Couple sues United Way over policy, funding

Ventura County Star ^ | November 16, 2003 | By John Mitchell

[11th_VA]

Hopefully this is a trend ...

[TSgt]

Good for them!

I loath their annual extortion drives.

[jimkress]

Hopefully this is a trend ...

Hopefully it's not. You don't like the United Way? Don't give them your money! Don't expand the trend to abuse the court system for every little bump in life.

If ever there was a frivolous law suit, this is it.

[gdani]

Hopefully this is a trend ...

Hopefully what's a trend?

Abusing the court system in an attempt to force a private entity to do something that the Boy Scouts themselves aren't complaining about?

[SJackson]

Apparently WellPoint was promised that expenses would run 15%, contributed $3 million, and saw expenses of $786,963, ont $450,000.

The Boy Scout issue aside, an overrun of $336,963 on $3 million is more than a little bump. I’m sure Ventura County charities could find uses for $336,963.

[Roughneck]

>>>>Abusing the court system in an attempt to force a private entity to do something that the Boy Scouts themselves aren't complaining about?<<<<<

I remember a fella that said his daughter was an atheist (not true), but he went on to try and remove "Under God" from our national pledge - BTW his daughter was not complaining about THAT either, yet the socialist-atheistic 9th circuit picked up that charge....

"Abusing the Court System" is, I think, in the eyes of the beholder..these folks have EVERY RIGHT to sue the United way, if I donated large amounts to them...I'd join in. I recommend a class action lawsuit againts this socialist-atheistic organization...

[TommyDale]

"...the socialist-atheistic 9th circuit..."

You just hit on an important item. By filing suit in the West, this case will never get beyond the local level. And most likely, it will get tossed by a liberal judge that sides with the United Way and all the other pro-gay organizations.

[gatex]

"United Way nondiscrimination policy ...."

The nondiscrimination policy discriminates against the Boy Scouts.

[kimoajax]

"Abusing" the court system is now part of our legislative process.

[GOPJ]

Here's how it works: One nonprofit gets money from United Way for providing services for 800 clients. The chumps (those who donate to United way) think "that's great, it a good use of my charity money."

But here's the catch.

All the non-profits have an informal agreement with each other to refer to each other. It started with good intentions, but when the numbers started justifying the cash, it became a crutch.

The liberal nonprofits have to work together as fewer and fewer people use their "services."

They pass "clients" around.

That way 10 or 15 organizations can claim the same 800 people. United Way puts out a statement saying your millions have helped 12,000 deserving people. What they don't tell you is that it's the same 800 people counted by many organizations. It's an outrage that's not covered by the likes of "60 Minutes," or NBC, ABC, etc., because United Way's a liberal icon. And they don't investigate their own.

When will FOX News start an investigative magazine to look at outrages never covered by the liberal press? Hannity? Anyone? O'Reilly

[AIC]

The Boy Scouts sued United Way in Fla. for their donation this year and won.

[Johnny Crab]

Starve 'em!

I got sick and tired of the arm-twisters at my employers AND the local United Gay's reply to my letter asking about the Scouts issue. I sent a "nice" letter to my personnel department indicating that they needed to remove my payroll deduct to UG as I did NOT want to contribute to an organization that expects me to "send my son on camping trips with men who love men".

A whimper'd "OK" came back...

[Timesink]

Smith said people who contribute to United Way can continue to specify that their money go to the Boy Scouts, and it will be delivered to them.

BWA-HA-HAA! Nice try.

[moyden2000]

Never give to the left-wings thugs at United Way or the Red Cross.

[WOSG]

Abusing the court system in an attempt to force a private entity to do something that the Boy Scouts themselves aren't complaining about?"

It's an absolute outrage what local United Way orgs in some cities are doing to the Boy Scouts, but too many of the boy scout councils are intimidated by the political correctness to put up a fight about it.

That's what happened here in Austin, TX. UW and Boy Scouts joined hands and said it was a wonderful thing that United Way would stop funding the boy scouts which does so much good. Not a peep about whether the 'inclusiveness policy' should even be questioned. So UW which funds AIDS groups, drug rehab, women's shelters, and all sorts of 'special case' charities, wont help the boy scouts because they wont allow gay scoutmasters ... The cognitive dissonance is beyond belief.

I was sickened that the boy scout council cravenly gave in to this.

[WOSG]

It never hurts to make known *why* you are doing it, although it is more effective to send it to your United Way local organization heads rather than your own HR.

[Rummyfan]

Alright! This is a good start.

[jimkress]

So what? They lied to you, don't give them any more money!

These people incurred NO HARM from their gifts to UW. Their lawsuit is frivolous. It's a waste of our money and it only serves to further extend the putrid, corrupting tentacles of the legal 'profession' deeper into our lives.

Only a lawyer would want this case to proceed because only lawyers will benefit from it.

[justshutupandtakeit]

You are missing the point. The claim is the donations were taken under false pretenses therefore the suit is entirely justified. It is essentially a claim of breach of contract by the organization. Such claims are routinely adjudicated by the courts.

[gdani]

The claim is the donations were taken under false pretenses therefore the suit is entirely justified. It is essentially a claim of breach of contract by the organization. Such claims are routinely adjudicated by the courts.

Assuming the plaintiffs are correct (and we don't know if they are) about the administrative expenses being 20% instead of 15%, there's no mention of whether the "agreement" was an oral one or a written contract.

In the article there is also no mention of the legal claims the plaintiffs are making (breach of contract, etc) in their suit.

It also doesn't say how exactly the plaintiffs arrived at the 20% figure. That's not info (i.e. the budget for one project or one donor) that would be available to the general public.