• Beth Gazley

    Ruth, can you please verify or retract your statement that “The second scandal is the alleged lack of transparency with donors at
    the Red Cross after 9/11, when donors thought their money was going to
    relief relative to that disaster but it was being deployed elsewhere.”

    Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that Dr. Healy announced a planned distribution of funds, but never implemented it. So you are wrong about the transparency and wrong that the money was “being deployed elsewhere”. Healy, whom history should treat kindly, was trying to use the unexpectedly large amount of donations for future strategic needs. Specifically, of the $153 million in hand by November 2001, she announced that $48 million would be used to support victims and their families, and the remaining gifts and pledges would support future terrorist threats and emerging needs such as community outreach and improving the national blood reserve program.

    The fact that donors disagreed with this plan, that her resignation was forced on her, etc., did indeed create a “scandal”. But not one due to corruption or lack of transparency. Donors simply disagreed with the announced plan of action on how their gifts would be spent, and the Red Cross has changed its gift acceptance policy as a result.

  • Val Prism

    What is their annual budget? Also, it would be nice if a nonprofit dedicated publication would stop with the asinine idea that a leader of a $40+million organization making $473,000 is absurd. It’s not. It’s low comparatively to profit driven businesses. It sure sounds like they were wasting a lot of money and not directing enough to actual direct services and that is a big, big problem, but assuming he was the highest paid, they weren’t going crazy with salaries.