As the Morning News Anchor for ABC7 in Los Angeles since 2002, Phillip Palmer has had the opportunity to be involved in a number of charitable endeavors. He has been active in the Autism community, the ARC Walk for Independence, fundraising efforts for wounded veterans and organ donation...and that connection became deeply personal. Phillip Palmer moved to Los Angeles in November of 1998 after his career took him from Monroe, Louisiana to Wichita, Kansas and then Denver, Colorado. His job as a reporter has taken him from a Super Bowl, to Iraq, from Columbine to the Tsunami in Thailand. In 2007, Phillip’s friend Dale Davis became ill. At first no one knew what was happening, only that Dale had been rushed to the emergency room with very high blood pressure. Initial fears of a stroke were replaced with the knowledge that Dale would need a kidney transplant. By coincidence or divine intervention, Phillip had already been introduced to living donation by sports writer Rick Reilly, who had written a column about NBA star Alonzo Mourning and the kidney he received from his cousin. After being moved by the article, Phillip had made a promise to act if the need ever arose. Within weeks of Dale’s diagnosis, Phillip and Dale had transplant surgery and both are healthy and happy over 10 years later. Phillip is one of the nicest and most interesting people I have met in my nearly six years in the Los Angeles area. Living donation offers another choice for transplant candidates, and it saves two lives: the recipient and the next one on the deceased organ waiting list. Even better, kidney and liver patients who are able to receive a living donor transplant can receive the best quality organ much sooner, often in less than a year. For more information - click here
0 Comments
The nation’s largest hunger-relief organization, Feeding America, has appointed a new CEO who will be based in its Chicago headquarters. Feeding America’s board announced today that Opelousas, Louisiana native Claire Babineaux-Fontenot, 54, will take over as CEO on Oct. 1. Ms. Babineaux-Fontenot is the Founder of CBF Consulting Group, LLC located in Dallas, Texas. She had previously worked with Wal-Mart for 14 years and her most recent role was Executive Vice President and Global Treasurer for 14 years. At this role, she had global responsibility for tax, treasury operations, capital markets, investor relations, global risk management, casualty and self-insurance with teams across 28 countries and over 1,000 associates worldwide.Prior to her time at Wal-Mart, she was a Partner and Tax Practice Leader for Adams and Reese LLP, the largest law firm in the Gulf South Region. She was also a Dispute Resolution Practice Group Leader for the Southwest Region at PwC (Price Waterhouse Cooper) and in government. She will be relocating to Feeding America's headquarters in Chicago. Ms. Babineaux-Fontenot holds an L.L.M. in Taxation from Southern Methodist University School of Law in Dallas, TX; a J.D., from Southern University Law Center in Baton Rouge, LA; a B.S. from the University of Louisiana in Lafayette, LA. She also attended the Kellogg School of Management (Executive Training Program). "As one of the over one hundred children raised by my parents through biology, adoption and foster care, I saw the ravages of hunger firsthand, as many of my siblings entered our home with visible signs of malnutrition. I will harness my learnings from working in some incredibly successful organizations toward the passion of my life, the fight against hunger," Babineaux-Fontenot said in a statement. Keith Monda, executive chairman of the Feeding America board of directors, said in the statement: "The organization needs a leader who believes that food insecurity in America is unacceptable and will devote her life to leading Feeding America's charge to end hunger. I believe Claire is that individual." Feeding America provides hungry people in the U.S. with more than 4 billion meals a year through its network of 200 food banks and 60,000 food pantries and meal programs. The organization was ranked the third-largest charity by Forbes magazine. It also supports programs that prevent food waste and improve food security, educates the public about the issue of hunger, and advocates for legislation that protects people from going hungry. Michael Towner The Obama Foundation was created in 2014, but President Obama did not actively raise funds while he was in office and capped donations at $1 million. Last year was the first year that the foundation began aggressively fundraising. In 2017, the foundation raised about $232 million in contributions from private donors. It spent the bulk of its income — about $21.3 million — on operations, salaries and programs, recently released tax documents show. According to the records, in his first year overseeing the foundation, CEO David Simas earned $590,651. His salary is nearly twice what the CEO of the George W. Bush Foundation earned in 2016, the last year available. The executive director of the foundation, Robbin Cohen, earned $827,834 last year, the documents show. Cohen has worked for the foundation since it was founded and worked for free the first year. The Obama Foundation spent nearly $12 million on programming last year, including its star-studded international summit that brought leaders, elected officials and world-renowned activists to a two-day conference in the South Loop, newly