Print

Welcome, Guest

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lifetime]

Mike Gruitza, Congressional Office, Social Security, DPW and now... The United Way.... all moved to Hermitage OUT of Sharon and lets not talk about the Utility Companies. Now we have a "discussion" on the front page Herald as to the WHY and HOW the UW is moving. Location??? Well Central to Greenville would put the office in the area of N.Herm and Lamor... not State Street. Leaving a building that was paid for to lease one for 5 years in Herm and "rent" the empty office at 300 W State??? Sharon has a lot of empties..... Now the Board can't agree...after the fact... as to the votes...and it seems the ink was dry on the Lease Contract BEFORE the VOTE/EMAIL was even finished. Hmmmmm...
 
And reading of the "cash flow problem"... Lease costing in excess of how much? and presently $80,000 in rent from Correctionals is a bit puny with operating costs of shy of 300k to operate the UW?
 
Is this what the Board of the UW ( made up of supposedly well educated and successful businessmen/women ) have deemed a good "move". I don't know...just gets "curiouser and curiouser" 
 
 

[Jayhawk]

I'm glad i'm not the only one troubled by this.

First, the organization has a board that numbers 35 or 37 -- a totally disfunctional size. There are states with smaller legislatures. And generally in a group like this most decisions are arrived at by consensus and tend to be close to unanimous votes. Not 10-9, meaning barely half of the board even took part in the vote and barely a quarter of the board made the decision.

A vote that tight suggests more to the story than we've heard. One version of the reasoning i've heard is that their (owned) building is in poor repair or has high utilities. OK, then that should have been made clear along with details about how a move will SAVE money.

Instead, it's the lame excuse that the office needed to be more central to greenville. Which it isn't.

So the agency moves to the most expensive area in the county when, as Lifetime points out, there is countless suitable space within Sharon. In fact, the food warehouse has 4,800 sf (able to be subdivided) of newly remodeled space in the old A&P plaza on sharpsville avenue -- at less than half the price of the hermitage lease. Today's herald story also said the new lease requires payment of both utilities and -- something i've never heard of -- part of the property taxes.

For a charity that hasn't met its fundraising goal in God knows how many years, a charity that has greater social needs to meet than ever, a charity that has fewer gainfully employed people to solicit and less access to traditional payroll deductions... the last thing it needs to be doing is increasing overhead expenses. Especially without a good, logical explanation.

Increasing its visibility is another reason cited for the move. By moving to a small strip-plaza building 150 feet back from a 5-lane highway. Yeah, lots more people will think to donate because they see the sign on the side of the building while cruising past at 40 mph. Increased walk-in business? Difficult in a neighborhood without sidewalks.

the UW should be cutting overhead, not increasing it, and some creative searching probably would have turned up cheaper or even donated space. I wonder what the greenville people who recently merged into the agency think about this.

[NightmarePatrol]

There's very little online about this and since the herald has embarked on the "if you want to read the whole article you need to subscribe" train their article is not readily available to me.

Charities everywhere are having a really hard time the past couple of years. There are numerous companies that would be happy to donate a building in todays market, especially since they can claim a much higher value than the current market will bear. But, like it was said... there's more to the story than what's being reported.

[JimV]

Jay, you completely hit the nail on the head (as usual).  There are so many aspects of this mess that scream "SHADY BACKROOM DEAL!" that I don't even know where to begin.  So I guess I'll try a chronology (kudos to Courtney Saylor and the Herald for excellent reporting):
 
*First, the move (clearly favored by the executive director) is discussed at the March 16 meeting and passed by a preliminary vote of 17-3.  Later, the board agrees to "re-examine" the vote at the March 30 meeting.
*A motion to rescind was placed on the agenda for the March 30 meeting, but "within seconds" of the meeting beginning, a vote to sign the lease is rammed through and is approved by a narrow 10-9 margin, with the three most powerful board members (chairman, vice chairman, and treasurer) all voting no.
*The lease is signed "within hours" of the meeting.
*An attorney representing the new landlords (the infamous sewer-scofflaw Baldarelli family) emails the chairman April 9 and threatens legal action if any attempt is made to rescind the motion that authorized the signing of the lease.
*Said chairman resigns April 11, stating "I’m just not happy with the direction the organization is moving," and calling the move "just one issue of concern."
*It suddenly comes to light that ten votes were not sufficient to actually pass the motion at the March 30 meeting, and that "11 votes [were needed] for an actual majority."
 
