After collapsing on the field due to a cardiac arrest on January 3rd, Damar Hamlin’s GoFundMe campaign for the “Chasing M’s” toy drive received an unexpected surge of $9 million in fresh donations. Additionally, it was revealed that GBF, a renowned organization that partners with celebrity and professional athlete charities, would now serve as the financial sponsor for Damar Hamlin’s philanthropic initiatives, a decision made only a few weeks before.
The latest client profile of GBF was the Buffalo Bills, who had landed in the pursuit of “improve lives” by expanding the number of people and resources dedicated to safety.
Among the famous individuals represented by the organization’s prestigious list of clients are various entertainment icons (such as Justin Timberlake, Britney Spears, and Cara Delevingne) as well as notable sports figures (like Yao Ming, Ben Roethlisberger, and Doug Flutie). Throughout its journey, the organization has carved out a unique philanthropic role by enabling famous individuals to contribute to social causes, earning a flawless rating on Charity Navigator.
Don Davis, the Senior Director of Player Affairs for the NFLPA, informed Sportico that the partnership has been positive. GBF, a philanthropic resource website, hosts a resourceful platform for the union. The ongoing relationship with the NFL Players Association has been instrumental in delivering Hamlin’s successful haul.
Over the past 12 years, the annual fundraiser known as Give Big Game Big has been held in opulent mansions in cities, where boldfaced guests have been celebrated and feted. These extravagant parties, dubbed as one of the trendiest events, further strengthen GBF’s connection to the world of pigskin.
However, recently, Marc Pollick, who is considered the main cause of dissatisfaction, has brought to light a whistleblower complaint made by a current employee and the resignation of several board members. Additionally, there has been a rift between GBF and its long-term external legal advisor, all of which uncover a troubled organization that is failing to live up to its esteemed reputation. This provides a unique opportunity to glimpse behind the glamorous facade of GBF.
“It is our news, and we are extremely pleased with it,” Pollick conveyed to Sportico in a statement. “I understand that an establishment performing admirably isn’t necessarily the news you’re seeking, but it has genuinely enhanced the world and functions with honesty and empathy. We will perpetually strive to enhance.”
The story that emerges from interviews with dozens of sources, including former employees, board members, contractors, donors, and clients, as well as a review of hundreds of pages of internal documents, portrays an organization that is struggling to carry out basic accounting oversight and is steeped in fear among its leadership.
Despite being criticized for having an unjustified position, he has often been relied upon by the media as an expert to assess the charitable deficiencies of others. Before working in philanthropy, he was a Holocaust scholar, and his public reputation remains untarnished. However, there is more to the story.
In 2021, Lisa Greer, an author and philanthropist, who became the president of GBF’s board before resigning three months later, expressed, “He appears to desire recognition as a rescuer.” Greer further stated, when prompted by Pollick, “I faced significant opposition and a substantial amount of hostility while attempting to assist the organization.”
Until recently, they have largely refrained from speaking out against him. What makes it particularly challenging for those who wish to voice their opposition is Pollick’s position at the forefront of charitable endeavors.
