. Charities need to aspire to highest levels of governance and disclosure.

Upon review, the number of executives and their titles are surprising if not astounding for an organization of this size.

Not picking on the Chief of Staff personally, but that is major coin for a position that seems overboard for an organization of this size. There is already a President, a COO and an EVP of People and Organization.

Seems a bit top heavy.

This is not petty. If Lance were not wrapping himself in the shroud of charity we obviously would not be discussing it.

But, he is. Thus, Lance himself makes this worthy of close scrutiny.

If assessing the charity expenses is petty, then it must be a petty charity trumped up on a petty cause. Otherwise, it should be able to stand up to what is far less scrutiny than any Board meeting at any charity or public corporation that I have been involved in.

Fundamentally the charity is being utilized as a personal PR campaign for Lance - as well as allegedly a source of disposable income and paid-for-travel expenses. As such, critical examination of the charity's expenses is more than warranted.

There should be little controversy on this board in observing that when it comes to allegations of doping, the charity is quickly put front-and-center implicity and explicitly. It is a tactic employed by Lance, PR firm and fanboy alike.

On the basis of assessing the charity alone, the magnitude of these expenses is not in sync with the size of the organization, let alone the fact that it is a charity.

Dave.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I think a lot of post here are out of line. It is a charity. It meets certain requirements to operate. You may not like the man who presides over the charity and that is your prerogative, but that still doesn’t change the fact that it meets the requirements established to be a 501(c)(3) charity. Blame the Federal government! I don’t know the CEO or Board of Directors of any of the other charities mentioned on this thread, but I would bet you could find people out there that would say derogatory things about them as well. The point being, just because you don’t like them, doesn’t mean the charity is bogus and they don’t do worthwhile things. I think many of you would be wise to withhold making any claims until which time some kind of fraud or corruption is proved within LAF. Otherwise, you look foolish, petty and punitive and are guilty of behaving much like many of you claim Armstrong does.

Ah, the "don't judge until something is proven in a Court of Law" line - it didn't stop you trying to defend the charity, did it?

To the blue - its not a personality contest, its a charity - which has some alarming figures and this is without even mentioning the 'for-profit' Livestrong part that Lance, Bill & Bart will profit directly from.

 

[miloman]

Sorry Miloman - you do not have to be a GOOD charity to meet those requirements. And there are ways to meet the requirements and still rort the system - which is what we are talking about.

I do agree that it is difficult comparing this charity to others because of its purpose. The stated goad of the LAF/Livestrong is to promote cancer awareness and join the various cancer charities in the fight. That does mean extensive lobbying. It does mean a large entertainment budget - you cannot get charities and government agencies to work together by ringing them up .... it means flying there, meeting with them, putting up proposales (that take time and money to put together). So it is understandable that the entertainment, government relations and travel bills are more .... that is their goal.

But it does make it difficult to judge the success and the spending of the charity.

As far as wages - I think Dr Mas hit it on the head. The wages for the top execs at Livestrong and those at NCC should be both be somewhat reflective of the size of the organisation. Livestrong is incredibly top heavy .... and those 'top' have questionable skills and experience for the salary they are paid.

Where can I find their resumes? How do you know they have questionable experience? They must have some of the right people in place since we are discussing the charity and how much they are able to raise.

I never said it was a "good,” "bad ”or “indifferent" charity. I only pointed out that it meets the same criteria as many others. If you want to see a top heavy organization compare a charity to a comparable for profit company. Non-profit salaries are a fraction of what top executives get paid!

 

[D-Queued]

[/B]

Where can I find their resumes? How do you know they have questionable experience? They must have some of the right people in place since we are discussing the charity and how much they are able to raise.

I never said it was a "good,” "bad ”or “indifferent" charity. I only pointed out that it meets the same criteria as many others. If you want to see a top heavy organization compare a charity to a comparable for profit company. Non-profit salaries are a fraction of what top executives get paid!

I can assure you that these salaries are not a fraction of what a top executive would be paid in a comparably sized (e.g. expenses) organization. These are at least mid-pack level salaries for such organizations.

As for where can you find resumes? Try Google -> LinkedIn:

e.g. Betty S Otter-Nickerson. Obviously no lightweight, she is now:
•President at Sage Healthcare

At LAF she was:
•Chief Operating Officer at Lance Armstrong Foundation

Prior to LAF she was:
•President & CEO at GalleryWatch.com, Inc.
•VP Product Management & Development at BMC Software
•Information Technology Manager LCRA

Probably a really good software exec.

Dave.

 

[Anonymous]

[/B]

Where can I find their resumes? How do you know they have questionable experience? They must have some of the right people in place since we are discussing the charity and how much they are able to raise.

I never said it was a "good,” "bad ”or “indifferent" charity. I only pointed out that it meets the same criteria as many others. If you want to see a top heavy organization compare a charity to a comparable for profit company. Non-profit salaries are a fraction of what top executives get paid!

Comparing a 501 c(3) with a for profit Corporation is a strawman.

 

[JRTinMA]

Robert Landry - President - $284,058
Hall Overall - CFO - $105,291
D Thomas Roane -Vice President - $137,042
A grand total $528k of their $622k wages is a good return as they raised $150million

Doug E. Ulman - President - $285,000
Betty S Otter-Nickerson - COO - $213,122
Philippe G. Hills - EVP Development - $293,200
Greg D.Lee - CFO - $162,942.
Morgan L. Binswanger - Chief of Staff - 191,935
John A. Miller - EVP Mission - $145,396
Melissa Douthit - EVP Advocacy & Engageme $124,010
Mona Patel - EVP People & Organisation - $119,193
Katherine A. McLane - Highly Compensated Employee- $114,060
Ronald A. Kolenic - Highly Compensated Employee - $109,212
Which comes in at $1,778,070 of the $4 million wage bill.

Like I said, only an idiot would compare them. Its apples and oranges. Provide your link to Ulman's salary. this years 990 has him at 230k.

 

[MacRoadie]

Where is your proof of jet fuel and hotels?

So, I'll take that to mean you have no proof and you are offering your biased opinion?

Can you provide a link to this website?

Do you have personal knowledge of those facts, or did they come from their web site?

Where is the link? I would like to see it?

Where can I find their resumes? How do you know they have questionable experience?

The next thing you'll be asking us to find for you is your d*** so you can take a pee.

Seriously, I've tried hard to stay out of this because you're nothing but a troll, but this is getting beyond pathetic.

 

[MacRoadie]

Provide your link to Ulman's salary. this years 990 has him at 230k.

Like other "idiots", he probably went straight to the LAF Financial Information Page and viewed the most current filing available there:

2009 LAF Form 990.

He probably then looked on Page 8 of that document, which looks something like this:

and has a date stamp in the lower left of 02-04-10.

This shows Ulman's 2009 W2/1099 reportable compensation as $285,000. As his 2010 W2/1099 hasn't been filed yet, nor can the 2010 990 Form have been filed yet by the LAF (it is basically a "tax return" for an organization exempt from income tax, and as such is filed after the end of the reporting tax year), I'm not sure what you mean by "this year's 990". The 2010 990 form won't be filed until 2011.

Then again, I could be wrong...

 

[Race Radio]

Some very impressive trolling on this thread. Wonderboy has judged his fan base well. Spend millions, deliver nothing, but run a good marketing campaign and they will eat it up.....they come running to be used.