My friend, Neil, posted this on Facebook. I like it and thought it was worth posting again.
For those who are unaware: At all military base theaters, the National Anthem is played before the movie begins.This is written by a Chaplain in Iraq:I recently attended a showing of 'Superman 3' here at LSA Anaconda. We have a large auditorium we use for movies, as well as memorial services and other large gatherings. As is the custom at all military bases, we stand to attention when the National Anthem began before the main feature. One night, all was going well until three-quarters of the way through the National Anthem, the music stopped. Now, what would happen if this occurred with 1,000 18-22 year-olds back in the States? I imagine there would be hoots, catcalls, laughter, a few rude comments, and everyone would sit down and yell for the movie to begin. (Of course, that is, if they had stood for the National Anthem in the first place.) Here in Iraq , 1,000 Soldiers continued to stand at attention, eyes fixed forward. The music started again and the Soldiers continued to quietly stand at attention. But again, at the same point, the music stopped. What would you expect 1000 Soldiers standing at attention to do ?? Frankly, I expected some laughter, and everyone would eventually sit down and wait for the movie to start. But No!!... You could have heard a pin drop, while every Soldier continued to stand at attention. Suddenly, there was a lone voice from the front of the auditorium, then a dozen voices, and soon the room was filled with the voices of a thousand soldiers, finishing where the recording left off: "And the rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air, gave proof through the night that our flag was still there. Oh, say does that Star Spangled Banner yet wave, o'er the land of the free, and the home of the brave." It was the most inspiring moment I have had in Iraq and I wanted you to know w hat kind of Soldiers are serving you. Remember them as they fight for us!-
Written by Chaplain Jim HigginsLSA Anaconda is at the Ballad Airport in Iraq , north of Baghdad
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Monday, October 19, 2009
Family Dynamics
I just hung up the phone with after having a conversation with a friend about her grandmother. Nothing unusual about this at all. What struck me though is that I’ve had this same conversation with personal variety added to it about five times in the past week alone. The truth is we are all getting older – my friends and me. And this means that our elders are older. And with age comes changes in our lives and those affected by our lives.
My mom just had a hip replacement. And she is doing great. But she and I both know that this is the marking of time that will eventually bring us to the point that she will no longer live by herself. For us, it’s not a big deal – my mom and I finally get along and have moved into an adult phenomena that is pretty cool. We are more friends than parent and child. I get her. She gets me. And we like what we get. But as I think about her getting older and needing me more, I feel like the child again and this makes me anxious. Because I won’t be just a child but a child in charge. It feels odd.
I know that though my mom holds her head straight and smiles, the idea of giving up some control over her own life has got to make her want to scream and pull her hair. She is very independent. She likes things her way. And I want her to have things her way, but at the same time, I want them my way, too.
When we’re teens, we break away from our family to have things our way, to become our own person and to discover ourselves. I feel like I have just started reaching my stride and now, soon enough, there will be a coming together of the generations again. And now, in a short time, the tide will be flowing back in, bringing the generations together again, but with a twist.
It makes me a bit apprehensive on several counts. First, will I be loosing my freedom that I am just learning to enjoy, now that my own children have fled the nest? Will I make the right decisions for me and my mother both? Will I disappoint her or even find that the hard won friendship we have is being pressured because she feels I have pushed her into dependency? Will I make it easy for her to remain autonomous even though she no longer lives alone? Will I fall easily into the role of being “parent” to my own parent or will I find the skills needed to keep us relating as one adult to another?
So many questions. Answers will be forthcoming. Time will tell. It always does.
My mom just had a hip replacement. And she is doing great. But she and I both know that this is the marking of time that will eventually bring us to the point that she will no longer live by herself. For us, it’s not a big deal – my mom and I finally get along and have moved into an adult phenomena that is pretty cool. We are more friends than parent and child. I get her. She gets me. And we like what we get. But as I think about her getting older and needing me more, I feel like the child again and this makes me anxious. Because I won’t be just a child but a child in charge. It feels odd.
I know that though my mom holds her head straight and smiles, the idea of giving up some control over her own life has got to make her want to scream and pull her hair. She is very independent. She likes things her way. And I want her to have things her way, but at the same time, I want them my way, too.
When we’re teens, we break away from our family to have things our way, to become our own person and to discover ourselves. I feel like I have just started reaching my stride and now, soon enough, there will be a coming together of the generations again. And now, in a short time, the tide will be flowing back in, bringing the generations together again, but with a twist.
It makes me a bit apprehensive on several counts. First, will I be loosing my freedom that I am just learning to enjoy, now that my own children have fled the nest? Will I make the right decisions for me and my mother both? Will I disappoint her or even find that the hard won friendship we have is being pressured because she feels I have pushed her into dependency? Will I make it easy for her to remain autonomous even though she no longer lives alone? Will I fall easily into the role of being “parent” to my own parent or will I find the skills needed to keep us relating as one adult to another?