Later would which letter whistleblower the obtained, Sportico which copy a and board full the to distributed be later would which letter whistleblower the obtained, Sportico which copy a and board full the to distributed be later would which letter whistleblower the obtained, Sportico which copy a and board full the to distributed be later would which letter whistleblower the obtained, Sportico which copy a and board full the to distributed be later would which letter whistleblower the obtained, Sportico which copy a and board full the to distributed be later would which letter whistleblower the obtained, Sportico which copy a and board full the to distributed be later would which letter whistleblower the obtained, Sportico which copy a and board full the to distributed be later would which letter whistleblower the obtained, Sportico which copy a and board full the to distributed be later would which letter whistleblower the obtained, Sportico which copy a and board full the to distributed be later would which letter whistleblower the obtained, Sportico which copy a and board full the to distributed be later would which letter whistleblower the obtained, Sportico which copy a and board full the to distributed be later would which letter whistleblower the obtained, Sportico which copy a and board full the to distributed be later would which letter whistleblower the obtained, Sportico which copy a and board full the to distributed be later would which letter whistleblower the obtained, Sportico which copy a and board full the to distributed be later would which letter whistleblower the obtained, Sportico which copy a and board full the to distributed be later would which letter whistleblower the obtained, Sportico which copy a and board full the to distributed be later would which letter whistleblower the obtained, Sportico which copy a and board full the to distributed be later would which letter whistleblower the obtained, Sportico which copy a and board full the to distributed be later would which letter whistleblower the obtained, Sportico which copy a and board full the to distributed be later would which letter whistleblower the obtained, Sportico which copy a and board full the to distributed be later would which letter whistleblower the obtained, Sportico which copy a and board full the to distributed be later would which letter whistleblower the obtained, Sportico which copy a and board full the to distributed be later would which letter whistleblower the obtained, Sportico which copy a and board full the to distributed be later would which letter whistleblower the obtained, Sportico which copy a and board full the to distributed be later would which letter whistleblower the obtained, Sportico which copy a and board full the to distributed be later would which letter whistleblower the obtained, Sportico which copy a and board full the to distributed be later would which letter whistleblower the obtained, Sportico which copy a and board full the to distributed be later would which letter whistleblower the obtained, Sportico which copy a and board full the to distributed be later would which letter whistleblower the obtained, Sportico which copy a and board full the to distributed be later would which letter whistleblower the obtained,
The whistleblower’s letter, unfortunately, contains incomplete information, inaccuracies, and misstatements. It was written by a relatively new employee and the product, GBF, was dismissed in an unattributed statement given to Sportico last week.
He failed to fulfill his obligation to pay for a surcharge related to damaging a rental vehicle in the past, so the whistleblower alleged that Pollick had been prohibited from renting vehicles from Hertz. The burden of handling organizational matters had grown due to the boss’s repeated refusal to settle bills or accept accountability in various incidents, according to the whistleblower who has been employed at GBF for approximately one year.
The whistleblower wrote, “I was not comfortable lying for him, so I canceled the trip around him 5 times before waiting and booking again. I was not comfortable lying about him having Covid, but I demanded the best prices and booked the flight at the last minute, only to cancel it the next day. He would often book trips for me without confirming the schedules of the other parties involved.”
In another incident, the whistleblower said Pollick had directed them to impersonate another GBF employee to gain access to a storage facility.
The whistleblower wrote that employees are fearful of his retaliation, a sentiment echoed by all of the twenty-four former staff members who spoke to Sportico. Clients exacerbate his mistakes with accusatory and unprofessional emails, causing employees to scramble to clean up the mess. Instead of benefiting anyone, his frequent email accusations only serve to cast doubt. It seems that Marc wants to spend more time with him, which leads me to believe that he is trying to deceive everyone and scam them.
Pollick’s comprehensive roster of unwelcome individuals includes some of his former closest confidants.
Shortly before the Super Bowl, the relationship abruptly ended, regardless. Informants claim that Morton brought several of his athlete clients to the organization, as well as offering legal assistance to GBF. Andrew Morton, a lawyer who specializes in the charitable efforts of athletes and entertainers, is a recent addition who has spent the past few years serving as GBF’s external legal advisor.
Pollick was furious. In the narrative, Morton, who was recognized by the newspaper as GBF’s legal advisor, raised questions about the tax-exempt status of contributions to Hamlin’s GoFundMe campaign. The immediate trigger was a statement Morton made in an article for the Arizona Republic regarding sports-related charities, which coincidentally came out on the day the whistleblower’s letter was sent to Pasternack.
After the initial three months, the agreement specified that the monthly essential services expense of $2,000 could be reevaluated. GBF would impose its regular $5,000 installation charge, followed by a monthly essential services expense of $2,000, in return for taking care of everything. He had attempted to persuade Hamlin’s family and agents that the task of overseeing the GoFundMe funds would be effortless and affordable, amidst all the unpredictability encompassing the player’s well-being.
In his presentations, Pollick had made several doubtful guarantees.
