Habitat for Humanity Scam

[Lid]

Quoting Jono from 18:51, 5th Jul 2008
Oh I wish I didn’t have to deal with this kind of shit on here, I really do!

You don't. You chose to, remember.

What we essentially have are allegations that a body, and by extension an affiliated society, are misappropriating their funds. Whether or not Habitat for Humanity are directly affiliated is immaterial.

It's very much anything but immaterial. If CAMRA were to misappropriate funds, you wouldn't dream of disciplining the Real Ale society. It strikes me that you're using the 'they both contain the same name' approach - FoHfH are just that, friends of.

These are serious allegations! A societies funding is dependant on their aims and activities being carried out in a cost-effective manner. If money raised for charity by a society is being spent in a convoluted way to the overall dis-benefit of the recipients, then there are grounds to take action against said society.

But should allegations arise that FoHfH was using money given by the union to support HfH, that's a serious allegation alone. Societies can donate to charity money they raise by means independent of direct union funding, but not union funds, that would break Charities Law. I think you're confusing funding pools, the name of the charity and the name of the society here.

I would comment on the rest, but it's mostly self-righteous drivel.

[hr]

Mathematical Anti Telharsic Harfatum Septomin

[Mehmsy]

The Sinner is serious business!

[hr]

http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37106593

[grizzly]

Sorry as an older and perhaps more cynical poster a great many charitable events organised by university organisations do not make much money for charity. This is due to bad planning and naivety more than anything else.

Some societies make a very good % for charity and some do not. That maybe down to the way they raise money - for instance the KK Summer Ball used to raise tit all compared to their Jazz Night. It is highly inappropriate to raise in a public forum unsubstantiated claims against any organisation. If you are not prepared to put your name against said allegations you should not raise them. Such matters should be dealt with privately and confidentially until there is substantive proof otherwise that you are confident enough to put your name to. I suggest you deal with these matters in a more private manner until you get proof before besmirching an organisation unnecessarily.

[Oli]

Quoting grizzly from 03:52, 6th Jul 2008
Some societies make a very good % for charity and some do not. That maybe down to the way they raise money - for instance the KK Summer Ball used to raise tit all compared to their Jazz Night. It is highly inappropriate to raise in a public forum unsubstantiated claims against any organisation.

Isn't that what you've just done in the previous two sentences?

If you are not prepared to put your name against said allegations you should not raise them. Such matters should be dealt with privately and confidentially until there is substantive proof otherwise that you are confident enough to put your name to. I suggest you deal with these matters in a more private manner until you get proof before besmirching an organisation unnecessarily.

Isn't that what you haven't done in the previous three sentences?

[hr]

[s]In July of this year I shall be walking 78 miles in 6 days in aid of the Joseph Salmon Trust, a charity founded by my friends in memorial to their son Joseph who died aged 3 in April of 2005. Please look at the link below for further details and consider sponsoring me. Thank you.
Donate: http://www.justgiving.com/thedaleswalk (please mention 'Oli' in the comments when donating)
http://www.thejosephsalmontrust.org.uk [/s]

[RandomMusings]

Quoting Jono from 18:51, 5th Jul 2008

What we essentially have are allegations that a body, and by extension an affiliated society, are misappropriating their funds. Whether or not Habitat for Humanity are directly affiliated is immaterial. Their affiliation with the society (I assume they are affiliated with the parent body) places the larger body under the same level of scrutiny as the society. Ergo, the Association is perfectly competent to investigate, and take action as necessary should misconduct be proven! Disciplinary action against societies is, in the first place, delegated down to the Societies Committee, who have a number of sanctions at their disposal.

Don't blame Jono for not knowing his remit fully - afterall he's only an elected officer of the Union and not everyone can show 'hackish' tendencies such as Lid, Stevo, myself etc (and by no means is being a hack a bad thing may I add).
Maybe the new academic year will bring further officer training so debates such as this one will not escalate into petty name-calling and idiocy.

[hr]

I like paper.

[Bizarre Atheist]

Interesting, very interesting.

The first issue is worrying about where your money goes when you give it to charity. This is nothing new - many people are reluctant to give a pound to Save the Badgers or whoever because they worry that 68p will be spent on admin and 30p on petrol and a mere tuppence on badger vaccines. However, having worked in various capacities for various charitable bodies I can say wholeheartedly that not one penny is spent recklessly, carelessly or immorally in the organisations for which I've had the privelige to work. The level of attention to detail that has to go into professional -and some amateur- fundraising is enormous, and dramatically underappreciated.

