General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNancy Brinker, is safe, as far as the board is concerned.
just got off the phone with a Komen board member, and he confirmed that the announcement does not mean that Planned Parenthood is guaranteed future grants a demand he said would be unfair to impose on Komen. He also said the job of the groups controversial director, Nancy Brinker, is safe, as far as the board is concerned.
As some were quick to point out, the statement put out by Komen doesnt really clarify whether Planned Parenthood will actually continue to get money from the group. The original rationale for barring Planned Parenthood was that it was under investigation (a witch-hunt probe undertaken by GOP Rep Cliff Stearns). Komen said today that the group would amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political.
Does that mean Planned Parenthood will get Komen grants in the future?
I asked Komen board member John Raffaelli to respond to those who are now saying that the announcement doesnt necessarily constitute a reversal until Planned Parenthood actually sees more funding. He insisted it would be unfair to expect the group to commit to future grants.
It would be highly unfair to ask us to commit to any organization that doesnt go through a grant process that shows that the money we raise is used to carry out our mission, Raffaelli told me. Were a humanitarian organization. We have a mission. Tell me you can help carry out our mission and we will sit down at the table.
Pressed on whether Brinker had been forthcoming, Raffaelli insisted: Nancy was not trying to mislead anyone. Asked if there would be an internal look at how Brinker handled the episode, Raffaelli only said there would be some kind of general look at how to prevent the politicization of grant-making in the future. Raffaelli blamed himself for the failure to handle the politics of this mess adequately, and stressed that Brinkers career had been devoted to breast cancer prevention, and not politics.
Asked if Brinkers job was safe, Raffaelli said: Yes. He added that the board unequivocally stood behind her.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/komen-caved-or-did-it/2012/02/03/gIQA9tS9mQ_blog.html
donheld
(21,311 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)paycheck....for now, anyway. They need her inside the tent pissing out, because if she was outside the tent, she could do a helluva lotta pissing in; she could claim they "forced her" to change the policy or some other bullshit, and she opposed it, and her late sister would have too--you know how people will lie when they're put on the spot. She's been challenged and so has the board, they are terrified that no one will donate anymore so they are going to bullshit like a mighty herd--of course the truth is the first casualty!
I think what they're actually saying is that they will wait till this shit dies down, and then "defund" PP later when no one is looking.
Screw them--like the gangsters say, they're dead to me! I tell all my friends what bums they are; I urge everyone to do likewise!
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)will not report the truth.
So the internet and word of mouth is the only way.
JohnnyRingo
(18,618 posts)She made a decision that crippled the charity and charges $400,000 a year to do it.
I can come in and screw the organization up for less than 100k, but no one expects me to be able to run a charity.
Is this going to be another one of those situations where the company says they're afraid she'll go elsewhere if they paid her less?
On edit:
I didn't know there were family ties. Too bad for a charity that up til now made such great progress raising awareness.
obamanut2012
(26,046 posts)She's the Founder and it's a private charity. She is safer than houses.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)She created the charity, she's not going anywhere.