On January 4th, Pollick sent an email to Hamlin’s representatives stating, “We have the capability to offer a completely insured Foundation with a 501(c)3 status for Damar and his family right away. This Foundation is registered in all 50 states and can accept donations.”
As per various sources who are knowledgeable about the matter, documents suggest that GBF, which had failed to meet its obligations for charity registrations in several states, had changed multiple compliance firms within the past year. Nevertheless, they have now achieved full compliance.
The IRS has required Pollick’s email to continue sending tax letters for each donation exceeding $250. The funds that have already been raised can be deposited into his foundation’s account. We have had a record year of 25, and the Foundation behind Hamlin Damar, which could be named after the family, would receive an A rating as a public charity. The Giving Back Fund will receive full credit and faith.
There was an ongoing internal debate, to be exact. If GoFundMe were to take care of it, or if Fund Back Giving needed acknowledgments written on the matter, there would be a need. It seemed like GBF were willing to take on this responsibility, but the fee of $2,000/month was not quite enough.
Furthermore, sources revealed that during telephone conversations, Pollick suggested to the Hamlin family that the GoFundMe campaign was limited by certain time constraints, indicating that they were chasing after funds.
The tax deductible status of donations was a fairly esoteric concern, considering that even a tiny fraction of the contributions could qualify for write-offs–after all, it was part of the larger scheme of things.
Despite that, Dock, a board member of GBF, responded to the warning issued by Bradley, an in-house corporate counsel responsible for payment processing, by threatening Morton with a lawsuit. Sources say that Pollick was furious with Morton for potentially undermining their confidence. Nonetheless,
On February 9th, Dock sent Morton a cease-and-desist notice alleging him of legal misconduct.
Dock expressed that Morton had defamed and caused harm to GBF through his comments, stating, “You are not authorized to speak on behalf of GBF, and you are not associated with GBF in any way. It is important to note that you are not a legal representative of GBF, as you may believe.”
Although Morton Dock claimed to have no existing relationship with GBF, even though Morton was explicitly listed as the “legal counsel” in the organization’s most recent employee handbook dated Dec. 14, 2022. (Dock declined to comment in a text message.)
Morton informed Sportico that “Although I served as legal advisor for the Giving Back Fund, I did not state or imply that my remarks were related to my representation of GBF.” He additionally stated that “I am uncertain about the statements that have been made to the NFL or the Hamlin family. Nevertheless, I have a suspicion that it might have been unsettling to discover that the contributions were not eligible for tax deductions.”
In 2022, HERicanes emerged victorious in the appeal case against GBF. The Giving Back Fund had previously committed to offering various essential services, but HERicanes, a previous client, accused them of not fulfilling their obligations in a breach of contract lawsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court. Morton had acted as the organization’s legal representation in the lawsuit a mere three weeks prior.
In the previous month, Pollick called a Sportico journalist in his initial reply to a sequence of email inquiries regarding Morton’s position with GBF, condemning the queries as “insulting” and requesting the identities of the journalist’s superiors.
Pollick stated, “The matter of the public is not the reason for terminating someone.” Pollick briefly paused when questioned about whether GBF had indeed “terminated” Morton, and then included, “Whatever occurred is between the Giving Back Fund and an individual with whom we have had a connection.”
Mooneyhan, Keeley, and Danny Hughes are the other two individuals who closely followed her departure. After receiving the whistleblower’s complaint, she wrote a resignation letter stating that the organization is “broken,” and Pasternack, a member of the GBF board, quit after approximately six weeks.
When questioned about it, Morton refused to provide any remarks. As per sources, this occurred after numerous GBF employees had implored the board to examine Pollick’s management. In fact, prior to becoming the Giving Back Fund’s external legal advisor, Morton had been a member of the GBF board that collectively stepped down between 2015 and 2016. This is not the initial instance where the organization has witnessed a departure of board members.
(Mooneyhan did not reply to requests for a response.) Hughes also indirectly challenged Pollick’s description of his departure, stating that he chose to step down in order to allocate more time to his other professional and personal commitments. However, Pasternack, who refrained from commenting on other matters, informed Sportico that her resignation was a voluntary decision. Pollick stated in a written statement that the three recent board members’ departures from GBF were solely due to predetermined term limitations.