This highlights an underlying problem with the third sector; people expect immediate, tangible results from charities and for these results to cost nothing; for the charity's employees to work for free and have no expenses. But if you want a charity to be effective it needs to hire skilled people, who expect reasonable wages, and like any other enterprise there will always be costs that are pivotal to the efficient operation of the charity. If anything you should be wanting your donations to pay for better people to do a better job than for a volunteer who means well to do a half-baked job.

Next; who to give to? If you see someone shaking a bucket on a street, give them money by all means, it brightens up a long and often disheartening day enormously. However, if they look even slightly dodgy - no charity T-shirt, looking shifty etc - then ask to see their permit. All legit collectors will have their own copy of a permit, signed and dated by the relevant council allowing them to collect in a specific place on a specific date and time, and for a specific charity. If they don't produce one, walk away, they're probably con artists.

Charity-oriented Union Socs are required to process their money through the Charities Campaign, who will then only write cheques to registered charities. The same policy, of course, applies to the Charities Campaign's activities, including RAG Week, Hitchhikes, collections, cloakrooms etc etc. Note that there is no such formal accountability for independant fundraising groups; including the CU, KK, Lumsden, Oktoberfest, FS, DONT WALK and all the others. This is emphatically not to say that they don't donate to charity - more that they are under no formal obligations to do so.

Finally, Jono, that was a fairly stupid intiial response, given your position.

Yours in admiration for charity workers everywhere,

David JK Haines,
former Convenor, USACC,
temporarily of Kent Community Foundation - a truly brilliant charity (http://www.kentcf.org.uk)

[hr]

[Guest]

Quoting Jono from 18:51, 5th Jul 2008
Oh I wish I didn’t have to deal with this kind of shit on here, I really do!

What we essentially have are allegations that a body, and by extension an affiliated society, are misappropriating their funds. Whether or not Habitat for Humanity are directly affiliated is immaterial. Their affiliation with the society (I assume they are affiliated with the parent body) places the larger body under the same level of scrutiny as the society. Ergo, the Association is perfectly competent to investigate, and take action as necessary should misconduct be proven! Disciplinary action against societies is, in the first place, delegated down to the Societies Committee, who have a number of sanctions at their disposal.

These are serious allegations! A societies funding is dependant on their aims and activities being carried out in a cost-effective manner. If money raised for charity by a society is being spent in a convoluted way to the overall dis-benefit of the recipients, then there are grounds to take action against said society. Such allegations presented through the proper channels can (still) expect a professional outlook, and will (still) be treated with the seriousness they deserve.

This professionalism does not extend to anonymous gloating, on this board or anywhere else! This kind of posturing really gets my goat! Phrasing and rhetorical questioning that exudes readers to self-righteous indignation, and bullshit cliche’s about CV-padding betray the intent as nothing more than providing self-satisfaction for the author! As anyone who has ever emailed me with a query could attest, you can expect help and support in response. People who feel the need to come on here and mouth off about an affiliated society, they can expect the rough side of my tong (AKA, the Rocksoc method)! If you actually wanted these accusations addressed, you would have made these accusations official. I’d like to think I’m wrong about you, because there’s still plenty of time to do so (Any investigation would have to wait until we’re all back anyway)!

Finally, In case there is any question about who exactly I am, let me lay it to rest once and for all. I am me! In all my casual, official, and other capacities; an individual with all the flaws and blemishes that make us human! I like my flaws, as strange as that sounds! Perhaps it’s surprising because we expect our officials to dwell in a rose-tinted world where everything is shiny and happy ; their every foible and failure walled behind the Latin Camera, and legalistic technicality. I’m risking the wrath of the cliché-fairy, but if I’m nothing else, I’m real!

Now, unless someone want's to query something specific, I shan't say any more on the subject.

Holy smoke, Batman! I love exclamation marks!

[Guest]

Quoting Jono from 01:09, 5th Jul 2008
If you have a complaint to make about society please direct it to socs@st-andrews.ac.uk, rather than mouthing off like a self-righteous douche-bag on the Sinner.

You are hardly one to speak. After reading what you've written here, I'm beginning to think you are unsuitable to act as a Societies Officer. Your attitude is horrendous. Resign.

