Con­fus­ing fig­ures from CS so­ci­ety

The Guardian (Charlottetown) - - EDITORIAL -

I was pleased to see Lori Barker of the P.E.I. Divi­sion of the Cana­dian Can­cer So­ci­ety re­spond to the re­cent let­ter in the pa­per which crit­i­cized the so­ci­ety for spend­ing so much of its rev­enue on ad­min­is­tra­tion and fundrais­ing with a much smaller pro­por­tion go­ing to ac­tual can­cer re­search and sup­port. It’s good to get both sides.

Af­ter I read Carol Lavers’ let­ter, I de­cided to look for more in­for­ma­tion and found Char­ity In­tel­li­gence Canada, a Cana­dian ‘char­ity watch dog’ who show fi­nan­cial records for many of Canada’s reg­is­tered char­i­ties. In the case of the Cana­dian Can­cer So­ci­ety, they show that, in 2014, the So­ci­ety’s ad­min­is­tra­tion and fundrais­ing costs were 34 per cent of to­tal rev­enue.

The con­fus­ing part is that Ms. Barker’s let­ter says that amount was 11 per cent of “ex­penses”, not 11 per cent of to­tal rev­enue.

And just to con­fuse you even more — do­na­tions make up about half the so­ci­ety’s rev­enue; the rest com­ing from ‘spe­cial events’, lotteries, govern­ment fund­ing (your tax dol­lars at work) and ‘ other in­come’.

An­other fig­ure I found was the so­ci­ety’s gen­er­ous re­mu­ner­a­tion for its top staff: six em­ploy­ees at $200K-$250K per year, one at $250K-$300K and three at $300K-$350K.

I know, you will say you have to pay big bucks for the best peo­ple, but the Cana­dian Se­nate pay­roll shows this is some­times a fal­lacy. I’m sure such a wor­thy cause as the So­ci­ety’s could find driven peo­ple who would work at much lower salaries and free up more funds for re­search and sup­port.

As Ms. Barker said, the so­ci­ety “sin­cerely wants to make the most progress pos­si­ble.” Trim­ming the fat is a great start. Lloyd Kerry, Char­lot­te­town

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.