The whistleblower, Pasternack, who demonstrated a unique interest in the wellbeing of the staff, was praised by the Fund for giving back. In an email sent in March, before her resignation, Pasternack had actively participated in weekly staff calls for six months. She had previously worked as a consultant for the Golden State Warriors and San Francisco’s community relations in philanthropy sports. It is striking to see how Pollick and Pasternack had worked together and considering GBF’s history of upheaval, Pasternack’s exit was significant.
She managed this despite what former employees describe as a blockade that had long existed between the organization’s executive committee and employees.
During the years 2022 and 2023, Pasternack had participated in the organizing committee for the Big Game Big Give events, and subsequently welcomed Pollick to her residence for a two-day off-site gathering, demonstrating her allegiance to “Team Marc” simultaneously.
According to multiple sources, Pollick and Pasternack have had serious discussions about her transitioning from a board role to a team executive role at GBF, with the possibility of eventually becoming his successor. Given her background in pro sports, Pasternack was tasked with facilitating the relationship between GBF and Hamlin-GBF, a rival sports-focused organization that sponsors philanthropy players. At the same time, she continued to keep her own voices athletes at Athletes Voices.
One ex-employee stated, “She wouldn’t have entrusted her business to him, but it raised a lot of eyebrows that she was a good friend of Marc’s.”
Pollick was accused of acting inappropriately in her role as a board member and joining staff from the future. Afterwards, the employee survey, which was being discussed, was confirmed by other sources to have been secretly listened into by Pollick during a phone conversation in March. According to the whistleblower email sent by Palakurthi, Pollick was accused of discussing the anonymous staff survey and subsequently left Pasternack after her efforts to organize the survey.
“I made a mistake,” Pasternack expressed in her letter of resignation, “in thinking that it would be feasible to introduce alterations that could safeguard the heritage and potential of the company by dedicating my time, skills, and effort to the company and its CEO. I foolishly assumed that the reaction to the plea to conduct the survey was concerning and, potentially, careless and morally wrong.”
Other members of the board had clashed with Pollick while conducting their due diligence. Pollick’s consistent attempts to obstruct or disregard requests for obtaining “any form of measurable data” regarding the organization, even including mundane details like a list of staff members, led to Greer’s decision to resign.
“According to Greer, the relationship would become more contentious as I requested more information or documentation.”
Another previous member of the GBF board, who served in the past, also remembered Pollick attempting to obstruct the board’s supervisory role.
The ex-board member, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, stated, “He exhibits unpredictable aggression.” “He leverages his previous track record of being a compassionate and caring humanitarian.”
Born in Cleveland, Elie Weisel, a survivor of the Holocaust and Nobel Laureate, later pursued a doctoral degree at Boston University, where he studied under Laureate Nobel Laureate. He also attended the University of Chicago for his undergraduate studies.
Originally based in Boston, the organization, Fund Back Giving, was founded in 1997 before relocating to Southern California in the early 2000s. It was established by Pollick to advance Wiesel’s teachings and serve as an advocate and academic institution for Holocaust studies.
From its beginning, reputation was central to GBF’s charitable model–a characteristic Pollick was very open about.
“Celebrity enjoys its advantages,” Pollick stated in a 2009 interview with the University of Chicago alumni magazine. “In a matter of minutes, regardless of the person’s location, I would receive a prompt response if I mentioned that I was contacting them on behalf of Elie Wiesel. However, if I mentioned that I was contacting them personally using my own name, I would seldom receive a callback,”.
He says it feels credible and all, Mr. Sweet-Talker. Sportico informed Greer that he instantly proved the attractive idea of schmoozing at Pollick’s talents, saying “He is famous and rich.” Pollick’s sales pitch could put the star power to good use by collecting tax-deductible donations below market fee, thus avoiding the hassle of taking over. The Giving Back Fund was the perfect platform for this.
Pollick can appear as ingratiating as someone who has cultivated a notorious and vindictive personality, even going to extreme measures.
You haven’t received a nasty letter or cease-and-desist from the former employee GBF, have you? Then you haven’t worked with Pollick Marc, have you?