[Senethro]

lol

[Jono]

Just to let you all know I’ve been taking some time to consider my position. I too often, I’ve said what I think without really considering the effect its going to have, as in this case. I’m extremely passionate about what I do. There are a lot of people relying on me to do a good job, and I’d like to think I approach my work with a healthy zeal. All too often though, I've let it get the best of me. Calling someone a fuckwit over a matter in which have a professional capacity was stupid, rash and unacceptable. I realise now that regardless of my personal feelings, and regardless where such issues are aired, I should maintain a more professional distance.

I shouldn’t have spoken out as I did. Not only have I damaged my own credibility, I’ve also destroyed any chance of people coming forward to give evidence on a serious accusation. For that I can only apologise, and try to show more sense next time. Nevertheless, the damage has been done. All I can do now is try to get on with the job, and wait for the SSC to decide on the consequences for me.

I haven’t been able to bring myself to read any of the followup, but I think I can hazard an accurate guess as to what I says. I’ve decided to take some time away from The Sinner for the foreseeable future (minus the boards I moderate). If anyone desperately feels the need to contact me, my personal email can be reached through my profile.

Sincerely,
Jonathan.


[hr]

I disagree with you in principle.

[Thackary]

Hardly a need to resign.

Just a need to work out what's appropriate and what's not appropriate.
And to make a distinction between user accounts.



[hr]

[s]In July of this year I shall be walking 78 miles in 6 days in aid of the Joseph Salmon Trust, a charity founded by my friends in memorial to their son Joseph who died aged 3 in April of 2005. Please look at the link below for further details and consider sponsoring me. Thank you.
Donate: http://www.justgiving.com/thedaleswalk (please mention 'Oli' in the comments when donating)
http://www.thejosephsalmontrust.org.uk [/s]

[groovy]

Quoting Jono from 17:29, 7th Jul 2008
Just to let you all know I’ve been taking some time to consider my position. I too often, I’ve said what I think without really considering the effect its going to have, as in this case. I’m extremely passionate about what I do. There are a lot of people relying on me to do a good job, and I’d like to think I approach my work with a healthy zeal. All too often though, I've let it get the best of me. Calling someone a fuckwit over a matter in which have a professional capacity was stupid, rash and unacceptable. I realise now that regardless of my personal feelings, and regardless where such issues are aired, I should maintain a more professional distance.

I shouldn’t have spoken out as I did. Not only have I damaged my own credibility, I’ve also destroyed any chance of people coming forward to give evidence on a serious accusation. For that I can only apologise, and try to show more sense next time. Nevertheless, the damage has been done. All I can do now is try to get on with the job, and wait for the SSC to decide on the consequences for me.

I haven’t been able to bring myself to read any of the followup, but I think I can hazard an accurate guess as to what I says. I’ve decided to take some time away from The Sinner for the foreseeable future (minus the boards I moderate). If anyone desperately feels the need to contact me, my personal email can be reached through my profile.

Sincerely,
Jonathan.


[hr]

I disagree with you in principle.

I've been watching this thread quietly. I thought the original comment was inappropriate, but I believe with this reply Jono has given careful consideration to the impact of his actions. I'm pretty convinced having read his reply that it was a mistake he won't make again. Personally I'd feel any discipline to be a bit harsh in this instance (I'd say he can get this one for free) as I feel his apology to be quite genuine and lesson learned.

[hr]

Remember now, there's a big difference between kneeling down and BENDING OVER!

[RandomMusings]

Fair play Jono. I don't believe the SSC has any need to pass judgement on this - you've admitted your mistake (although a slight shame you didn't notice it fully after the first message and before the second) and you appear genuinely contrite. Everyone is entitled to the odd mistake, and as long as no real harm comes of it, then fine. A lesson learnt to all I believe about the merits of thinking through what you want to write/say before you actually voice your opinion.

So, shall we assume case closed on our societies officer and return to the matter in hand? Does anyone actually know any further details regarding the OP as I am interested in its ramifications....

[hr]

I like paper.

[Fedoraccoon]

I hate to revive the argument, but I'm thousands of miles away right now, so I'm going to exercise my right as an interloper and spring to a former colleague's defense.

First off, what the hell is it with you British people and your nearly cat-like reflexes when it comes to demanding resignations. It's not like the man got fellated in the oval office. He swore, lighten up.