released records show. The foundation also spent about $5 million paying its architects Tod Williams and Billie Tsien to design the Obama Presidential Center campus, according to the tax documents. The Obama Foundation is responsible, among other things, for overseeing the development and construction of the Obama Presidential Center — a sprawling campus made up of three buildings on the South Side. The project has drawn national attention because it could transform struggling, lower-income communities by creating jobs, attracting tourists and possibly sparking more investment. But the project has stirred emotions and revealed deep divisions in the community among racial and class lines. A small group of environmentalists has filed a lawsuit hoping to kill the project and keep it from being constructed in Jackson Park. A collective of activists is also pressuring the foundation to sign a legal contract guaranteeing a rental assistance fund, property tax freezes for homeowners and a majority number of jobs for residents who currently live near the proposed site. From the time it was announced, officials with the foundation said the Obama Presidential Center would be unlike any other. And in 2017, the group began rolling out programming to demonstrate how it would tackle its mission to “inspire, empower and connect people to change their world.” The foundation has created a fellowship program and a scholarship for graduate students at the University of Chicago and Columbia University in New York. It has hosted public meetings and leadership training events across the country. But in its first year, the foundation’s largest event was a summit that drew more than 500 thought leaders and innovators from Houston; Jakarta, Indonesia; London; and even Kenya and Mexico to the South Side. The conference had sessions both by former President Barack Obama and former first lady Michelle Obama. At the event, during his opening remarks, Barack Obama told the gathering that he wanted to bring all of the attendants to the South Side, where he started his work as an organizer. Obama’s center is expected to cost $500 million and is expected to be completed by 2021. The George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum cost $250 million to build and was constructed in 30 months, records show. The William J. Clinton Presidential Library and Museum cost $165 million to build and was constructed in 36 months. Michael Towner Sloan Kettering’s Cozy Deal With Start-Up Ignites a New Uproar. Michael Towner, Iconic Legacy9/21/2018 An artificial intelligence start-up founded by three insiders at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center debuted with great fanfare in February, with $25 million in venture capital and the promise that it might one day transform how cancer is diagnosed. The company, Paige.AI, is one in a burgeoning field of start-ups that are applying artificial intelligence to health care, yet it has an advantage over many competitors: The company has an exclusive deal to use the cancer center’s vast archive of 25 million patient tissue slides, along with decades of work by its world-renowned pathologists. Memorial Sloan Kettering holds an equity stake in Paige.AI, as does a member of the cancer center’s executive board, the chairman of its pathology department and the head of one of its research laboratories. Three other board members are investors. The arrangement has sparked considerable turmoil among doctors and scientists at Memorial Sloan Kettering, which has intensified in the wake of an investigation by ProPublica and The New York Times into the failures of its chief medical officer, Dr. José Baselga, to disclose some of his financial ties to the health and drug industries in dozens of research articles. He resigned last week, and Memorial Sloan Kettering’s chief executive, Dr. Craig B. Thompson, announced a new task force on Monday to review the center’s conflict-of-interest policies. MicDr. David Klimstra, pictured left, chairman of Memorial Sloan Kettering’s pathology department and a co-founder of Paige.AI. Amid internal objections to the start-up, indicated last week that he would divest his stake. At a staff meeting Thursday morning, Dr. Thompson and others, including Dr. Lisa DeAngelis, the acting physician-in-chief who replaced Dr. Baselga, described the recent events as a disruption and acknowledged that the hospital was under a microscope, according to several people who attended. Doctors said they were concerned about a lack of communication from hospital leadership, and one said patients were nervous that their health data was being commercialized by the institution. Hospital pathologists have strongly objected to the Paige.AI deal, saying it is unfair that the founders received equity stakes in a company that relies on the pathologists’ expertise and work amassed over 60 years. They also questioned the use of patients’ data — even if it is anonymous — without their knowledge in a profit-driven venture. In addition, experts in nonprofit law and corporate governance have questioned whether Memorial Sloan Kettering, one of the nation’s leading cancer centers, complied with federal and state law governing nonprofits when it set up the deal. The experts pointed out that charitable institutions like Memorial Sloan Kettering must show that they didn’t provide assets to insiders for less than the fair market value. Michael Towner Dr. José