The former lawyer of Britney Spears, Mark Steverson, made headlines in 2007 when he filed a $15 million lawsuit against the Giving Back Fund, accusing Justin Timberlake and Spears of encouraging him to breach his fiduciary duties as a board member of GBF. This lawsuit was filed following the pop star’s decision to end her relationship with Timberlake.
The lawful disagreement, which effectively resisted a motion to dismiss, was eventually settled for what GBF asserts was “a significant amount of money.”
Earlier this year, Pollick, who receives an annual salary of approximately $250,000, eventually dropped his claim to submit GBF’s business-related discovery. He was scouting a location in Florida for the upcoming Big Game Big party when he collided with a sliding glass door at the hotel where he was staying, resulting in lost wages and injuries. He originally sued the Diplomat Beach Resort, but recently settled the three-year-old lawsuit.
Although Pollick has had different results in court, his reputation for being litigious has given him a feeling of invincibility in the nonprofit industry.
Doom enchantment may deserve its own, irrespective of any sort of reputation or legal threat, operating on a limited budget for numerous nonprofit organizations, as stated by the aforementioned individual. He possesses an influential position within the community and the community itself is also quite small, which is why we are fearful of him and the fact that he only benefits from it. One of his previous clients, GBF, stated, “The
Pollick’s clients and staff at GBF just aren’t intimidated by the CEO, who appears to be too powerful or rich on paper at least. He’s able to strike fear in those who are bookish or least powerful.
The experience with both Marc and the board of the GBF was extremely distressing, according to a wealthy philanthropist and former GBF supporter who agreed to provide comment on the condition of anonymity. Marc treated his employees with disrespect and was just as dismissive towards me.
The employee, who is now a former employee, said, “He is just obsessed with closing the deal. Many sources say that Pollick starts fires by setting unrealistic expectations for new clients or by saying what GBF can provide. Regardless of the quality of their funds or the charities they work with, he is constantly putting out fires to gain as many clients as possible. This is how their boss, who was described by former staff, started working at the Back Giving Fund.”
According to the former employees, Pollick’s spontaneous urge to recruit new clients resulted in an unpredictable fee system.
GBF typically charges its clients around $2,000 per month to provide immediate financial accounting services, as well as regulatory compliance and tax exemption acceptance. Instead of a percentage of the client’s revenue or a one-time flat fee, GBF has agreed to common, less-circumstance-specific sponsorship fees from other fiscal sponsors.
In addition to providing management oversight and fundraising support, GBF offers strategic consulting services, commonly referred to as “advisory services,” where clients have the option to choose and pay additional monthly fees for the sponsor’s fiscal expenses on top of the baseline.
According to sources, Pollick appeared to have no issue with charging clients less than what they should have been charged, if he had a personal connection to their causes. However, former employees claim that there was often no clear pattern or logic to how clients were billed, or if they were billed at all.
Almost every former employee who spoke to Sportico complained about NEXUS’ arrangement with GBF, a community networking platform for high-net-worth philanthropists, where clients paid only $3,000 in monthly fees at the end of last year, as an example of how NEXUS’s internal GBF records were smaller than many clients’ time-consuming ones.
GBF stated in its reply to inquiries, “Just like it frequently occurs,” fees can be reduced when a foundation recommends more clients to GBF. The foundation imposes monthly charges on clients depending on particular factors such as the magnitude, extent, and magnitude of their investment.
I’m sorry, but it appears that you didn’t provide a response for the second input. Can you please provide the expected output so that I can help you better?
One former employee stated that on every occasion, the boss disregarded their objections, yet they consistently expressed their concerns to Pollick regarding clients they believed were being unjustly billed during their time at the company.
Former employees claim that Pollick’s personal preference for specific clients limited the fiduciary diligence of The Giving Back Fund, going beyond the fees it collected for its services.
