<p>There’s no question that Komen can do what they want.</p>
<p>And there’s no question that people like my wife can do what they want. Which, at this point, is to withdraw all support for SGK and give it to PP instead.</p>
<p>My wife, like my college girlfriend, received services from PP way back in the day that wasn’t available elsewhere. PP was a valuable support to them - no questions asked, no explanations demanded. SGK looks to be just another money sucking corporate charity raking in cash in the name of a “respectable” disease so the board can swing their egos around and advance their personal agendas.</p>
<p>Which is exactly what they did; which is why I don’t get all the angst? </p>
<p>The amount of Komen funds is ~$600k, out of a $1 billion PP budget. </p>
<p>But in the end, it may be less services provided by PP (due the less funding from Komen), but more services given by other providers (due to increased funding by Komen). Kinda hard to estimate how that nets out.</p>
<p>I completely agree. also don’t forget that Brinker repeatedly said "SGK did NOT try to single out PP, and that Handel had no involvement. If what Huffpo and Atlantic are reporting is true (meaning, Handel came up with a scheme to only target PP and Brinker and the board approved it, and the whole sordid affair is well document on a trail of email seen by many insiders), then Brinker LIED through her teeth over and over again to the rest of the world.</p>
<p>Not only she showed an incredibly poor judgment (this is a kinder explanation), she also willfully and flagrantly lied to all the sponsors and donors when their plan backfired. Totally unacceptable. She should step down.</p>
<p>I would bet that there are journalists now seeking insider stories for in depth reports on SGK. All of their actions - both good and bad will be exposed. For instance, until this fiasco, I did not know that they spend ton of donors’ money to suit other charities for the word “Cure” (amazing!!!). I did not know that they defunded stem cell cancer research. I did not know that they were in kahoot (sp?) with right wing ideologues. No way I will be buying anything pink going forward.</p>
<p>I read that Mollie Williams, a senior level staff at SGK, resigned on the spot over the decision to defund PP. She is not saying anything yet. I think she will talk sooner or later, and all the lies and excuses will be exposed. </p>
<p>I personally believe that by the time the dust settles, SGK’s brand will be so seriously damaged that any recovery to the former level is glory is extremely unlikely.</p>
<p>I think it’s a good thing in the end. Just like in the forest where old growth trees prevent any sapling from surviving, SGK sucked the oxygen out of the entire women’s cancer ecosystem, and we need more refreshing “young” saplings with innovative and balanced approaches.</p>
<p>Oh, I’m pretty darn sure there won’t be ANY increased funding from Komen. I expect their fundraising will drop by at least half in the next year. </p>
<p>They DIDN’T decide to fund more mammograms. They decided to defund organizations “under investigation”, knowing full well that they weren’t going to apply this new requirement to Penn State. They knew precisely what they were doing - they discussed it at length. The recommendation was brought to the Board by the President - Brinker. The Board had no idea it would blow up in their face. </p>
<p>Now they’ll fund FEWER mammograms, fewer screenings, less health education, and perhaps less research, and spend more on lawyers, spin doctors, and PR.</p>
<p>All the more reason why I won’t give a penny to them. The last thing I want is to have my money going to fatten further the fat cats.</p>
<p>I have donated to PP again (after this whole thing broke out). Now, I will be donating to organizations that deal with a broader basiss of gynecological cancers - breast cancer is NOT the only female cancer, you know - mine came with a single digit 5 year survival rate for the stage and the nature of the cancer behavior. I was a passive donor for SGK, meaning, when friends and relatives wanted me to donate, I did some modest amount, but I did not do it on my own. Now, if my friends ask me again, I will say NO, will explain the basis of my decision, and offer to donate instead to another breast cancer organization.</p>
<p>Exactly. And that’s a damned shame, but they have no one to blame but themselves. They’ve lost my support and won’t likely get it back, because really, what can they do to prove they’re once again worthy of the trust of they’ve squandered?</p>
<p>It’s kind of odd, really. How many people even had any idea that the SGK foundation even gave money to PP, or cared, until this situation? You give your money to them, assuming it’s all for breast cancer research and detection. You don’t really think about what organizations they are spreading their money to. And now that they’ve defunded a small portion of the monies that go to PP (that most of us never knew about anyways), oh, such angst!</p>
<p>I’m a big supporter of PP, not really so much of SGK. But I don’t see why it would be one or the other. Why is PP entitled to money from SGK? I can understand how some people might be angry that their donations to SGK may end up at an organization they don’t support, and private charities can choose where they put their money. What I see is people getting quite manipulated by whatever news organizations/talk show hosts they choose to listen to.</p>
<p>Fang, I have to disagree. I think it’s too late to put it behind them, no matter what they do. Obviously Handel must go, but Brinker must go too. She was the public face of the lies, spreading the “investigation” fiction all over TV on Thursday. As long as she’s there, trust isn’t possible.</p>
<p>Even if Brinker goes, though, it will be long, difficult road back to credibility for them. It will take years if it ever happens at all. The brand itself is damaged beyond repair IMO.</p>
I only can only tell you how this situation hits me as someone who donates to a lot of organizations. I am dismayed that Komen decided to mingle its focus on curing breast cancer with a (IMO) totally unrelated political issue and decided it would rather have less impact on breast cancer by stop working with an organization that has a differing position on abortion. I would be similarly disappointed in a left leaning organization that decided cut its impact on its primary focus because it cut off right leaning organizations because of its position on non-related issues.</p>