Baselga, the chief medical officer of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, has resigned amid reports that he failed to disclose millions of dollars in payments from health care companies in dozens of research articles. The revelations about Dr. Baselga’s disclosure lapses, reported by The New York Times, have rocked Memorial Sloan Kettering, one of the nation’s leading cancer centers, in recent days. Its top executives scrambled to contain the fallout, including urgent meetings of physician leaders and the executive committee of its board of directors. In his resignation letter, Dr. Baselga, who also served as the physician-in-chief, said he feared that the matter would be a distraction from his role overseeing clinical care and that he had been “extremely proud” to work at Memorial Sloan Kettering. “It is my hope that this situation will inspire a doubling down on transparency in our field,” he said, adding that he hoped the medical community would work together to develop a more standardized system for reporting industry ties. In an email sent to the staff Thursday evening, Dr. Craig B. Thompson, the hospital’s chief executive, said that Dr. Baselga had made “numerous” contributions to Memorial Sloan Kettering, patients and cancer treatment. Dr. Lisa DeAngelis, the chairwoman of the neurology department, will take over as acting physician-in-chief until Dr. Baselga’s successor is hired. The Times found that Dr. Baselga had failed to report any industry ties in 60 percent of the nearly 180 papers he had published since 2013. That figure increased each year — he did not disclose any relationships in 87 percent of the journal articles that he co-wrote last year. In an interview and later statement, Dr. Baselga said he planned to correct his conflict-of-interest disclosures in 17 journal articles, including in The New England Journal and The Lancet. But he contended that in dozens of other cases, no disclosure was required because the topics of the articles had little financial implication. He also said his failed disclosures were unintentional and should not reflect on the value of the research he conducted. Medical journals and professional societies have imposed stricter rules about reporting relationships to industry after a series of scandals a decade ago in which prominent physicians failed to disclose payments from drug companies. But medical journals have said they don’t routinely fact-check authors’ disclosures, and much is left to the honor system. Dr. Baselga received nearly $3.5 million in payments from drug, medical equipment and diagnostic companies from August 2013 through 2017, according to Open Payments, a federal database that tracks payments to physicians from health care companies. Most of that amount, about $3 million, involved a payment from Genentech for Dr. Baselga’s ownership interest in a company it acquired, Seragon Pharmaceuticals, in 2014. But the $3.5 million in the Open Payments database does not include payments from companies that don’t have products approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Such companies are not required to report their payments under federal law. For instance, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, a start-up with no approved drug, paid Dr. Baselga nearly $250,000 in cash and stock options for serving on its board from 2015 to 2017. He declined to disclose how much he received from such companies. Dr. Baselga was one of the highest-paid staff members at Memorial Sloan Kettering, earning more than $1.5 million in 2016, the most recent year for which the nonprofit’s financial filings are available. Michael Towner Grant Makers Boost Climate-Change Commitments by $3 Billion. Michael Towner, Iconic Legacy.9/14/2018 29 foundations capped the 3 day Global Climate Action Summit in San Francisco with an announcement of $3 billion in new pledges to reduce the rate of global warming. The funds will be deployed over the next five years. The announcement came in response to criticism that philanthropy has chronically underfunded one of the planet’s most vexing challenges. There is no overarching strategy guiding the group of foundations. Each institution plans to attack climate change using its own approach, whether it means developing alternative fuels, "re-greening" deforested lands, pressing for carbon-emission limits, or another strategy. The $3 billion is a "down payment" on increased philanthropic investment, said Charlotte Pera, president of the ClimateWorks Foundation. "There is a strong recognition from the philanthropic community that this issue is both urgent and long-term," she said. "I’m confident that there will be a lot of coordination on how these funds are spent going forward." In 2015, the most recent year for which Foundation Center data is available, less than 1 percent of grants from the nation’s largest 1,000 grant makers went to address climate change. The tide of new spending from institutional philanthropy comes as the federal government has withdrawn efforts to fight climate change. In June 2017, President Trump announced his intention to withdraw from the multinational Paris climate agreement, which laid out pathways to achieve a slowdown in global warming. The $4 billion total includes a $600 million commitment that the Hewlett Foundation announced in December. That announcement, says Larry Kramer, Hewlett’s president, was part of a 2 year campaign to