Stardate 20011114.1035 (On Screen): It has finally dawned on the Red Cross just how badly they screwed up. Blinded by the immense amount of money which was given to them for the so-called "Liberty Fund", all of which was donated with the intention of helping out victims of the NYC attack, the Red Cross originally decided to divert more than half of that for other worthwhile efforts, including banking a huge amount of it for unspecified future needs. On the other hand, less than a quarter of the money has actually been disbursed to victims, and some victims have not been able to get aid even though they both need and deserve it. The negative publicity this has rightfully generated has finally made them change their plans: they will now do what the legion of donors had originally expected them to do, and use
all of the money for victim assistance. This is the correct thing to do, but it's what they should have done in the first place; and it is not to their credit that they are only doing this now because of negative publicity and because the head of the agency was grilled by Congress. That's the wrong reason.
The right reason to do what they're doing now is honesty. Americans are a generous people, but when they give money to a cause, they expect it to be used for that cause. They do not expect and will not tolerate having older and wiser heads redirect that money to other worthwhile causes; that is not a decision the older and wiser heads should be making even if the other causes are indeed worthwhile. A donor gives money, but it is the donor's privilege to decide what that money should be used for. If that concept is repudiated, the donor will feel ripped off -- and will not donate again. That is the long-term damage that the Red Cross risked, not only to itself but to all other charities. (discuss)