Second, and more firmly on topic, Jono had a point. "Unregistered" made a pretty serious allegation (that's an accusation, for those of us not contaminated by IR courses), but it wasn't much more than a rant of moral outrage. Now, I love a good rant, but when I sit down to undermine the merits of a worldwide charitable organization, I generally like to have some facts on hand. Unregistered offered no facts, which means his rant wasn't a rant, it was just an insult to the good folks at Habitat for Humanity.

So, it appears we have arrived at the heart of the matter. The initial rant wasn't much more than unsubstantiated bile, and in the same fashion that anyone who asks a stupid question should expect a stupid answer, anyone who spouts bile should expect bile in return.

That being said, public decorum is worth something, officer's professionalism blah blah blah, something constructive, yadda yadda, whatever. The initial post was a joke anyway.

Get a life.

Whew, I'm glad that's over. Now I get to throw in my two cents on what Unregistered actually said, rather than spinning my wheels on the aftermath of a mostly-valid and entirely excusable comment. So, unregistered, prepare to be lambasted, because you forgot something very important when you made your baseless argument.

Charity is about more than efficiency, it's about people helping other people. Using collected funds to hire a local builder might be a more economical way to build more homes more quickly, but it's not exactly inspiring is it? Not only is it banal, it also doesn't offer charitable people the same "hands on" approach to helping others. Perhaps you, unregistered, are content with putting a pound in a plastic bucket, but others are not, and you've no right to tell them they can't fly to Africa and build the house themselves. If you don't like it, don't donate, and next time you want to try and demean what is, at its core, a good act, jump off a bridge.



[hr]

This world...is made of... LOVE AND PEACE!..LOVE AND PEACE!..LOVE AND PEACE!!

[BenEsq]

Jono, this is the voice of Socs past. When the bell tolls and all that...

[hr]

Lions and tigers and bears...Oh my!

[eagle]

I'd like to encourage people to reread Bizarre Atheist's post. It was very good.

[munchingfoo]

Wow. For the first time in sinner history, which is almost, but not quite, my history of posting, I thought we'd actually had a discussion with a beginning, a middle, and a mutual conclusion.

I guess someone had to come along and mess it up, its the nature of skim reading and baseless facts (I guess most of us are guilty of one of these at some point).

Quoting Fedoraccoon from 01:28, 8th Jul 2008
First off, what the hell is it with you British people and your nearly cat-like reflexes when it comes to demanding resignations. It's not like the man got fellated in the oval office. He swore, lighten up.

First point - no registered user called for Jono's resignation, only one unreg. troll.

Second point - calling for resignations is not a British only trait. It happens in most open democracies, is it really such a bad thing? Surely it shows how free a country we are?

Second, and more firmly on topic, Jono had a point. "Unregistered" made a pretty serious allegation (that's an accusation, for those of us not contaminated by IR courses), but it wasn't much more than a rant of moral outrage. Now, I love a good rant, but when I sit down to undermine the merits of a worldwide charitable organization, I generally like to have some facts on hand. Unregistered offered no facts, which means his rant wasn't a rant

Third point - the unreg user (OP) uses as evidence the observation that we could build many more houses in the host country if we just paid a contractor to do it, rather than send individuals. You might not agree with this statement, but you cannot just dismiss it out of hand.

The thing that confuses me here is that in one paragraph you say that the unreg offers no evidence etc. then in the 8th paragraph you actually reply to their evidence and acknowledge the OP's argument. If you had merely posted the last two paragraphs you would have come across as a level headed and reasonable (and dare I say it - correct) debater.

it was just an insult to the good folks at Habitat for Humanity.

Fourth point - personal bias much?



[hr]

"The entirety of these definitions lie outside the gamut of the sRGB color space — such a pure color cannot be represented using RGB primaries. The color swatch to the right is a desaturated approximation, created by taking the centroid of the standard definition and moving it towards the D65 white point, until it meets the sRGB gamut triangle."

[Fedoraccoon]

I've got a few things I'd like to say in response to Munchingfoo, and since he was polite, I shall endeavor to be polite as well (see paragraph four of my original post and take the opposite).

