This is the root of the problem. Wikimedia rises too much money
100% agree and it’s endemic to the people running any organization not held accountable. There’s a port authority near me that was formed to maintain key bridges. The tolls on these bridges is exorbitant.
The people who run the authority use it as their own personal slush fund, donating money to things like ballet schools and other pet projects.
Maybe these projects are the most worthy thing in the world but forcing people to donate to them under threat of arrest (for not paying bridge tolls) is immoral.
“Non-profits” in general are very poorly understood and seem to slip under the radar of accountability at the governmental and board levels.
501c3 has the household name, “non-profit.” It is a case study of an extraordinarily well-branded idea and how that shapes perception.
My experience with these types of organizations and their governance puts me in a default defensive default posture. Too many have found out ways to exploit the capabilities.
At least with a regular corporate entity, there is no mistake the company is out to reward its ownership.
People were able to re-brand "charity" to "non-profit" in the US as well -- in part because if you have a $500k salary as CEO of a charity that looks like you're taking money, but if you have a $500k salary as the CEO of a non-profit...
100% agree and it’s endemic to the people running any organization not held accountable. There’s a port authority near me that was formed to maintain key bridges. The tolls on these bridges is exorbitant.
The people who run the authority use it as their own personal slush fund, donating money to things like ballet schools and other pet projects.
Maybe these projects are the most worthy thing in the world but forcing people to donate to them under threat of arrest (for not paying bridge tolls) is immoral.