The Erosion of Volunteerism: A Troubling Shift in the Ghana National Council’s Financial Priorities

Sankofaonline Editorial Board

The Ghana National Council (GNC), much like many vital community organizations, has long survived on the bedrock of pure volunteerism. For decades, dedicated individuals have sacrificed their time, financial resources, and energy to serve the Ghanaian community in the greater Chicago area. Volunteers have remained at the GhanaFest grounds from dawn until late into the night, serving without a single thought of compensation, while others have driven across Chicago at their own expense to gather advertisements and compile the festival booklet. This generation of patriots built a legacy of selfless service that inspired those who followed.

Even today, doctors, nurses, Accountants and other skilled professionals continue to staff our community clinics without receiving, or even requesting, basic gas money. And what of our chiefs, queens, and traditional leaders, the custodians of our heritage, who have carried the weight of GhanaFest year after year? These revered figures lend their presence, dignity, and cultural authority to the festival, volunteering their time, regalia, and leadership, receiving nothing beyond the twenty-dollar gate ticket token each. Their sacrifices, often unseen and unspoken, remain the pillars upon which GhanaFest stands.

It is within this culture of selflessness that the current controversy becomes even more troubling. The current PRO allegedly stated that she has been providing public relations services to the GNC for five hundred dollars, and that such an amount is not enough money. If this is true, then the community must ask: Is the PRO now seeking commercial rates from a volunteer‑based nonprofit? GNC has always depended on the generosity and professional strengths of its volunteers. When a specific skill is not available within the volunteer pool, the Council may seek outside expertise, but compensating officers for duties already outlined in the Constitution is not only unprecedented, it is dangerous. It invites every other volunteer, many of whom also bring high‑level professional expertise, to demand payment as well.

Against this backdrop, the Council’s decision to pay the PRO two thousand dollars for routine duties is deeply troubling. Even more alarming, only one organization abstained from the vote. Nearly every affiliate supported a decision that weakens the volunteer spirit on which the Council was built. At a time when the GNC should be protecting its legacy of service, it instead moved toward paid executive roles without community consultation, transparency, or clear justification. This broad support raises serious questions about whether the long-term consequences were overlooked, misunderstood, or simply ignored.

According to the GNC Constitution, the Publicity and Communication Secretary shall serve as:

 ·  Serve as spokesperson

·  Manage publicity

·  Organize the Council newsletter

·  Administer the activity calendar

·  Maintain the community address database

·  Oversee the community website

· Perform any additional public relations duties assigned by leadership

The claim that television and radio promotions fall outside the job description and therefore justify payment, is not only inaccurate, it is an insult to the Constitution itself.

This decision also raises broader concerns about the sustainability of the Council. If one executive member charges for assigned duties, what prevents others from doing the same? What happens when the frontline medical workers at our community clinic, who provide life‑saving services, begin billing for their time? Could the Council survive such a payroll? While compensation is appropriate in corporate and nonprofit settings, the timing and circumstances of this vote suggest a troubling shift in priorities, especially when essential community healthcare services remain underfunded.

It is equally important to highlight that African Spectrum , sankofaonline and other community media platforms have, for years, promoted the Council at no cost. They have offered coverage, visibility, and community engagement without ever imposing financial obligations on the GNC. They did this because they understood that the Council depends on both community members and affiliate organizations to support its mission in whatever ways they can. Their generosity stands in stark contrast to the new direction the Council appears to be taking, one that risks monetizing roles historically grounded in service.

The Council must also comply with federal regulations. Any individual receiving six hundred dollars or more in a calendar year must complete a W‑9 form and be issued a 1099‑NEC for tax filing purposes. All payments must be properly reported in accordance with Internal Revenue Service requirements. Transparency is not optional; it is a legal obligation.

This trajectory by the GNC, creates the unfortunate impression that leadership roles are being pursued for personal benefit rather than public service. It is unreasonable to compare corporate public relations rates with a volunteer‑based community role, especially while other dedicated volunteers receive nothing.

The community wants the GNC to succeed, but public trust will erode if leadership cuts essential services while voting to compensate an officer who accepted the role under the banner of volunteerism. If the Council believes executives now require salaries or stipends, then it must stop soliciting sponsorships from the community under the guise of charity, only for those funds to be redirected into private pockets.

The GNC must choose between corporate operations and community‑driven volunteerism, because it cannot ethically claim the virtues of one while indulging in the benefits of the other.