Make-a-Wish/Minnesota's entire Board of Directors quit yesterday

[InflightSupv 0]

Last update: October 5, 2004 at 12:13 PM
Make-A-Wish board quits in policy feud
Robert Franklin, Star Tribune
October 5, 2004 WISH1005


All 23 board and advisory board members of the Make-A-Wish Foundation of Minnesota resigned Monday over "philosophical differences" with the national organization.

They said they objected to directives that included ending their practice of giving $1,000 to families of children who died before their wishes were granted, forbidding wishes that involve hunting and imposing term limits on board members.

"The gap is too large and it's not going to come together," said local president Karla Blomberg of the directives. "It just doesn't meet our values and what we're here for."

Each year, the Minnesota group grants wishes to about 200 children with life-threatening conditions. Outgoing board members said they left the organization strongly financed and staffed to continue doing that.

Jim Maggio, a spokesman for the national headquarters in Phoenix, said the parties had been working for 2½ months toward what the national organization thought was an "amicable and constructive resolution," and "we were very surprised and disappointed" to be notified of the resignations by fax on Monday.

The Minnesotans were asked to do only what the 73 other chapters were obliged to do, Maggio said, but he would not "engage in a public debate about any specific policies."

The national board had labeled the local board "entrenched" and said members couldn't serve more than 12 years, six years at a time, local board members said.

The local board also objected to other directives that included no granting of wishes that involve hunting or firearms, a decision that dates to a Minnesota hunting wish that sparked national controversy in the 1990s, and hiring a paid executive. Blomberg, a Minnesota co-founder, served as unpaid president for 20 years.

Blomberg said she turned down the idea of taking the paid job.

The mass resignations are highly unusual, said Jon Pratt, executive director of the Minnesota Council of Nonprofits.

Other nonprofits in the metro area, including health groups and Mothers Against Drunk Driving, have gone through upheavals with national or state organizations, sometimes over standards of accountability, fundraising or volunteer enthusiasm, Pratt said. "I think there's a natural tension, but usually it doesn't get to this point where you lose the very people you rely on."

Mark Webb, director of operations for Make-A-Wish Minnesota, said officers "came in today, sat the staff down and discussed the whole situation. It was a surprise to all of us."

A national representative is expected to arrive today at the group's Fridley office, Webb said, and "basically I believe it will be business as usual." Maggio said the national organization will work to recruit new board members.

Make-A-Wish is the nation's largest wish-granting organization with chapter and national budgets totaling $136 million last year, Maggio said. The Minnesota foundation has an annual budget of $1.6 million, Blomberg said, with more than 80 percent going to finance children's wishes. It has granted more than 2,300 wishes since 1982.

Tensions between local and national offices date at least to 1996, when Make-A-Wish Minnesota granted an Alaska bear-hunting trip to Erik Ness, a White Bear Township teenager suffering from brain cancer. Animal rights groups and some other chapters objected, and in 2000 the national Make-A-Wish Foundation banned wishes involving hunting. Ness died in 1999 at age 21.

Tom Reid, an advisory board member who co-founded the Minnesota group in 1982, said that three or four times a year a child would die before a wish could be granted.

In those cases, the nonprofit would give $1,000 to the family for a memorial or to complete the trip with other children. "It's not a lot of money," Reid said. "Maybe they can plant a tree and dedicate that tree and watch it grow. There are so many things you can do."

Blomberg, a Realtor who was a member of then-Gov. Jesse Ventura's task force on stadiums and co-chair of Minnesotans for Major League Baseball, was in touch with the local Make-A-Wish office daily, Webb said.

Reid, a restaurateur, hockey radio analyst and former North Stars player, questioned replacing Blomberg as the local executive. "Why would we spend the money ... when you don't have to?" he said.

Blomberg would have had to resign for the Minnesota foundation to be allowed to appeal the national decisions, Reid said. The local volunteers consulted a lawyer, but "we're not spending our dollars for legal advice."

He called the dispute "crazy ... They just want to control us. It's like Big Brother looking over our shoulder."

Blomberg said her mission will continue to be doing "something with kids," and resigning was difficult. "I was told I had spots on my sweater today," she said. "Those are tear stains. It's been a very, very emotional, difficult day."

[InflightSupv 0]

I mean come on, the kids have one great chance to do something they love before they pass, whether its hunting or something else not politically correct, they should be able to do it. Period.

[headoverheels 333]

Quote

I mean come on, the kids have one great chance to do something they love before they pass, whether its hunting or something else not politically correct, they should be able to do it. Period.

I personally have absolutely no use for hunting, but don't care if someone else does, as long as the victim is of a plentiful species.

What happens to the 20% of funds that doesn't go to satisfying wishes? Trips? "Expenses?"

[MC208B 0]

naw, they probably give it to the Republicans

Maybe you and Dan Rather can get to the bottom of this

[PhillyKev 0]

Like Chris Rock said....do they grant all kinds of wishes? Like, what if a kid wanted to get a lap dance before he kicks. Why should they deny a dying kid some big ole' titties in his face before he dies?