<p>I thought it was interesting that there were many ads for the Susan Komen 3-day Breast Cancer walk in the hours before the Super Bowl. I had the tv on while I was preparing food for our party and I bet there was an ad for the walk every hour or so. I think SK is going to have a tough time pulling off those walks this year. For someone who wants to do those walks, there are other opportunities (Avon, for example).</p>
<p>I agree they should fire Brinker as well, because she lied and and lied, and she hired Handel, but it’s harder. She founded the organization and Susan G. Komen was her sister. All the more reason she should step down and let SGK focus on it’s mission but she might not want to.</p>
<p>As an alternative to SGK’s breast cancer walks, don’t forget Relay for Life, sponsored by the American Cancer Society — money raised goes toward fighting ALL cancers.</p>
<p>Spotlight sure is a harsh place for SGK to be in. I am glad I am better informed about the issues now. I am appalled about the lack of $ going to research along with a lot else I have learned in the last week. WOW. I don’t think they can rebound. They will never see another $ from me. I am ashamed that I had not done research in the past before giving to them and participating in events. Thanks for the alternate ideas for breast cancer and other cancer fighting organizations.</p>
<p>Those who are concerned about cancer research funding should realize that the money spent by foundations on research is peanuts. Most research is funded by the NIH. Do you know that the NIH budget is so tight that the National Cancer Institute is able to fund only 7% of R01 (major mechanism) applications? In better days they were funding 30%. The review process is much better at NIH than at the foundations, as well. Your time might be better spent urging your senators and representatives to increase funding for NIH than walking for the Komen or any other foundation.</p>
<p>^^ Do you have the relative numbers handy - i.e. $$ spent on breast cancer research by federal government agencies and $$ spent on the same by private foundations and then $$ spent on the same by SGK? It’d help to quantify your point.</p>
<p>the more I learn about SGK, the more I realize that Brinker was operating like a owner of a private company rather than a CEO of a public company.</p>
<p>For instance, no public company would allow their CEO to appoint a son to the board like SGK, where Brinker’s son is serving as a board member. Would like to bet that she similarly populated the board with her cronies? No public company CEO will be allowed to make MAJOR policy decisions about the company based on his/her political affiliation and political beliefs and create a firestorm of public outcry. The shareholders will revolt in no time. The market will punish him/her. The idea is that public companies do NOT want to become embroiled in a political wedge issue since they are in the business of appealing to as many people as possible within the boundary of what their “product” should cover. </p>
<p>And, yet, this is precisely what Brinker did - the decision to defund PP based on her political beliefs. As much as everybody is talking about Kanren Hanel’s involvement, I believe the buck stops with Brinker. She is the one who hired Handel when everybody knew she was a rabid anti choicer with an axe to grind after all, she ran on that promise when she ran for an office. No, Handel was not hired for a position of lunch menu distribution. She was hired for “public policy” as a SVP. How can you not think that whoever puts Handel with a rabid axe to grind in that kind of position INTENDED to let Haden to execute on her beliefs and agenda one way or the other? Brinker herself is a major Republican donor who sent money to very committed anti choicer politicians. She sits on many pharma companies’ boards, and lobbied against environment issues related to cancer ecosystem. </p>
<p>In the end, 100% of the responsibilities for this debacle rest on Brinker’s shoulder: it’s her decision, and it was she who went on to interview programs and lied through the teeth that the defunding decision had nothing to do with the sham investigation, while evidence and quotes from anonymous insiders are already mounting that SGK thought very carefully about how to defund PP with a plausible excuse. </p>
<p>So, she behaved as if SGK were HER private company that she owns, and there is no public accounting for her decisions regarding HER company. What she did not realize is that what shareholders are to public companies is what donors are to charity organization - with one major difference: donors can IMMEIATELY stop giving with NO ADVERSE consequences to themselves, while shareholders of a public company have a lot to lose by bringing the company to bankruptcy as a way of punishing the actions of key executives. </p>
<p>By now, SGK must have learned that it is a PUBLIC company (sort of), and cannot operate like a private business owned by a founder. If SGK is to emerge as a more open, accountable orgnization, Brinker must step down and the entire board needs to go with her to make room with more impartial and accountable set of stakeholders and executives to step in.</p>
<p>I’d love to have been a fly on the wall when Brinker fielded those calls from the furious CEOs of the major corporate sponsors. She just threw them all under the bus by the defunding decision. Especially Energizer. The whole first day, Komen’s Facebook status was an announcement of Energizer batteries as a new corporate sponsor. Komen didn’t update the status, leaving the poor bunny out to dry.</p>
<p>Did she lie to them the way she lied to us? Looking at her public pronouncements, every word out of her mouth was untrue, including “and” and “the.” She was in Baghdad Bob territory, telling us that response was “very favorable” when we could see angry posts scrolling by at four or five a minute.</p>
<p>Umm, Komen is not a public corporation; it is a private, non-profit corporation. Komen does not have any shareholders; there is no stock in a 501(c)(3) corp, by definition. </p>
<p>Now if you want to suggest that some/many donors will bail, as will Corporate sponsorships…no doubt that will happen. The brand has been tarnished.</p>
<p>Komen’s Board consists of ~30 individuals. It is hard to see how one more, even the unpaid son, is gonna sway much policy. Moreover, the fact that her son is on the board is not a trade secret. It has been fully disclosed in Komen’s filings and tax returns (Form 990’s, which are publicly available, are great sources of info on non-profit corps). And, while I don’t know Komen’s bylaws I would guess that the Komen Board approved of his appointment.</p>
<p>According to Komen’s Annual Report, of the $400M raised, </p>
<p>$75M to research
$140M to education (which I assume includes the grants to PP?)
$47M to screening
$20M to treatment
$75M to G&A & fundraising expenses)</p>