All That Glitters is Not Gold
Charity Navigator found ourselves in relatively unfamiliar territory this weekend, as we were literally what they were talking about in Hollywood. Believe me when I say that most folks in the movie world don't spend a lot of time worrying about charity data, transparency, accountability, and the difference between a 501 c3 and a 501 c6.
But they care about what the L.A. Times writes, and in a front page story on Saturday, the paper used our data and ratings system to write a scathing review of the Spirit Awards and their presenter Film Independent. According to Film Threat, the Times pointed out that the group is a "non-profit in name only, and their sins include executive director Dawn Hudson's $265,000 annual salary, a questionable re-classification of tax returns and the fact that barely half of Film Independent's budget went to workshops, laboratories and other charitable services that directly benefit struggling auteurs."
Here's the inside scoop, straight from the red carpet. We give this group a lousy rating because they spend most of their money on fancy parties, hosting award shows, and honoring Al Pacino. They never cared about our rating, because they're not really a public charity (despite their classification) and don't have to convince donors that they're trustworthy. Proof of this is that we've been rating them (poorly) for several years and never heard word one from them with any objections. Then a reporter for the L.A. Times called them and told them he was going to write a story about the fact that they spend most of their money on fancy parties, hosting award shows, and honoring Al Pacino, and their subsequent lousy rating from us. This, they cared about (especially because he was going to publish the story on the day of their nationally-televised awards show).
So they went insane, called us about 700 times, moved all the numbers around on their most recent 990s (but not for all the previous years), wrote a bunch of letters to the Times, and demanded that we change their rating quick, before we put a damper on their party.
We refused. Their party went on. The Times ran their story. Some people were rightfully embarrassed. Others were not. And I guess I'll never eat lunch in that town again. Which is probably o.k., since I live 3000 miles away, and the only red carpet I've ever been on is in my son's room, and it has cars and trucks on it.
But they care about what the L.A. Times writes, and in a front page story on Saturday, the paper used our data and ratings system to write a scathing review of the Spirit Awards and their presenter Film Independent. According to Film Threat, the Times pointed out that the group is a "non-profit in name only, and their sins include executive director Dawn Hudson's $265,000 annual salary, a questionable re-classification of tax returns and the fact that barely half of Film Independent's budget went to workshops, laboratories and other charitable services that directly benefit struggling auteurs."
Here's the inside scoop, straight from the red carpet. We give this group a lousy rating because they spend most of their money on fancy parties, hosting award shows, and honoring Al Pacino. They never cared about our rating, because they're not really a public charity (despite their classification) and don't have to convince donors that they're trustworthy. Proof of this is that we've been rating them (poorly) for several years and never heard word one from them with any objections. Then a reporter for the L.A. Times called them and told them he was going to write a story about the fact that they spend most of their money on fancy parties, hosting award shows, and honoring Al Pacino, and their subsequent lousy rating from us. This, they cared about (especially because he was going to publish the story on the day of their nationally-televised awards show).
So they went insane, called us about 700 times, moved all the numbers around on their most recent 990s (but not for all the previous years), wrote a bunch of letters to the Times, and demanded that we change their rating quick, before we put a damper on their party.
We refused. Their party went on. The Times ran their story. Some people were rightfully embarrassed. Others were not. And I guess I'll never eat lunch in that town again. Which is probably o.k., since I live 3000 miles away, and the only red carpet I've ever been on is in my son's room, and it has cars and trucks on it.
Labels: Dawn Hudson, Film Independent, Film Threat, L.A. Times, Little Miss Sunshine, Spirit Awards
posted by Trent Stamp at 11:07 AM
2 Comments:
There should be stronger rules, placed upon what constitutes a charity. And there should also be accountability for the results. A charity who spends most of it's money on salary or marketing, should have a big red label marking them as a money harvesting camp, not a non-profit charity. It's just sick.
Unfortunately, many of these celebrity driven "charities" are not quite what they seem, and the taxpayers are forced to subsidize their shenanigans. I saw today that you also had released some embarrasing details about the RED campaign. Keep up the good work, Trent.
Post a Comment
<< Home