[peregrinerose 0]

I don't have a problem with the hunting part, but the $1000 to the family is just not right. Make-a-Wish is for the KIDS, not for the family. Every effort should be made to grant as many wishes as possible, but there's just no way that everyone can be served. A kid doesn't benefit from that $1000, so it should really be used for another child. How many living children could have had their dreams filled with that $3000-$4000 per year that goes to families? It violates the whole point of the foundation. Multiply that over several years, and that's a lot of money.

If these people had such differing views from the organization, they shouldn't be on the board to begin with, and start their own non-profit instead.

I'm on the board of 2 national non-profits, and if I didn't believe in them, or how they do things, I wouldn't give my time and effort to it either.
Jen

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Tensions between local and national offices date at least to 1996, when Make-A-Wish Minnesota granted an Alaska bear-hunting trip to Erik Ness, a White Bear Township teenager suffering from brain cancer. Animal rights groups and some other chapters objected, and in 2000 the national Make-A-Wish Foundation banned wishes involving hunting.

It was that very "wish" which made me start donating to Make-a-Wish. The fact that they put the kid's dying wish for a hunt, ahead of the anti-hunting extremist animal right's groups, got my attention and won me over.

Then a few years later they reversed course, and started discriminating against hunting. And my donations ended.

Here we are once again, with discrimination against lawful gun sports...

Make-a-Wish should be ashamed of themselves for not putting the dying kids first.

[wmw999 2,446]

Well, Make-a-Wish, like any enterprise, can make whatever rules they want to. That said, I can't see anything wrong with a properly-done hunt either.

None of the guaranteed "fish in a barrel" stuff where they release the animals from pens so you can shoot them (that's bullshit). But I doubt that's what they did -- a kid whose dying wish is to get a hunt is going to respect the sport enough to think that's the wrong way to do it.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Here we are once again, with discrimination against lawful gun sports...

Make-a-Wish should be ashamed of themselves for not putting the dying kids first.

So anything legal is OK with you?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Well, Make-a-Wish, like any enterprise, can make whatever rules they want to.

Sure, and they can then pay whatever consequences ensue from their decisions and policies. In this case, I voted with my wallet, and they lost me as a contributor, and probably others as well. I just wonder if the anti-hunting folks they were trying to please, bothered to contribute in support of Make-a-Wish's new stance, and if it made up for what they lost.

The bottom line is, though, that they should have a position that puts the last wishes of dying kids above politics. And if some special interest group doesn't like that, tough on them.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

The bottom line is, though, that they should have a position that puts the last wishes of dying kids above politics.

Is that what you did by stopping your contributions to them?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

The bottom line is, though, that they should have a position that puts the last wishes of dying kids above politics.

Is that what you did by stopping your contributions to them?

How much have *you* contributed to Make-a-Wish?

Would you make a donation to a charitable organization that discriminates against certain lawful groups of people?

Supporting discrimination is just not something I do. If they want my support, they'll stop their discrimination. That action lies with *them*.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

How much have *you* contributed to Make-a-Wish?

Nothing directly.

Quote

Would you make a donation to a charitable organization that discriminates against certain lawful groups of people?

I don't consider this discrimination. It's policy making.

Quote

Supporting discrimination is just not something I do. If they want my support, they'll stop their discrimination. That action lies with *them*.

You claim they're discriminating based on political ideology. Therefore, you are discriminating against them because of political ideology. I just don't see a difference. But I also don't see it as discrimination. Seems to me they're making a policy decision regarding the use of their funds, and so are you. Every charity in the world picks and chooses who receives their benefit, otherwise they would just distribute their funds to everyone in the world equally.

Charties for crippled kids don't give money to poor healthy kids. Charities for diabeties sufferers don't give money to aids patients without diabeties.

No problem with you not giving to them because you don't share their philosophy of whom should receive the benefit of the charity. But don't try to claim a moral high ground. You have a different agenda then them, but neither is morally superior.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I don't consider this discrimination. It's policy making.

Ahh, I see. So the KKK doesn't discriminate against blacks - it's just a policy. Well that makes it quite alright then!

Quote

You claim they're discriminating based on political ideology. Therefore, you are discriminating against them because of political ideology. I just don't see a difference.

Well if you can't see any difference between unjust discrimination, and just "discrimination", then I can't help you. Go ahead and make a donation to the KKK - it's just as good as making a donation to United Way! Discriminating by not supporting bad guys, is a good thing. It's double-negative logic, and equals a positive. I discriminate against criminals, cheats, thieves, liars and all sorts of miscreants. That's not a bad form of discrimination.

Quote

Every charity in the world picks and chooses who receives their benefit, otherwise they would just distribute their funds to everyone in the world equally.

