this is why i wont donate
qote from year 2002
But Mahfood, who continues to draw $168,000 a year in severance pay, remains involved in a prison ministry for the charity, according to employees and a longtime donor.
In response to recent criticism by a former board member that the Mahfood family has too much power over the charity, the executives said Food for the Poor employs just three family members: Ferdinand's brother Robin, who took over after Ferdinand stepped down, and two others. But internal documents show at least three additional relatives on the payroll.
The charity may be too closely tied to the Mahfoods' for-profit business, Essex Exports, said charity watchdogs and government officials.
The business and the charity, both controlled by the family, share office space, a phone system and a shipping department. The charity has bought more than $172,000 of goods from Essex since 1998, according to its tax returns.
the CEO gets $168k per year. so 1998-2002= $672k over 4 years
but only bought $172k of food goods.
there were other scandals of the ceo stealing over $270k.
more recently other scandals of overpaid employee's
and then there is the fact that they promote countries to look like this:
when in actual fact it looks like:
as for the new CEO:
Robin Mahfood himself enjoyed a steady increase in pay, more than doubling his salary in six years. In 2008, he earned $364,874.
thats enough to feed 4000 people for a year.
.. hmm lets dig deeper.
ok the charities supplier of goods is owned by family (more syphoning of funds) whilst the same family members also get an income by being his PA and other internal roles. (put simply they get paid twice).
the CEO's son's inlaw got atleast $150k each per year in a quote from a 2008 article (another 2k of people not fed per year).
.. its starting to get harder to work out their other incomes from the side jobs they do as goods suppliers. but a qote of 2003 says the goods supply business netted the guy atleast $50k.
so instead of buying produce from manufacturers (at cost value) they allow the inlaws to get the stock. add on alot of wages and extra hidden costs, and then the 'charity' pays the inlaws a premium.
so when the charity says it bought x value of stock. the (at cost value) is maybe only 20% of that