Subject: Why United Way does not meet their goals - Gay,Women discrimination, waste
From: HawaiiGay1 <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 18:22:38 EST

Aloha Folks,             December 17, 1997

The following is an article or letter to editor for redistribution and
publication.  It represents many years of work to try and eliminate the
discriminatory practices of the Aloha United Way (AUW) and to address its
excessive overhead costs to non-participating agencies.

A short form view of article:  AUW United Way has known for more than 20 years
that The Boy Scouts of America which it funds from $300.000 to $600,000 per
year has formal discrimination policies against hiring Gays or Lesbians - and
in fact against women (with an exception). Their policy is that no Gay people
be hired and known ones would be fired upon becoming aware of it.

Their policy states that only those who can be Boy Scouts can be hired.  This
effectively eliminates women.  However they have one exception to that rule
and that is:  " a chosen woman may be granted "honorary Boy Scout" status and
then be hired - solely at the discretion of the Executive Director."

Known Gay kids are prohibited from participating as Boy Scouts.

For the past five plus years AUW has not been able to meet their goals and
have often lowered the goal because of the problems noted herein.

If others would like to join with my effort to address this problem, please
contact me at 537-2000.

Do good,

William E. Woods, MPH
A Concerned Community Advocate

----- 

Dear Community,

Each year, like clockwork our local publications and public service
announcements of the electronic media uses hundreds of inches of 'news' space
and literally hours of air time to allow Aloha United Way to promote their
solicitation drives.   This year these announcements and advertisements have
highlighted their reduced collection efforts.

It is a constant pain to read and hear of the annual promotion of AUW over
what many in our community know are major problems with that project.  

Many of us who financially support community services turn away from the AUW
campaign because they knowingly solicit and route funds to organizations that
have formal policies promoting discrimination in their provision of service or
in personnel policies.

Additionally, a person who wants to support a particular agency or program
would have more money go to the program if they sent a check directly to the
program and bypass the 14% overhead cost taken out by AUW, itself.   For every
$100. donated through AUW pledges $14 goes directly to AUW and taken out of
the final allotment to the designated agency and their important services.

And of course, AUW agencies are only 63 agencies of the over 3,000 non-profit
community service agencies in Hawaii.  This means that more than 2,900
agencies are bared from direct solicitation of City and State workers due to
the monopoly of only AUW being allowed to solicit on government time.  

It can be said that even non-AUW agencies can receive donations under a
special difficult to enter donor option procedure, but those agencies are not
allowed to solicit or speak to solicited employees during work time as AUW
agencies are.  Also, that same overhead deduction is taken out of funds
through donor option even though AUW does not have oversight or monitoring
costs involved that they have with their own agencies.  Thus, donor option
agencies have more cost taken out from their donations for less AUW work.
They end up paying for much of the administration that does relate at all to
the solicitation campaign.

If it is news to put AUW's dwindling goal on the front page or over the
airwaves, then it should also be news why many people give less and less each
year.  Discrimination, excessive administration costs, and unfair donor option
costs are just a few reasons to avoid AUW and give directly to the agencies
that serve the purposes of  why a person contributes in the first place.  

Giving the Executive Director more than $140,000 a year means 24 participating
agencies received $5,000 dollars less because of it.

A little of the history of this effort:

Known discrimination against women and Gays by participating agencies:

Several years ago a team coordinated by the Gay and Lesbian Education and
Advocacy Foundation (included attorney, CPA, Nurse Clinician, public health
administrator, and an adult eagle scout) met with AUW Executive Director
Irving Lauber and AUW Vice-President Rochelle Gregson in an attempt to
identify the problem areas and to promote a solution.  Several solutions were
offered by the GLEA Foundation team, but none were acceptable to the AUW
representatives.  The main elements of those problems with the AUW promotion
of discrimination and their solicitation program are presented in the below.

Aloha United Way claims to require all their participating agencies (which is
only 63 agencies out of over 3,000 non-profits in Hawaii) to be in compliance
with all labor laws.  AUW, based on previous meetings and numerous letters is
fully aware of the discriminatory practices against women and Gays by the Boy
Scouts of America which it funds with hundreds of thousands of dollars each
year.  AUW has continuously refused to eliminate the Boy Scouts funding or
require they adopt a non-discriminatory policy and action plan.

