EMAIL DETAILS

Sandy this is a great and thorough report. Most interesting is her lack of knowledge on how the Washington appropriations process works.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 11, 2014, at 2:53 PM, "Samuel Berger" <sberger@albrightstonebridge.com> wrote:
>
> I had quite a good meeting with Ertherin on Saturday morning.
>
> Spent an hour or so talking about what WFP is doing in Syria, West Africa, elsewhere. I raised WFP/WFP USA (don't think that was on her agenda).
>
> I said that I thought we had made progress on the policy side -- cooperation seemed to be going well -- but there were still concerns on the fundraising side.
> - - On n corporates, counterproductive not to work more closely together. Undermines credibility of WFP if we are coming at companies from all directions.
> --On direct solicitation, gone through WFP process. Nowhere do you claim that contribition is t/d. But we know donors think it is. Come to us for tax receipts. So we know that hundreds/thousands of people are unwittingly said I'd carefully gone through WFP's various on-line soliicitations. Nowhere does WFP say that donations to it are tax deductible. But we know significant number of donors think it is tax deductible because they call us seeking a receipt for tax purposes. So they are unwittingly claiming an unlawful tax deduction. Seems to me that's a pretty good WP story. [For ever 1000 Americans who take a deduction on a $100 contribution at a 20% tax rate, that's a $20,000 subsidy from US taxpayers to WFP]. It will come as no surprise to her that there are some people on the Hill who are out to get the UN. Pretty good hammer to give them.
> --Seems to me the problem could be worse where you deal with companies and point of sale efforts. Would companies be liable if they didn't make clear disclosure on all material that contributions are not deductible? Dealing with large sums here and companies which certainly don't want to risk their reputations. --
> -- Said that members of WFP USA ExComm consider themselves as having fiduciary responsibilities which they take seriously and, quite honestly, we are uncomfortable with this situation.
> --Finally and most importantly, I said that I didn't understand why WFP was taking these initiatives to raise money in the United States. We absolutely share its goal of drawing every dollar of private money out of the US that is possible. It made no sense to me for WFP not to use WFP USA as the vehicle for US fundraising. 98 percent of what we raise goes to Rome. I understand WFP is using a facilitation firm in US which charges much more than that so WFP is losing money by not working with us. Less money for hungary kids.
>
> There was some back and forth during this, although i don't think she knew all the facts. There was some push back, but not confidently. Points she made:
>
> (1) Her only interest here is drawing as much private sector money from the US as possible and she does not think that is happening now. I said we absolutely agreed with that goal and were ramping up our fundraising.
>
> (2) She does not have full transparency into WFP USA's finances. (Knowing that is not true) i gave her my personal promise that that would be available to WFP quickly and regularly.
>
> (3) Some of WFP USA's money goes to other groups. I said that this was insignificant, each had some unique purpose and i would send her a list of all those contributions and their objectives.
>
> The discussion was not as argumentative as in the past (which doesn't mean anything will change) but i'd like to follow up with her on these point this week.
>
> The most revealing thing she said, however, is that she clearly does not umderstand the role we play on Congressional appropriations. In her mind, this money comes as a result of who WFP is and what it does, plus the work they do with the Administration and the Hill ("lots of meetings on the Hill", work closely with Raj Shah). I noted that UN agencies weren't allowed to lobby and she quickly said "educational opportunities"
>
> I didn't try to argue the point at breakfast, but we need a strategy that makes clear to her who does the heavy lifting here. Obviously., her Washington office has no interest in reporting on this accurately.
>
> Again, who knows if anything will change. Clearly, she wants a presence in the US. But perhaps we can push them back in some places that impinge on what we are trying to accomplish.
>
> Sandy
> Cl