I had high hopes for the new regime at the Red Cross. Despite Mark Everson's lack of non-profit experience, the former IRS Commissioner is a proven leader, pushed hard for some non-profit-related reforms at the tax-collection agency during his tenure, and is rumored to actually be a pretty funny guy, behind closed doors at least. I can support all of those credentials.
But it was the other new additions at the Red Cross that made me believe we had the opportunity to really turn a corner there, and enter a new era of accountability. Along with its new leader, the organization was “given” a new governance structure by Congress and President Bush. As a result of the new legislation, the board is being trimmed from its ridiculous and unwieldy 50 members, to just 12-20. The board members’ job duties are being clarified, to get them out of trying to run the group day-to-day. And most encouragingly (to me), the Red Cross was ordered to create the position of Ombudsman, someone whose sole job was to serve as a watchdog and conduit between the non-profit, those charged with overseeing it, and the donors that make its good works possible.
Who else in America cares who the Ombudsman of the Red Cross is? I can’t imagine the list is long, but I’m definitely on it. That’s why I was saddened today to find out that this historic new position was given to a woman named Beverly Ortega Babers. I wouldn’t know Ms. Babers from Jim Nabors. From her resume, she appears to be an impressive woman. Degrees from good schools, a long career of public service, a working knowledge of the complexities of the legal system. I mean not to impugn her personally in any way. I imagine I’ll meet her one of these days, and I suspect I’ll like her (although after this post, I can’t imagine it will be reciprocal).
So what’s my problem with Ms. Babers? It’s in where she worked last week. Before being appointed by new Red Cross CEO Everson to serve as the lone independent voice and the donor’s eyes and ears at America’s most-important non-profit, in effect the person charged with making sure the group is playing by the rules and honoring the public trust, Ms. Babers was Mark Everson’s Chief of Staff at the IRS. She comes to the new job as his right-hand woman. And despite her credentials, she owes her new job and her large pay raise to Mark Everson. Am I really supposed to believe that she will be fiercely loyal to donors, staffers, employees, and aid recipients first, and not to Everson and his position of power and influence?
Would it have been too much to ask that the new Ombudsman at the Red Cross be neither a long-time employee of the organization nor a political ally (if she was a man, most would use "crony") of the new leader of the charity? Was it really impossible to find someone whose independence would be unquestioned? I’m sure that those in power at the Red Cross will say that I’m being unnecessarily cynical about Ms. Babers and her working relationship with Mr. Everson, but why chance it? If she's talented, hire her to join you at the Red Cross, but why does she have to be the Ombudsman? I learned long ago that perception is reality, and hiring your Chief of Staff, and giving her a large raise, ensures that no one this side of Ms. Babers’ immediate family will believe that she possesses the autonomy and the independence to choose between staff and Mr. Everson, donors and Mr. Everson, or most importantly, recipients of service and Mr. Everson, should the situation dictate it.
The Red Cross could have done better here. We could have had a true independent choice, someone from outside the inner circle, with no obvious ties to the powers that be. We could have been given a signal that the Red Cross took its new mandate of transparency and accountability seriously, and would be doing all it could to demonstrate that the era that led to the new Congressionally-imposed restructuring was over. Instead, we got political patronage, and an arrogant choice to appoint an insider to serve as an ombudsman.
New boss? I’m afraid, same as the old boss.
Labels: American Red Cross, Beverly Ortega Babers, Mark Everson, Ombudsman
22 Comments:
same old, same old at the red cross. they just don't get it.
I agree. Ombudsmen (or women) are supposed to come from outside the organization, with no ties to the existin leadership. That's the only way we can ever trust them and know they're autonomous. This would never fly at a public company.
You were seriously expecting propriety and accountability from a Bush appointee?
Please!
I'm sure if it turns out that Mr. Everson and Mrs. Ortega-Babers have been hitting the sheets, it will all be "the media's fault."
A leopard can't change it's spots, and NOTHING comes out of the Bush administration that doesn't have the stink of corruption on it, Mr. Stamp.
It's sad, but it's true...
I agree with everything here, except the "sheets" thing. I don't think Trent was saying that.
I'm a Red Cross volunteer in Florida and I hoped this president would be a breath of fresh air, but now I see that he is from the Bush administration and appoints people to positions of power in the same way Bush did (remember when Cheney oversaw the VP selection process, and recommended himself?). Just what we need, for the Red Cross to get even more political. I thought these reforms were supposed to do the opposite.
why was the new CEO allowed to appoint his own ombudsman? in an ideal world, congress would have done that, but i would have settled for it being an independent board hire. instead, on his first day on the job, he gets to pick his own watchdog and standards-enforcer? the red cross has a funny definition of ombudsman.
This is a great example of the difference between for-profits and non-profits. This would never fly on Wall Street.