Targeting a particular group as beneficiaries is fine. But then turning around and saying that some people within that same group don't deserve anything because they like to hunt, that's wrong. Once you target a particular group, you shouldn't discriminate because of some lawful hobby in which they participate.

[PhreeZone 20]

Do you give any money to the Boy Scouts? Their policy states that no gay person may be in a posision to influence the youth of the programs. They also have openly gay youth removed from their organization by preventing them from renewing their membership.

Is that a policy difference or discrimination?

The Boy Scouts are in a real financial crunch right now since a lot of their funding dried up since organizations refuse to donate to a group that discriminates based on a lawful sexual orientation.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[billvon 2,991]

>Would you make a donation to a charitable organization that
>discriminates against certain lawful groups of people?

I've donated to veteran's groups; they blatantly discriminate against non-veterans. That's OK with me.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Targeting a particular group as beneficiaries is fine.

Ok, they target crippled, non-hunting children. I just don't see a problem with that.

I went to the Milton Hershey School. It's a private school that owns Hershey Food Corporation. Milton Hershey left it in his will that the school would inherit his company. And the school charter was for orphaned and semi-orphaned white males.

A while back there was a school called Overbrook that had a similar charter. The gov't sued for discrimination, broke the will and took control of the school. Hershey saw the writing on the wall, the school board sued to break the will themselves so they could retain control. They let in minorities, girls, and children of divorced parents. That's screwed up. No one should force a charity to give to certain groups that they weren't set up to benefit.

There's not a thing wrong with charities that specify their recipients. If you don't agree with them, don't give them money. But they're not doing anything wrong.

[peregrinerose 0]

I thought that Hershey Foods owns the school, not the other way around? And that the board of Hershey Foods had considered privatizing the school, making it a separate entity from Hershey Foods entirely? I live 7 miles or so from Hershey. But you are right, it is fucked up that a school that was founded for boys and stated as such in the will of the man who originated and funded it had to change their charter to be politically correct. A lot of gender specific private colleges are going through the same bull crap. Seton Hill used to be all girls, but got sued and had to let guys in. St. Vincent was all male and the opposite happened.

Jen

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I thought that Hershey Foods owns the school, not the other way around?

Nope, the school was the beneficiary of his will and was left controlling interest in Hershey Foods. They also own the park and the medical center. The school had considered selling Hershey Foods.

[peregrinerose 0]

I just checked, we are both wrong. The Hershey Trust is trustee for HM School. Hershey Trust owns Hershey entertainment (hersheypark, etc). Hershey Foods is a privately owned company separate from Hershey Entertainment, but the Hershey Trust owns a majority of shares. Profits made by dividends from Hershey Foods Stock and profits from Hershey Entertainment are fed into the trust fund, the trust fund in turn feeds the school.

It was Hershey Trust that wanted to sell Hershey Food stock to the highest bidder (selling in effect Hershey Foods). There was a court injunction, then the trust decided not to sell after all.

Hershey Trust is a financial entity with a separate board entirely from the school, it just holds the money. So it isn't the school itself that is the owner/player, it is the trust which is run by a completely separate staff. The trust also provides financial services for people.

Talk about hijacking a thread though!

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[PhillyKev 0]

Right, the trust was set up when they broke the will.

[peregrinerose 0]

The trust was set up in 1905 by Milton Hershey. This is the way the structure of the school/park/food has been since that time. It hasn't changed.

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[PhillyKev 0]

Again, true. Obviously there needs to be a trustee to manage a bequeath like that. But prior to the breaking of the will, there was a stipulation from the will that no one who received any compensation, either direct or indirect could be a member of the Board of Managers. The attorneys who handled the trust made sure to break that as well. Prior to that the school directed the Trust on how to handle the Trust. Afterward, the Board became a co-mingling of School Board personnel and HERCO executives.

[PhillyKev 0]

This http://www.mhsaa.org/4rum/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1555&ARCHIVE= is a really good indepth timeline of events divided into subjects regarding the school and company.

My father went there when his dad died. My whole falmily went to the reunion every year. When my dad died I asked my Mom to send me there based on what my dad told me about the school. Came to find out, it wasn't even close to what it was when he was there. The vocational programs were practically scrapped, half of the homes were no longer on working farms and most of the kids there were one step away from juvenile hall before they got there.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Do you give any money to the Boy Scouts? Their policy states that no gay person may be in a posision to influence the youth of the programs. Is that a policy difference or discrimination?

It's both: it's a discriminatory policy.

Quote

The Boy Scouts are in a real financial crunch right now since a lot of their funding dried up since organizations refuse to donate to a group that discriminates based on a lawful sexual orientation.

Yep, and that's just fine with me. They can discriminate if they wish, but will suffer consequences accordingly. It would just be better if they didn't discriminate in the first place. And if homosexuals don't want to protest that discrimination by ceasing donations to the Boy Scouts, that's their right - no one should suggest that they should continue to donate anyway, because *other* boys will still benefit.

The organization makes their choices, and pays the consequences.