AUW United Way has known for more than 20 years that The Boy Scouts of America
which it funds from $300.000 to $600,000 per year has formal discrimination
policies against hiring Gays or Lesbians - and in fact against women (with an
exception). Their policy is that no Gay people be hired and known ones would
be fired upon becoming aware of it.

Their policy states that only those who can be Boy Scouts can be hired.  This
effectively eliminates women.  However they have one exception to that rule
and that is:  " a chosen woman may be granted "honorary Boy Scout" status and
then be hired - solely at the discretion of the Executive Director."

Known Gay kids are prohibited from participating as Boy Scouts.

Unfair and excessive administrative costs to donor option agencies:
Most solicitation labor is by employers who (supervisors and managers) who
uses knowledge of who gives and who does not coercively.

Their core permanent staff of about 20 people (based upon data from two years
ago exceeds more than one million dollars.  These staff are to coordinate
volunteers, review and evaluate participating agencies and to divvy up the
money.  99% of the solicitation work is actually corporate paid staff, state
government staff, county staff and other who work on paid time to conduct the
solicitations using lists of employees - often supervisors and managers who
effectively manipulate and coerce staff to give.  As these people in power
know who gives and who does not, there is retribution and perceived potential
retribution for many who do not participate.  State and county personnel, and
corporate computers, resources are used to pay for the actual costs of
conducting this campaign which is actually millions and millions more that
does not go into the actual cost of the campaign - overlooking thousands of
other deserving organizations which are not allowed to make presentations or
have the same solicitation workforce join their efforts.

Solicitations on work time prohibited, except:  State and county employees
have specific language in their personnel policies forbidding solicitations in
the workplace, but they except AUW.

No monitoring or oversight costs, yet donor option pays AUW costs in these
areas:  The participating agencies have oversight and monitoring costs by AUW
that run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.  The donor-option
organizations (ones that people list down but are not AUW agencies) have no
such review process other than to have IRS determination letter and fit a
service category.   Yet the donor option organization have 14% plus taken out
of contributions for AUW overhead charges - excessive amount considering that
is same amount taken out of participating agencies and the individual
contributor made the sole decision to contribute to the donor option.

Donor option confusing and barrier-oriented:  The donor option portion of
contribution form is difficult and barrier-oriented in design and operation.
Even some who ask that AUW contribution go only to AUW programs they support -
their designated programs will not get any more money than the AUW planned
allotment unless that amount is designated by a lot of contributors to exceed
the planned amount.  In other words, their designated participating
organizations get no more funding even though especially selected, because
that amount is subtracted from general contributions until the planned amount
is exceeded.  Such special designations, only means a greater percentage of
non-designated funds goes to non-supported agencies.

How to increase your contribution to agencies you find deserving:   By sending
money directly to your charity you save the 14% plus overhead costs and none
of your money or support goes to the discriminatory policies promulgated and
supported by AUW funds and staffing.

      Discrimination, excessive administration costs and unfair donor option
costs are just a few reasons to avoid AUW and give directly to the agencies
that serve the purposes of contributions in the first place.

Do good

William E. Woods, MPH
A Community Service Advocate

PS:.  I have communicated with past annual chairs of the fundraising events of
AUW and know they know about the discrimination and unfair costs that exists
under their auspices.  I have a meeting scheduled shortly with the current
Chair, Dr. Ruth Ono to again get the issues fairly addressed and resolved.

Also both dailies only publish PR materials from AUW press agents and never
look into these issues.  They cover up the millions of dollars of solicitation
drives on company time and resources that do not go to the over view of the
total overhead costs to promote just 60 some agencies.  Of course anyone can
list down a donor option, but no other programs but AUW are allowed to address
the 1 million workers in Hawaii who are employer solicited for contributions.

I sincerely hope you reprint this in your publication and promulgate through
whatever communication forums  are open to you

P.O. Box 37083
Honolulu, Hawaii 96837

(808) 537-2000