This, once again, shows the lack of leadership at the board level. They just don't understand the need to upgrade the public's perception of the Red Cross. Here we go again...
Who else in America cares who the Ombudsman of the Red Cross is?
Well, other practicing ombuds do. The Red Cross has missed an opportunity to appoint an objective outsider. Even if Babers practices to standards, her perceived bias may prevent her from being effective.
Ombudspeople are supposed to be different. This should never be a position given to someone with ties to the existing leadership. This is beyond arrogant on their part. It's blatant disrespect for the whole concept of ombudspersons.
Can anyone from the Red Cross defend this? I agree with you Trent that this woman might actually be a great hire for the Red Cross, but not in this position. Too much baggage. Is this what the Senate really had in mind? This looks more like a loyal political appointee.
same old, same old at the red cross couldn't be a truer statement. they have never been able to handle their money properly and it was hoped an ombudsman position would work - yeah right! This is the last charity I would ever give to and that comes from the Vietnam era when military were made to "voluntary/mandatory" give to the red cross, then got charged .50c for their coffee in Vietnam.
THE SAME OLD STORY. MY FATHERS DEALINGS WITH THEM DURING THE FIRST WORLD WAR, AND MY DEALINGS WITH THEM DURING 20 YEARS IN THE NAVY GIVES ME NO CONFIDANCE, AND YET THEY HAVE THE ONLY POWER TO GET YOU EMERGENCY LEAVE ETC IN THE MILITARY. POWER CORRUPTS AND ABSOLUTE OWER CORRUPTS MORE.
I stopped donating to the Red Cross years ago when I discovered what they were paying Liz Dole!
just let the red cross know you will not donate a dime until the ombudsman's job situation gets upgraded to "trustworthy".
This is a good example why we need Charity Navigator
"New Red Cross? Same Old Tricks."
I think they both should go.
Start the whole process over again and get it right.
It seems all the comments go one way. That plus the cheap shots at Bush tend to take away from the concerns that I have. I'd like suggestions as to how we might improve the situation. I already plan to suspend my contributions (more than token)and advise RC why. With all its faults RC is very important organization and sorely needed.
I'm a big supporter of You - Trent and thank the Lord for you!
The Red Cross came through for me when my family had a fire in our home. They helped us with clothing, food, and a place to stay. I would defend them anytime.
Take a look at the rating Charitynavigator gave the Red Cross. Not too bad. I would wait and see what the outcome is before making judgement.
I need to be really careful I don't get outed here,but want to share my story about Red Cross. I have a blog under an assumed name. I have been a temp worker for nearly three years, no pay raise,etc. I stay because my health is failing and I can handle this job emotionally and physically a bit better than other jobs now.So I had to weigh all my options and stay. It is on the bus line. It is a sit down job, tedious, but low stress. I need low stress at this time in my life. Anyway, they have kept temps for clerical work nearly indefinitely. Ever 9 months we get laid off so they can rehire us and not pay benefits. I know I made a choice to stay ,so I am not complaining victim here, but just want you to know. I have been trying to cope without health insurance and it has ruined my good credit finiancially. You can bet the CEO who makes over $650,000 for the Blood Services side does not wake up in a cold sweat wondering how to pay the medical emergency bills. There is something wrong with an organization that looks at a budget and won't hire a long term proven worker so they can get decent medical care.
Let this new Mrs. Ortega-Babers have a chance to sit in her seat.
Those that state alot of negative really show their lack of professionalism and their strength in ignorance.
I hope those that negative "Blog" her, will find better things to do until she give a reason for negative comments.
I know her slightly and I do not agree about some things when it comes to a certain teenager.
My perception is she will do what she was hired to do and more, because of the person she chooses to be; now if all the other dishonest greedy humans can be weeded out...Good Luck Beverly Babers
Cee
I've known Mr. Babers for over 29 years and Mrs. Babers for over 20. They both are far from being Bush lackeys. Will she be loyal to her old boss? I would think so....to a certain extent. No more than anyone should be to a person thinking enough of them to hire them a second time.
If there were instances at the IRS that give support for your negative perception of Mrs. Babers please let us know. Otherwise, lets not make baseless assumptions. Give her a chance to do her job first, then make your assessment.
That's what got us into a war we can't get out of!
"Loyalty", "Right-Hand Man".. Why must these be deemed negative. Understood are the concerns. But merely, these should be left as just that. By chance, this woman may have earned these descriptions through honest work and effort, and by choosing NOT to fit these judgements by following her own decisions, not the decisions of her coworker. Could that be the reason Mr. Everson hired this woman? Because of how she stands out? Maybe not, but until given reason, we should see how Mrs. Babers handles the field.
-Anonymous
Post a Comment
<< Home