Former employees of the Neuro Spark company, owned by Rachel Gerrol’s husband and co-founder of NEXUS, expressed concern about the perceived conflict potential and lack of interest in office space rent. In April 2020, internal documents showed that NEXUS reimbursed GBF $41,800 for the payment made to rent the office space. Despite objections from GBF, which called this claim “unfounded,” one source stated that they were later instructed to approve it by NEXUS. For example, GBF employees had flagged what they believed to be exorbitant purchases of office furniture by NEXUS.
A former employee stated, “We were aware that Marc never supported us in communicating to NEXUS what does not qualify as a wise allocation of funds.” (Gerrol did not provide a comment upon request.)
Even the job of reconciling client accounts has proven to be an elusive challenge. Former employees of GBF say that the organization has long struggled to carry out basic functions of a fiscal sponsor, such as providing solicitation notices to donors and keeping track of the money, as well as depositing charitable contributions. While touting itself as more than just a fiscal sponsor.
The documents that were considered as good evidence in the internal review were only those from the last summer. The GBF had these accounts on its books, totaling 168.
“Are strategically dormant for a variety of reasons,” said GBF in its statement, all of its accounts are currently in good standing.
Former employees of GBF have been steadfast in their refusal to spend money, thus forcing the organization to undertake a Rube Goldberg-esque series of workarounds, which actually mattered to Goldberg.
Initially, donations that were mistakenly placed in incorrect accounts have become a common occurrence, according to multiple staffers and former clients. As a result, copies of these occurrences, which were obtained by Sportico, revealed that GBF relied on a combination of Excel and Google spreadsheets instead of using customer relationship management (CRM) software until early last year. GBF dismissed this claim as “unfounded.” Rather than investing in a more centrally located P.O. Box, Pollick insisted that all of the organization’s mail be sent to his condo. Sources indicate that Pollick persisted with this arrangement even after GBF negotiated a lease buyout of its Los Angeles-based office in 2021.
The former GBF client, who agreed to speak anonymously due to fear of retaliation from Pollick, stated, “The primary purpose of having a fiscal sponsor is to enable you to concentrate on the mission while they manage the administrative tasks. Monitoring their actions and ensuring their accuracy consumed a significant amount of my time, and I lacked confidence in my ability to simultaneously raise funds and meet my fundraising goals. The outcome was not as expected.”
In a certain instance, instead of a significant contributor, a credit card issuer received a receipt by mistake; the management of donor thank-you letters was not done accurately; the credit card issuer did not provide the agreed-upon weekly account balance updates or monthly profit and loss statements after partnering with GBF in September 2021, as claimed by HERicanes in their breach-of-contract lawsuit.
According to sources, the engagement with PPF lasted for less than two months. However, GBF had attempted to outsource its financial back-end process to a rival nonprofit organization, Philanthropy Players Fund, before the start of this year.
Former employees, who are familiar with the bookkeeping of GBF, describe in the tax filings of the public organization called Back Giving Fund’s what sources indicate as a constant flux that is only further perplexing. These sources reveal that auditors and accountants have been resigning and being fired in a perpetual cycle, as shown by the three previous returns used by different CPAs.
According to sources, Pollick, the leading figure in GBF, resigned due to the consolidation that happened after Wegner’s resignation. It was revealed that the previous system, which was not well-equipped, forced GBF to produce monthly P&L statements and access external documents. This enabled clients to view their account status in real-time, which was not possible with the new system. GBF decided to consolidate its separate client bank accounts into a single account. Sources say that this move took place in 2021 after the national accounting firm, Wegner, was hired.
“Marc was like a squirrel in the street, going back and forth,” one former employee who was present during the transition said.
Wegner stated in an independent audit report of GBF that they faced no noteworthy challenges when interacting with management. However, they chose not to provide any further remarks, citing the privilege of accountant-client confidentiality.
In previous years, this crucial source of income had generated hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, despite the organization’s claim of earning only $98,818 in management and consulting fees, which was one of its main sources of revenue. GBF filed its tax return for 2021, which had several gaps in reporting and strange figures, in January with an extension.
The organization reported spending about $3.4 million on professional fees in 2021, with no names of independent contractors earning at least $100,000 included yet in the tax return section. These returns had previously been filled out earlier. The tax return statement for 2021 contained numerous empty categories on line items such as benefits and accounting, legal expenses, and other functional expenses paid to current top employees.