get other donors interested in the topic. He said it was a signal to other donors that climate change would impact their work even if they do not directly support the environment. Larry Kramer is the current president of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the former dean of Stanford Law School. Harrison ford delivered a speech at Moscone Center for the Global Climate Action Summit sponsored by California Gov. Jerry Brown. Ford didn't name President Donald Trump in his talk, but some of his comments obviously referred to the U.S. leader. "For God's sake, stop electing leaders who don't believe in science," he said. "Or even worse, pretend they don't believe in science. Never forget who you're fighting for." Michael Towner When donors are asked what charity they would support if they could give to just one, 54% selected one of only 20 organizations, according to a new study. The findings show that a small number of national and international groups hold a privileged place in the philanthropy of American donors. Even though they were not prompted with a list of charities to choose from, the respondents most often picked a brand-name group such as the American Humane Society, Doctors Without Borders, Feeding America, Goodwill Industries, Planned Parenthood, the United Way, and Wounded Warrior Project. Among the 20 were five that were particularly popular. Thirty-six percent of donors picked one the following: Alsac/St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, the American Cancer Society, American Red Cross, Salvation Army, or Unicef. Donors preferred large organizations, underscoring the challenges small charities face from well-resourced competitors. Only 23% picked a favorite charity with annual revenue of $50 million or less; only 5% picked one with revenue of $1 million or less. 38% picked a charity with annual revenue of $1 billion or more. The favorite charities cited by donors had a median annual revenue — including donations, government support, and earned income — of $399 million. A bright spot for small organizations: The top donors, those who gave $2,000 or more during the 12 months preceding the survey, were most likely to pick a favorite charity with revenue under $50 million. Donors overwhelmingly favored organizations that work globally, as opposed to those that work exclusively stateside: 60% of donors chose a favorite charity that supports programs internationally. However, only 2% picked a nonprofit that works exclusively overseas. Political conservatives, parents with children at home, and Christians were most likely to favor global charities. By cause, health-related charities were the most commonly picked as favorites, cited by nearly one in three donors. Among other findings: Impact matters. The three most commonly cited reasons for selecting a particular charity as a favorite were the organization’s results (32%), the donor’s trust (28%), and the donor’s personal connection to the cause or charity (22%). Overhead spending doesn’t matter so much. Eight-four percent of donors picked a charity that spends 10 to 29 % of revenue on administrative costs, according to that charity’s informational tax forms. The average "overhead ratio" for the charities donors favored was just under 19%. But only 12% of donors said that using their money efficiently was the key factor in why they picked their favorite charity, and a February report by the same researchers discovered a charity’s spending on administrative costs had little impact on giving. Religion’s influence is muted. 82% of people who attend religious services at least monthly picked a favorite charity that was not faith-based. Michael Towner Amazon founder Jeff Bezos announced Thursday that he will give $2 billion to help homeless families and create a new network of nonprofit preschools in low-income communities. The pledge, announced in a tweet, fulfills the promise he made last year when he tweeted that he planned to give money to charities that help people facing the most desperate, immediate need. Bezos asked for feedback from nonprofit leaders working on the front lines to help the planet’s neediest people. The $2 billion gift establishes the Bezos Day One Fund, which will support two missions. The Day One Families Fund will steer money to existing charities that help the homeless. The Day One Academies Fund will create the preschools. When he first asked for suggestions on how to jump-start his philanthropy, Bezos got an earful. The feedback was swift and high-volume with nonprofits bombarding Bezos with requests. He responded to at least one request for a gift early this year with a $33 million donation to TheDream.US, a charity that provides college scholarships to undocumented students, but no other large donations were publicly announced. Bezos also entered the political arena. Earlier this month, he and his wife, MacKenzie, gave $10 million to With Honor, a veterans-focused political-action committee. Until now, Bezos and his family have publicly given a total of about $160 million to nonprofits over the past decade. Critics have complained that wasn’t a lot for a guy whose net worth Forbes recently pegged at nearly $163 billion. In his tweet announcing his plans, Bezos thanked people for their input. "It fills me with gratitude and optimism to be part of a species so bent on self-improvement," he wrote. Michael Towner |
BLOGArchives
May 2024
Categories
All
|