I guess the questions I have are:
 
*Why wasn't the entire board included in such an important vote?
*Why was the vote rammed through before a motion to rescind could take place?
*Why was the lease signed "within hours" of the meeting?  At that point, what was the rush?
*Why didn't anyone bother to check which number of votes would constitute the majority needed to pass the motion?
*Why is the landlord already threatening legal action when no attempt to negate the lease has even taken place?
*And finally and--in my opinion--most importantly, WHY IS THIS MOVE TAKING PLACE ANYWAY?  Why is a nonprofit agency whose "costs [already] exceed [its] revenues" so hellbent on abandoning a property it OWNS OUTRIGHT in favor of a nondescript former Dairy Mart less than four miles east of its current location?  The "more centralized location" argument is complete bull--as a recent editorial pointed out, a truly centralized UW office relative to the territory it serves would be located in Fredonia or Transfer.  And if you go with the poor repair and high utilities argument, why is the property still apparently suitable to be leased to the Sharon Community Corrections center (I'd love to see the uproar if the possibility of IT moving to Hermitage came up)?  How will the move to a new space eliminate those costs if there is no plan to shed the current one--only a vague idea to offer it up for lease (good luck finding a tenant for it in this economy, in this town, and with the aforementioned corrections center as its next-door neighbor)?  And why was the possibility of renovating the building and upgrading the utility systems not explored?  Somehow, I think those one-time costs would be a more judicious use of resources than a five-year lease that includes not only high rent but also utility and property tax payments.
 
There NEEDS to be an investigation into possible conflicts of interest between the Baldarelli family, the UW executive director, and the board members who voted in favor of the lease, as well as an attempt to break the lease (given that the motion didn't technically pass, I think they have a good case.  In any event, the potential legal expenses likely pale in comparison to those of the exorbitant rent agreement).  Meanwhile, I strongly urge that NO donations be made to the United Way until it has a good and thorough housecleaning; instead, they should be made directly to its partner agencies, the complete list of which can be found here.  I don't know about you, but I want my charitable donations going directly toward their cause--NOT getting frittered away greasing the palms of law-breaking slumlords.

[lifefeedsonlife]

Essentially the UW is a middle-man operation (a charitable clearing house more or less) . . . and in this day and age of trying to cut unnecessary cost - I think your last two sentences sum things up nicely.

[Lifetime]

A number of years back I was involved in helping the local Red Cross to continue obtaing funds through the United Way for Veterans Services. Our Local Red Cross had been involved with Veterans for a ton of years...they even helped Civil War Widows with benefits and partial Pensions.
 
It had come to light that the UW was pulling funding for the Veterans Services and the United Way was folding that portion of donations to the Red Cross. Having the Red Cross do some Veterans Services was a blow to the Veterans Community and... if I am in need of correction... the Community Chest or later the United Way was originally established to help raise funds for the Red Cross on a larger than local community scale. I believe the Red Cross could "receive" donations before but...was NOT allowed to solicit them on an (Inter) National Scale (on their own).
 
I almost seemed that the UW came into existance from the needs of the Red Cross and over the years...more and more recipients were added.
 
At those meetings I attended...it did become contentious at times... and it did continue the donations to the ARC for a time but the National Red Cross stepped in and ordered the locals to stop and desist Veterans cases or lose all their funding. My, what a nasty group, Charitable Heads can be. The whole story is lengthy.
 
My point.... the UW "grew" and now the funds don't seem to cover the needs, the relying "Nons" have. Maybe due to the overhead as well as the scope of the incoming funds.
 
I too, would say... donate directly to whom you want but.... be aware that in doing so...the UW MAY, after looking at the books of said Non Profits.... cut back their funding in a like manner to those NP Groups. If they do this...and there are other NP Groups vieing for the freed up funds.... future help to your Fav NP may become nill if...the direct donations stop or slow down for them. Just mentioning the possibilities. In this Economy, anything can happen.
 
 
 

April 4, 1955

The Red Cross liberalizes fundraising policy to allow chapters to participate in federated campaigns, such as the Community Chest, a forerunner of the United Way.

[Spicoli]

I wish I was still having payroll deductions for the UW so I could cancel.

Maybe the Balderelli's will pay their sewer bills now, with all that cash.

[Jayhawk]

*An attorney representing the new landlords (the infamous sewer-scofflaw Baldarelli family) emails the chairman April 9 and threatens legal action if any attempt is made to rescind the motion that authorized the signing of the lease.

...*Why is the landlord already threatening legal action when no attempt to negate the lease has even taken place?

I think the adjectives used in the first paragraph explain the answer.

And if you go with the poor repair and high utilities argument, why is the property still apparently suitable to be leased to the Sharon Community Corrections center (I'd love to see the uproar if the possibility of IT moving to Hermitage came up)?  How will the move to a new space eliminate those costs if there is no plan to shed the current one--only a vague idea to offer it up for lease (good luck finding a tenant for it in this economy, in this town, and with the aforementioned corrections center as its next-door neighbor)?  And why was the possibility of renovating the building and upgrading the utility systems not explored?

Yeah, even vacant it needs to be maintained. If to be rented, it needs major repairs. So unless the plan it to sell the property outright (good luck with that, and there may be restrictions since it was a gift), there will be further expenditures on the old office in addition to new rent.

Also, note that they are rending a property currently occupied by Sylvan Learning Center and must pay sylvan a "stipend" to get them to move. So it couldn't just be office space in hermitage, it had to be someone else's. If the idea spot was an old dairy mart, if i'm not mistaken the one at Buhl Farm and Highland is still vacant after circle K moved.