The Giving Back Fund has encountered comparable challenges in retaining the companies it engages to handle its state-based charity solicitation registrations, just like its auditors and accountants.
In an attempt to end her relationship with Pollick, Michelle Menzel, the president of Charity, sought to terminate his position. However, within just a few days of being onboarded at Charity, Pollick was fired by Compliance Solutions and hired by Harbor. Both firms declined to comment on the matter in November. In the past two months, Compliance Harbor hired Fund Back Giving, from which the Compliance URS account resigned, according to sources. GBF alone has cycled through three different compliance companies in the last year.
In an email cited in the whistleblower’s letter, Menzel expressed to Pollick, “I am genuinely developing a negative intuition about this collaboration.” “I believe your organization would benefit more from a smaller compliance firm that does not have numerous clients relying on them and operates within our established guidelines.”
Since things have gone “effortlessly” since, Menzel expressed in an interview that Charity Compliance ultimately agreed to remain on board only after GBF assured her that she would not have to interact directly with Pollick.
According to former employees, Glassdoor.Com, a platform that gathers undisclosed employee feedback about their workplaces, was a major focus for the Giving Back Fund’s rankings and comments. Pollick’s preoccupation with the reputation of the organization was consistently a cause of tension.
According to multiple former employees, Pollick believes that the individuals behind the anonymous criticism are the ones attacking his comments. In his official role, he strives to counteract the negativity by addressing it directly. Additionally, he has made numerous attempts to guide these individuals towards posting positive feedback on the website.
As an example, in response to a comment posted in January by a self-described “intern,” Pollick castigated the author, claiming that nobody liked working with the commenter because they had been fired and described the work environment as “horrible” and “scum.”
The rating of the GBF has significantly increased recently, from 3.3 stars in 2017 to a scoring of 20 inputted reviews as the manager and senior foundation manager.
While Pollick has directed his staff to routinely badmouth those who have worked for him, he also praises the organization’s sources.
Greer said, “I can’t remember telling him about any staff member being positive for over three months.” “I found myself defending their position and.”
Given the constantly evolving character of the organization, it is unsurprising that GBF has encountered numerous cases of employee attrition over the course of its history.
One former staffer who worked at Giving Back Fund for about six months before quitting said that over the course of a three-year period, at least 50 people cycled through GBF’s approximately dozen-person staff. Using company directories, the employee determined that many of those who left turned over during her time there, bringing quick relief to the organization’s trailing mayhem and hostility, according to Pollick’s account.
“The informant employee penned a letter to the board, expressing concerns about his excessive preoccupation with the fear that former staff members are plotting against him and the company.”
Multiple former employees complained about being paid late due to clashes with Pollick, who was cited as an example in a recent whistleblower case. The employees mentioned long emails and phone calls from Pollick, who continued to harass them even after they left the company. In order to access their old GBF email, an employee was asked to print out their W-2 form.
“Marc directed them to disregard the appeal,” the informant penned. (GBF referred to this accusation as “baseless.”).
According to records obtained through a public request, the former employee, who filed a wage complaint with the California Department of Industrial Relations in April, sought both the unpaid vacation wages she claimed were owed to her and waiting time penalties. She accused GBF of not adequately compensating her for her time off.
Pollick, representing the Los Angeles Labor Commission, emailed the ex-employee, criticizing her for seeking legal counsel before filing the complaint.
I am frankly shocked that you seem to have wasted time calling the labor offices to complain about an ex-employee. I am frankly shocked that you seem to have wasted time calling the labor offices to complain about an ex-employee. It seems like you need an extra minute of time to prepare to leave the country. It seems like you need an extra minute of time to prepare to leave the country. It seems like you need an extra minute of time to prepare to leave the country. It seems like you need an extra minute of time to prepare to leave the country. It seems like you need an extra minute of time to prepare to leave the country. It seems like you need an extra minute of time to prepare to leave the country. It seems like you need an extra minute of time to prepare to leave the country. It seems like you need an extra minute of time to prepare to leave the country. It seems like you need an extra minute of time to prepare to leave the country. It seems like you need an extra minute of time to prepare to leave the country. It seems like you need an extra minute of time to prepare to leave the country.