So many questions. Answers will be forthcoming. Time will tell. It always does.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
I Long
Pictures of Ireland cause me to ache
Like a well known memory
She’s not in my mind
So must be in my blood
And it’s an ache of which I don’t wish to be free
I sit among the hustle and tussle of today
Feeling quite like I don’t belong
While something else tugs on my heart
Nay, even my soul. And closing my eyes –
well it only makes it more strong
Is this something I knew and can’t quite reclaim
Or is it something I’ve yet to see
The ache is nameless and at my core
Is the ache for what I haven’t recalled or
for something that will never be
Your greens and your purples and your blues
and the lilt of your sons call my name
We know each other, and though we’re much apart
Is it because you are my home, my destiny
Where I must go or from where I first came
Like a well known memory
She’s not in my mind
So must be in my blood
And it’s an ache of which I don’t wish to be free
I sit among the hustle and tussle of today
Feeling quite like I don’t belong
While something else tugs on my heart
Nay, even my soul. And closing my eyes –
well it only makes it more strong
Is this something I knew and can’t quite reclaim
Or is it something I’ve yet to see
The ache is nameless and at my core
Is the ache for what I haven’t recalled or
for something that will never be
Your greens and your purples and your blues
and the lilt of your sons call my name
We know each other, and though we’re much apart
Is it because you are my home, my destiny
Where I must go or from where I first came
Friday, October 2, 2009
Are Charity Boards Asleep at the Wheel?
I found this on the charity watch website and it is sound advice that is worth reading again.
Are Charity Boards Asleep at the Wheel? Nonprofit Governance Problems
http://www.charitywatch.org/articles/asleep.html
Boards need to have the power to hire, fire and set the compensation rate of the executive director or chief staff head and other key employees. The 1986 bylaws (most recently available) of Girls and Boys Town, also known as Father Flanagan’s Boys’ Home, do not allow for its governing board to select who they want for the two most important officers at the charity: the President, who has the power to chair all board meetings, and the Executive Vice President, who serves as the executive director or CEO and resides over the board in the President’s absence. According to the bylaws, the board must appoint as President whoever is the Archbishop of the Catholic Archdiocese of Omaha. The bylaws give the President, not the board, the power to choose who will be the CEO of the charity.
More and more boards are agreeing to multiyear contracts with their chief staff head. AIP discourages this practice because it “locks in” a poorly performing executive and takes away the board’s right to find a better successor or obligates a charity to keep paying a former employee. The United Way of the National Capitol Area, which has had a number of serious management and financial problems (see November 2002 AIP Guide), feels that it is contractually obligated to continue to pay its former CEO, Norman O. Taylor, his $225,000 salary through Feb 1, 2004 even though he resigned last February, according to the Washington Post. The American Institute of Cancer Research states in its 2001 audit that it has locked itself into five-year long contracts with key personnel.
Sometimes it appears that the CEO controls the board rather than the other way around. The Albert Einstein Healthcare Network, a struggling hospital system in Philadelphia, awarded in July 2001 its CEO, Martin H. Goldsmith, with a $2.5 million payment, in addition to his $768,000 salary, months before 200 employees were laid off, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer. An Einstein spokesperson told the Inquirer that “Goldsmith deserved the bonus because he had engineered 14 years of positive results before 2002’s loss.”
Many board members limit their communications with only the very top-level staff of a charity. This is a mistake because board members have an obligation to have a basic understanding of what is occurring in all levels of an organization and should periodically check-in with a variety of staff. It is also risky for board members to depend solely on the chief staff head (CEO) or his top lieutenants for intelligence on the organization. The CEO may be tempted to hide problems from the board if he knows that the board is too dependent on him for information about what is going on in the organization. Individual staff members should have an open line to communicate with board members on serious and pressing matters that are not being adequately handled by the CEO. The New York Times reported last year that the Markle Foundation, which helped to start the children’s TV program Sesame Street, tells staff to not speak to board members without first speaking with the CEO’s deputy. The Foundation also requires, according to the Times, that if an employee has “inadvertent contact” with a board member outside of the office, the employee must send the CEO an e-mail “describing your encounter.” Peter Kerr, spokesman for the Foundation, said it was true that an email had been sent to staff that instructed employees to inform management of any contact with Board members. But he said the intent was to keep management apprised, not to discourage contact.
In recent years AIP has seen nonprofits increasingly attempt to silence their employees. We believe that nonprofit groups should discontinue employee contracts or severance agreements that contractually disallow employees or former employees to speak to outsiders about serious organizational problems. This serves to stop most employees or potential whistleblowers, who could warn the public of mismanagement or serious ethical breaches that charity executives may be attempting to cover up. At Feed the Children (FTC) employees are required to sign a confidentiality agreement as a condition of employment. The agreement requires that employees not disseminate any information about FTC outside of the charity without prior written approval. Employees who violate this agreement face “disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment and legal action, even if they do not actually benefit from the disclosed information,” according to the agreement. While it is a common practice in the nonprofit field for employees to respect the privacy of donors and clients and not to reveal the trade secrets of any for-profit subsidiaries, FTC’s confidentiality agreement is exceptionally broad, and it may deter the scrutiny that every charity needs.
