Turns out that in 2011, it spent just 15 percent of its donations on research — nearly half of what it did just a few years prior. And, significantly, its founder, Nancy Brinker, the woman whose vow to the sister she lost to cancer has served as the organization’s poignant, relatable narrative, stepped down as its CEO. In August, Brinker announced she was taking on a new role, as chairwoman of the executive committee. (She is, however, still listed as its CEO and founder on the Komen site. Komen says it’s still looking for her replacement.) In short, the whole series of fiascoes was so appalling that Deanna Zandt, author of “Share This! How You Will Change the World With Social Networking,” called the Komen fiasco a teachable “example of what not to do.”
Yet after more than a year of bad publicity and declining participation, Brinker herself seems to be doing just fine. As Cheryl Hall pointed out this weekend in the Dallas Morning News, Brinker made “$684,717 in fiscal 2012, a 64 percent jump from her $417,000 salary from April 2010 to March 2011.” That’s a whole lot of green for all that pink. Hall notes that’s about twice what the organization’s chief financial officer, Mark Nadolny, or former president Liz Thompson were making. And as Peggy Orenstein points out on her blog Monday, it’s considerably more than the average nonprofit CEO salary of $132,739.
Of course, rewarding CEOs even as they’re bombing out is a way of life in America. Brinker’s salary looks like small potatoes next to, say, the more than, $13 million Hewlett-Packard gave Léo Apotheker just to leave. And Komen told Jim Mitchell at the Dallas Morning News that those figures for Brinker reflect a 2010 salary increase, and that they’re “misleading because of differences between Komen’s fiscal year and the IRS’ calendar year.” Good to bear in mind, but still — that’s a stunning raise to give a person, especially within an organization that has faced scrutiny for its dubious choices in the name of women’s health for some years now.
Running out of money before the end of the year is something we’re trying to avoid
Why are they doing it?
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a notice on Friday saying it would suspend new enrollments beginning on Saturday to “help ensure that funds are available through 2013 to continuously cover people currently enrolled in PCIP.”
“The program has a limited amount of funding from Congress,” the notice added.
@diegueno Not sure I understand your meaning. TotT has always been a consistent voice on ending prohibition against cannabis— ɹoʇɐuǝʌou (@novenator) December 26, 2012
What I mean is that I notice that mostly, if not exclusively, white people talk about either normalization, decriminalization or regulation (of which taxation is subordinate) of cannabis to be smoked or to be raised as a crop to make clothes, building materials, paper and other things which aren’t meant to be burnt and inhaled. The message is about getting your toke on because it’s not as bad as, say, getting loaded on bath salts then getting so dissociated from your senses that you run at cops shooting bullets in to your body, you start dismembering your body and you start dismembering other people’s bodies. The message is also about stopping deforestation. These are sensible, good arguments.
What I see missing from your argument is the analysis of prohibition in general. I see prohibition of cannabis as a subordinate of a process which feeds the penal-industrial complex. The difference in sentencing persons breaking laws prohibiting crack cocaine was more severe than those who broke laws prohibiting powder cocaine is one example. The bottom line is that the people who traded and ingested the substance with the hydrochloride molecule tended to have more income and education than the people who traded in the substance that didn’t have hydrochloride. Also, crack cocaine users and distributors tended to have more pigment (read: they were people of color) than the powder cocaine users and distributors. Do I need to find sites to support my assertion that a disproportion of persons of color convicted of crimes involving controlled mind altering substances are convicted to spend time in jail than people who do not? Need I find something similar about how poor people end up behind bars for such offenses much longer than people who can pay for a competent and committed defense lawyer? Then there is there is the way that inmates are turned in to profit centers. Take a collect call from anyone not behind bars from anywhere inside the USA for 3 minutes. Next take call from someone behind bars in the USA for 3 minutes. Compare the charge for the calls on your phone bill when you get it. My point is that jail and/or prison is, among other things, a money making scheme for a handful of cynical businesses. It’s not a message that I hear from people who are against the criminalization of cannabis in any manner.
It’s a bigger load to take on, but it’s the right and just thing to do. To pare off cannabis from other controlled substances in the discussion about prohibition diverts attention from the real direction that we should all move to treat substance abuse, regardless of the substance: to treat it as a public health issue.