Meanwhile, I strongly urge that NO donations be made to the United Way until it has a good and thorough housecleaning; instead, they should be made directly to its partner agencies, the complete list of which can be found here.

Unfortunately many people would be inclined just to halt their contributions entirely, which only hurts the charities.

It's sad that the whole origin of the UW is that one, central collection system can eliminate the effort and overhead needed for a couple dozen charities to bombard the community nonstop with individual campaigns. The concept is still good, but in this environment the UW should be doing everything it can to squeeze costs out of the process. Once you get above 20% administrative cost for the middleman, it no longer looks like a good idea.

[Less Ream]

Im going to make sure that I donate even more to the United Way now! I always hated going down to that rat infested dump where the UW is now. This is a great move by the board members. This move will give the UW much more visibility and a more central location. KUDOS TO JIM MICSKY!!! I know how much business that plaza receives being next to Chiccarinos, Hogans Heros, Vantage Home Health, Staples, McDonalds, Burger King, Pizza Hut And Home Depot. The new location will be closer to my home now too!

[NightmarePatrol]

Hey Les... welcome to the board. 
Nice to see a new face, it's been a while.

[Less Ream]

Well I can't say that I like what I've been reading on this message board about the UW moving. Everybody seems to want to cry foul play and "shady back room deals". The vote was a roll call vote and the board voted to move TWICE. The Baldarelli's didn't have to twist anyone's arm to convince the board that a move was and is necessary.

No sense in denying that the new location will be a great success to the organization. Its a shame that a few are being so critical and whining to the Herald.   

[Lifetime]

Visability?? Maybe with a Neon Sign... LOL.... And I can't find a need for me to actually have to go to the UW no matter where it is at. If I donate.... check's in the mail.... While I was going to meetings at the UW on West State... I didn't see dire repairs or even odd smells....it was just office space, not a nightclub.
 
I still think there is still a story UNTOLD in this but... Since I don't give to the United Way... no skin off me, but just interesting reading and conversation on the matter. I don't need to give a donation to the Middleman. Again... it is just interesting reading and discussion.
 
And I don't think it is a "few" whiners" but then again... maybe we can see how successful they are in the number of donations that are dropped or given. I would say the success is measured by the number of individual donations.... not so much the monetary amount.
 
Ohhh and welcome to "da New Guy".

[Less Ream]

I wouldn't measure success by dollars raised just for helping sake, I would measure success by the amount of donations for local citizens in distress the donations AID and not just aiding disaster stricken areas or feeding the children of africa like any other non-profit organiztion ie. the Red Cross.

I think there is something wrong with labeling the UW as an unnecessary "middleman". Being located in a more populated city with a higher traffic volume allows for many more donations to be collected. It will be more visible in Hermitage compared to its location in Sharon. Your in denial if you think otherwise.

[Jayhawk]

Its a shame that a few are being so critical and whining to the Herald.

The disharmony and division within the board is only part of the reason this has gotten attention in the community. The bigger reason for concern is that the last thing the agency needs to be doing in tough economic times is to be increasing its administrative overhead costs, particularly when it's apparent that if they really had to move, suitable accommodations could have been found or offered to them at far less cost, if not even.

[Jayhawk]

I wouldn't measure success by dollars raised just for helping sake, I would measure success by the amount of donations for local citizens in distress the donations AID and not just aiding disaster stricken areas or feeding the children of africa like any other non-profit organiztion ie. the Red Cross.

I have no idea what you meant there, but bottom line success is that they are raising less money today as a larger (with greenville) organization than they did years ago as a stand-alone. While at the same time administrative costs as a cut of donations are rising.

Being located in a more populated city with a higher traffic volume allows for many more donations to be collected. It will be more visible in Hermitage compared to its location in Sharon.

Just because 20,000 cars a day drive by at 40 mph doesn't in any way correlate with any of them suddenly deciding to pull and and donate. The sign on the wall won't be any more visible than the annual thermometer in front of the FNB building or the ones at other key intersections around the area.

The new location will be closer to my home now  too!

Wow! Mine, too. BFD.

i'm missing the advantage of storefront access. What kind of walk-in "hey, i think i'll give you $200 today" traffic do they have?

The only people who would typically ever visit the office would be the 3 or 4 employees, the board of directors and the fund-raising chairmen. Even the recipient agencies probably only send a rep to an allocation meeting once or twice a year. The 2 or 3 miles east it is moving is not a significant, more-central change in location, particularly considering the new greenville-area affiliates. I'm gonna guess walk-in traffic other than this is somewhere between nil and zero.

...I know how much business that plaza receives being next to Chiccarinos,  Hogans Heros, Vantage Home Health, Staples, McDonalds, Burger King,  Pizza Hut And Home Depot.

The Red Cross moved into a strip plaza in Sharpsville next to a sub  shop, too. No doubt that caused a significant increase in donations.