I notice that you do not back this claim with a quote, Shadow Minister.

>>In my posts I have specifically indicated the need for high levels of competence which are individually based.<<

Because you have not.

And the reason you have not is because there is so little substance to the CEO function within a charity, claiming the need for "high levels of competence" would sound rather hollow. Of course, every single task in an organization requires "a high degree of competence", but only that which is appropriate to that task.

Having a highly paid CEO of a charity is like having a master of origami making paper planes. Sure, he'd do it well. Probably better than any normal paper plane maker. But why would you bother.

If you would care to put some meat into your argument, try using some specific metrics such as revenues, MER (since they are charities), FTE count etc. and explain exactly what it is that makes managing them so tough.

I think you would also find that, apart from the sheer lack of challenge or risk involved, most charities would fall into the SME category.

And yes, I had assumed that you would understand that when I described a "retired mortgage broker", the position was not that of the new recruit to the industry. But I am gradually learning that I should not assume too high a level of understanding, so will try to speak more slowly in future.

Thanks Shadow,

The Zimbabwe Sunday Times reported on 1 June: "Although the MDC has been claiming that its supporters have fallen victim to political violence, top party officials are allegedly recruiting young Zimbabweans in South Africa who are being deployed to cause terror in Zimbabwe". The report continued that some were recruited from South African universities, while others were Zimbabwe National Army deserters and ex-police. Of course, funding is a crucial link in such activity, and funding to MDC has been lavish.

These forces' modus operandi is to alert the press that an atrocity has taken place, at the same time they have their members dress in ZANU-PF garb before going out to commit an atrocity. The press is soon on the scene, hearing witnesses saying that the attack was carried out by ZANU-PF people. In other words, a variation of Selous Scouts methods from the old Rhodesia War.

I don't expect you to believe any of this against what has been fed through our own media (and NGOs like Amnesty), but you should consider such versions in the context of southern and central Africa's extreme geo-strategic importance in resources, precious metals and diamonds.

Remember too that Zimbabwe's leadership provoked much embargoist anger when it kept refusing to saddle itself with the type of enormous, conditional and unrepayable debt that outfits like the IMF kept prescribing for it.

Pericles

My case is simply that your following sweeping statements cannot be supported:

“there is so little substance to the CEO function within a charity” and

“I am absolutely certain that the task of running a charity, …., does not require "a depth of understanding…..

Your only contributions are your personal opinions.

These feeling of yours while carrying much weight in you own mind run contrary to the practices of every major charity, and which if true would mean that thousands of dedicated people in charities are wrong and you with not one iota of experience in the field are right.

In spite of my challenging you repeatedly to support your preposterous statements you appear to be incapable of giving even the smallest morsel of evidence to support this.

I ask again:

Back up your statement with even one valid example or even some of the “Specific metrics” you so cherish. (And the examples of which would be more applicable to financial institutions).

Maybe as a retired mortgage broker you would care to put your money where your mouth is and offer your services heading up a charity. I think they would find your experience insufficient.

Regards your lie, I did not provide a quote as I was space limited and I assumed you could read, as follows:

“In my work I can see the difference between someone with an in depth understanding of the issues and those that are merely competent.”

“The wrong person in the job leads to well intentioned but breath taking incompetence”

MO

The Zimbabwe Sunday times is a gov owned political mouth piece. If this is the only source of your information, I suggest you look up the word Gullible in the dictionary.

No one in Zimbabwe actually believes what is written, and the only reason its circulation has not dwindled to zero is that it has a classifieds for trading in second hand goods

You keep spitting out the sneering quips drenched in bitter sarcasm, Shadow. My sources cover people too - Zimbabwean, South African and from elsewhere in Africa. They're not at all gullible, ill-informed or uncritical of news; the Zimbabweans I know check for specific, reported information - they do not vet their sources, as you seem to, but rather they including even the most outlandish stuff reported on their country from here too. As a diverse group, the Africans I know are sick of their countries being kept down, in debt, and under the heels of puppet-traitors funded by imperialists. And these people are aware of the types of methods used by post-colonial imperialism ever since the murder of Patrice Lumumba.

More bluster, Shadow Minister. You're actually becoming quite good at it.

It does at least release you from the need to answer specific questions.

Just for the sake of consistency, let's recap a little, shall we.

My starting position was:

"Oxfam, at the last (2007) count, had six executives earning over $100,000... How do these people sleep at night, in the knowledge that their livelihood is entirely dependent on the continued suffering of others? There's an entire industry of spongers out there, dipping into your pocket to support their lifestyle, all the while dripping platitudes about supporting good works. It's obscene."

Your response:

>>As far as executive salaries go this is a pittance. I have tradesmen working for me that with a bit of over time earn more than that. Any person with that level of talent is worth far more, and is probably donating 80% of his value.<<

At no point have you bothered to justify this ridiculous claim, but now have the gall to suggest:

>>In spite of my challenging you repeatedly to support your preposterous statements you appear to be incapable of giving even the smallest morsel of evidence to support this.<<

Well, allow me to suggest, in all politeness, "after you"

You state the salary is a pittance. You offer a job description as proof, without any consideration of the complexity of the tasks on that list. And you have the blind cheek to complain:

>>Your only contributions are your personal opinions.<<

So, please, go ahead.

Explain to me, a mere "minor clerk in a gov dept, alien to real world salaries and requirements" how six executives of a charity with revenue of $60m deserve $100k plus each.

That is SME territory, not BHP.

Once again, running a charity does not require anything more than run-of-the-mill business skills.

That is certainly my strongly-held opinion.

But I guess I've never been a consultant.

Pericles

All I have asked you to do is to substantiate your position. You have not because you cannot.

Oxfam average income over the last couple of years was about $700m (last financial statement) not $60m as you claim. (Strike one) not exactly SME territory.

The directors (employees factory manager level) in a large manufacturing organisation for which I used to work used to earn about $800k p.a. with bonuses, Area managers earned about $300k and the senior technicians earned > $100k (so the Oxfam execs are well below 20%. Strike 2)

Your statement
“There is nothing at all challenging, from a CEO's perspective, in managing an organization that does no R&D, no product design, no product development, no manufacturing, has no shareholders, no profit targets, and has a "sales" operation that consists of begging money from the general public”
Shows a total ignorance of the scale of operations involved in such an operation.

When I give some broad typical responsibilities required by the CEO, instead of trying to refute them (which you can’t) you irrelevantly complain of lack of detail. (strike 3).

I believe I have shown how six executives of an organisation of $700m turnover can easily justify remuneration of $100k.

The ball is now firmly in your court.

If you have anything more than hot air, I am listening.

MO

You state “My sources …….. do not vet their sources, as you seem to, but rather they including even the most outlandish stuff.”

Then please don’t publish it as fact as you will lose all credibility. And you will have no one but yourself to blame when your posts drawn scorn.