UO librarians crush Duck coaches $6K to $0 in Charitable Fund Drive giving

Every fall Oregon runs a Charitable Fund Drive for state employees. Everyone on the state payroll gets a few emails asking them to donate to local and state charities. You know the drill. You can give lump sum or sign up for convenient monthly payroll deductions. (I reccomend lump-sum, given what Trump is about to do to the tax code.)

You pick which charities you want to give your money to, and you can opt out of receiving junk mail requests for more money. Sensible and efficient. UO employees usually give about $300K in total. Sign up here.

The librarians are usually big givers. I’m no expert on charitable giving, but I’m guessing this isn’t because of their high salaries. The B-School is also very generous.

As in years past, the Duck Athletic department is the outlier on the low side, despite the fact that the Ducks have many employees bringing in considerably more than the average UO librarian. So far Rob Mullens, Dana Altman, Willie Taggart, and the athletic department as a whole have given $0, or 0% of their pay and bonuses:

Tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to UO librarians crush Duck coaches $6K to $0 in Charitable Fund Drive giving

  1. Anonymous says:

    Payroll deduction is not a very efficient way to donate to charities for highly compensated individuals. Donating appreciated assets via foundations, trusts, donor advised funds, etc. is how affluent (and many not so affluent) donate to charities.
    You write, “I’m no expert on charitable giving, . . .” and I’m wondering if you are being facetious, humble-bragging, signaling or you are honestly unaware of how the affluent and highly compensated individuals donate differently to charity than the non-affluent and non-highly compensated. If I were a highly compensated individual and my financial advisor or “expert on charitable giving” told me to donate to charities via payroll deduction, I would start looking for another advisor.
    I enjoy your blog, but you are better than this.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 4 votes)
    • uomatters says:

      Sorry for any confusion. By efficient I meant in terms of minimizing the informational costs to givers (you get a handy list of charities, all of which have passed the state’s screening process) and in terms of minimizing the costs to charities of competing for givers with glossy brochures, expensive mailing lists, etc.

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +2 (from 4 votes)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.