Although Pollick has been prompt in terminating relationships with employees and contractors, that is not the situation when it comes to clients.
Generally, the client has the option to terminate the partnership without any specific reason within either a 30-day or 60-day timeframe. However, it is necessary for the client to allow for a designated “wind-down” period, as outlined in the boilerplate language of GBF’s standard services agreement.
“According to the law, (GBF) is responsible for making the ultimate decision on this matter,” although Client is allowed to suggest who should receive any such disposition. “As stated in the contract, if this Agreement is terminated, (GBF) must handle the assets and liabilities related to Client and the Project in a manner that aligns with relevant tax and charitable trust laws.”
While it may seem simple enough, Pollick says that GBF should refrain from abandoning their money or, at the very least, keeping their clients in order by avoiding guilt-tripping and excessive running.
“One former employee stated that even if individuals adhered to every detail, he would not permit them to depart, and he would retain their funds for an extended period, anticipating their surrender. Consequently, he could assert that they voluntarily abandoned their resources, and as a result, we will presume their funds.”
Pollick expressed his lamentation in correspondence sent to his former clients, wherein he reprimanded them for what he perceived as their disloyalty, as Sportico examined the copies.
In an exchange email, a departing client noted that there had been several erroneous transfers of donation checks, totaling a five-figure amount, into their bank account that were mistakenly put into the organization’s account. The client insisted that none of these transfers were the fault of GBF and expressed their appreciation for the organization’s assistance.
Formerly known as “character assassination,” this term refers to the act of resorting to extreme measures to indicate a desire to harm the reputation of clients. According to sources, Pollick, a convenient vehicle, sells itself as a flexible option. However, it is worth noting that GBF has not yet received tax-exempt status from the IRS. They often use sponsorship as a temporary bridge for their charitable initiatives.
One of GBF’s former clients was a mother whose child suffered from a rare disease. After the mother told Pollick, one of the staff members, that he cared more about the child than the mother did, he opted to leave the organization and find sponsorship from another fiscal sponsor, leaving his room in the staff’s office.
“One of the former employees mentioned that there was a man who was ready to come up with any justification to boost his self-importance. This story emphasized what they had observed in their own encounters.”
To that end, a number of people who have worked with GBF say their experience has left them questioning question Pollick’s altruism.
That is not, however, the present evaluation of Palakurthi, the chairman of GBF’s board.
Palakurthi, the CEO, stated that Pollick’s passion and heart for helping causes philanthropic have an admirable and rare impact, boosting countless of them. The board expressed their complete confidence and vouched for this statement.
Greer, the former chair of GBF’s board, now speaks out because she is concerned about the potentially harmful impact of Pollick’s leadership on the broader philanthropic community, expressing a unique perspective.
Greer expressed, “Moreover, if there is any group within the aforementioned entity that appears questionable, I am concerned that individuals who have recently started contributing will opt to deposit their funds into a donor-advised fund and leave it untouched.” “I particularly wish for new and younger contributors to have faith in the philanthropic sector and experience a sense of satisfaction from assisting others.”
Currently, the pressing question that GBF is facing is the fate of Damar’s Chasing Hamlin, a charity project prominently displayed on GivingBack.Org.
Lively, a third-party crowdfunding platform, has been running a parallel fundraiser for Hamlin’s charity through the Giving Back Fund. The status of the relationship with GBF, as stated by Kelley Denny, a spokesperson for Hamlin, has consistently refused to respond to inquiries, only mentioning that there will be a forthcoming announcement in the next few weeks regarding the future actions for Chasing M’s. According to a spokesperson from GoFundMe, none of the $9 million collected on their platform has been transferred to the Giving Back Fund. Furthermore, apart from the GoFundMe campaign, there will be an announcement in the near future addressing the next steps for Chasing M’s.
In the event Hamlin ultimately decides to take his millions of dollars in donations elsewhere, GBF’s history suggests it could get ugly.