Year after year many charities sign contracts with professional fundraisers that allow the fundraiser to keep by far most of the contributions collected. Sometimes charities also even allow the fundraiser to keep and control the names of the donors so that the charity is locked into an unfavorable arrangement. AIP believes that the board of directors should be required to approve all fundraising contracts. Hopefully, savvy board members will be able to keep well-intentioned charities from getting taken advantage of and keep them from continuing to violate the intentions of their donors.
AIP encourages the governing boards of all nonprofit organizations to recognize the serious responsibility of serving on a board and awaken to the fact that they are ultimately responsible for safeguarding our charitable contributions and regaining America’s trust in the nonprofit sector.
Are Charity Boards Asleep at the Wheel? Nonprofit Governance Problems
http://www.charitywatch.org/articles/asleep.html
Boards need to have the power to hire, fire and set the compensation rate of the executive director or chief staff head and other key employees. The 1986 bylaws (most recently available) of Girls and Boys Town, also known as Father Flanagan’s Boys’ Home, do not allow for its governing board to select who they want for the two most important officers at the charity: the President, who has the power to chair all board meetings, and the Executive Vice President, who serves as the executive director or CEO and resides over the board in the President’s absence. According to the bylaws, the board must appoint as President whoever is the Archbishop of the Catholic Archdiocese of Omaha. The bylaws give the President, not the board, the power to choose who will be the CEO of the charity.
More and more boards are agreeing to multiyear contracts with their chief staff head. AIP discourages this practice because it “locks in” a poorly performing executive and takes away the board’s right to find a better successor or obligates a charity to keep paying a former employee. The United Way of the National Capitol Area, which has had a number of serious management and financial problems (see November 2002 AIP Guide), feels that it is contractually obligated to continue to pay its former CEO, Norman O. Taylor, his $225,000 salary through Feb 1, 2004 even though he resigned last February, according to the Washington Post. The American Institute of Cancer Research states in its 2001 audit that it has locked itself into five-year long contracts with key personnel.
Sometimes it appears that the CEO controls the board rather than the other way around. The Albert Einstein Healthcare Network, a struggling hospital system in Philadelphia, awarded in July 2001 its CEO, Martin H. Goldsmith, with a $2.5 million payment, in addition to his $768,000 salary, months before 200 employees were laid off, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer. An Einstein spokesperson told the Inquirer that “Goldsmith deserved the bonus because he had engineered 14 years of positive results before 2002’s loss.”
Many board members limit their communications with only the very top-level staff of a charity. This is a mistake because board members have an obligation to have a basic understanding of what is occurring in all levels of an organization and should periodically check-in with a variety of staff. It is also risky for board members to depend solely on the chief staff head (CEO) or his top lieutenants for intelligence on the organization. The CEO may be tempted to hide problems from the board if he knows that the board is too dependent on him for information about what is going on in the organization. Individual staff members should have an open line to communicate with board members on serious and pressing matters that are not being adequately handled by the CEO. The New York Times reported last year that the Markle Foundation, which helped to start the children’s TV program Sesame Street, tells staff to not speak to board members without first speaking with the CEO’s deputy. The Foundation also requires, according to the Times, that if an employee has “inadvertent contact” with a board member outside of the office, the employee must send the CEO an e-mail “describing your encounter.” Peter Kerr, spokesman for the Foundation, said it was true that an email had been sent to staff that instructed employees to inform management of any contact with Board members. But he said the intent was to keep management apprised, not to discourage contact.
In recent years AIP has seen nonprofits increasingly attempt to silence their employees. We believe that nonprofit groups should discontinue employee contracts or severance agreements that contractually disallow employees or former employees to speak to outsiders about serious organizational problems. This serves to stop most employees or potential whistleblowers, who could warn the public of mismanagement or serious ethical breaches that charity executives may be attempting to cover up. At Feed the Children (FTC) employees are required to sign a confidentiality agreement as a condition of employment. The agreement requires that employees not disseminate any information about FTC outside of the charity without prior written approval. Employees who violate this agreement face “disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment and legal action, even if they do not actually benefit from the disclosed information,” according to the agreement. While it is a common practice in the nonprofit field for employees to respect the privacy of donors and clients and not to reveal the trade secrets of any for-profit subsidiaries, FTC’s confidentiality agreement is exceptionally broad, and it may deter the scrutiny that every charity needs.
Year after year many charities sign contracts with professional fundraisers that allow the fundraiser to keep by far most of the contributions collected. Sometimes charities also even allow the fundraiser to keep and control the names of the donors so that the charity is locked into an unfavorable arrangement. AIP believes that the board of directors should be required to approve all fundraising contracts. Hopefully, savvy board members will be able to keep well-intentioned charities from getting taken advantage of and keep them from continuing to violate the intentions of their donors.
AIP encourages the governing boards of all nonprofit organizations to recognize the serious responsibility of serving on a board and awaken to the fact that they are ultimately responsible for safeguarding our charitable contributions and regaining America’s trust in the nonprofit sector.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