First, I didn't "mess up" the ending of your conversation. I continued the argument because I disagreed with the so-called mutual conclusion. I suppose I could be just playing devil's advocate. On the other hand, perhaps I'm making an earnest argument against a public over-reaction to a perceived error made by an officer. It's easy to call somebody out on something and eventually come around to demanding an apology, and in many cases it's often easier for said somebody to apologize than defend their position. Jono defended his position, made some formidable points (none of them were rebutted to my satisfaction) and had to apologize anyway. Perhaps it's the nature of internet threads. After all, the internet is a passive forum, and debating is an active process. We can't really expect arguments to progress in a logical/rational manner. As a result of this likelihood, I shall not mention the words "bandwagon," or "railroaded," but it seemed to me that the discussion didn't really arrive at a conclusion (and certainly not a good one). It merely ended.

Second, the resignation comment I made was mostly a joke. Believe it or not, I did actually read the whole thread, and was fully aware of the fact that nobody took the one post calling for it seriously. I can see how it could be misunderstood, sarcasm doesn't always come across in text (though I would have expected the remarks about cat-like reflexes and fellatio to be a giveaway).

Alright, back to the OP's issue.

Unreg didn't actually use evidence, but this piece of your argument could be due to a mutual miscommunication of our working definitions (they happen more often than one might think). Unreg alleged an intentional fraud on the part of HfH, a fraud by which HfH was acquiring essentially free vacations, but he offered no actual proof beyond the word of a generic, unverifiable "friend." I would have appreciated a url to a news article in which the alleged fraud was actually exposed by an investigative body of some sort (news, PI, whatever). When I said evidence, I meant proof of the alleged fraud. This is why I dismissed the fact-based section of the rant.

What remained was the opinion-based section of the rant. Unreg did indeed make the point you mentioned in your last post. It was a subjective statement regarding what he viewed as a poor way of building homes for those in need. As subjective statements of opinion don't really require facts in order to be valid, I didn't dismiss the comment I responded (as you pointed out).

I think when you said evidence, you meant argumentative points (please correct me if I'm wrong). If this is the case, I can see how you might have seen my post as laboring under a contradiction. Either way, and just in case I wasn't clear, let me explain. Unreg's argument contained two essential points, one about fraud and another about inefficiency. I dismissed the first and answered the second.

As far as personal bias is concerned, I'm willing to admit that I believe that charities are good and that charitable people are, by-and-large, well-intentioned. I've actually never done the whole HfH thing, but I will give any recognized charity the benefit of the doubt unless it is proven that they are perpetrating a fraud. Whether or not this is a proper mindset when it comes to impartial debating, I don't know, nor do I really care. I am, however, glad that we seem to agree that charities can be charitable any way they want.

[hr]

This world...is made of... LOVE AND PEACE!..LOVE AND PEACE!..LOVE AND PEACE!!

[Grant]

Quoting Fedoraccoon from 01:28, 8th Jul 2008

Charity is about more than efficiency, it's about people helping other people. Using collected funds to hire a local builder might be a more economical way to build more homes more quickly, but it's not exactly inspiring is it? Not only is it banal, it also doesn't offer charitable people the same "hands on" approach to helping others. Perhaps you, unregistered, are content with putting a pound in a plastic bucket, but others are not, and you've no right to tell them they can't fly to Africa and build the house themselves. If you don't like it, don't donate, and next time you want to try and demean what is, at its core, a good act, jump off a bridge.

Actually, charity is about efficiency. Its paramount...

No one would ever donate if they knew that the money was going to be recklessly spent by all chaities. The whole point of the charity is to convince people that they will put "their" money to good effect, to achieve the most benefit from their donation. Look at how much damage it causes when charities disclose what their managers salaries are etc. People dont like to think that 68p or whatever from every £1 goes into admin or pointless purchases.

IMO, flying a team of volunteers out to africa or wherever is not efficient. Ever.

Flying anywhere is expensive, and polluting. Friends of Habitat for humanity? What is so friendly about contirbuting to atmospheric acidification and aiding the death of the same habitats they are out to help humans colonise?

Surely contacting a local contractor and overseeing the work would have done more benefit - it would have put money into the local economy, they could have constructed more housing, and they could have done so in a more eco friendly manner.

The money saved in flying could have built more houses and helped re-juvenate the local landscape via other eco charities [There's no point in building houses in an area if the soil wont support crops, or rainfall/irrigation is insufficient].

The donated money appears to have been spent with plenty of good intentions, but no real grasp of efficient practice (which is similar to many other charities IMO). To me, it seems like that gesture wont have many real and lasting effects, considering the presumably large volume of money ploughed into the project. I think this is possibly why the OP brought this topic up in the first place.

[theshadowhost]

I want the ten minutes I spent reading this thread back

[hr]