posted on October 31, 2001 08:37:40 AM new
Weeks ago, when many people took extreme exception to the methods of AFA, we were chastised for "not caring".....
A few weeks later, as the hundreds of millions began to rack up from ALL sorts of benefits some of us ask "When will it be enough?"; and were once again belittled for our lack of concern.....
Now suddenly, the Red Cross has announced that it is "no longer soliciting for 9-11"....yeh, right after you got caught with your pants around your ankles!
So much for the "100% that was going only to the victims & families".....and our new computer & phone system, and "reserves", and whatever other coffee can we decide to bury in the backyard at RC HQ!
Bill O'Reilly said it best last night on his news show: "If it isn't 100% then it is fraud!"
posted on October 31, 2001 08:59:03 AM new
I am a Red Cross Disaster Responder which is a volunteer position. It's my firm belief that the American Red Cross is an excellent steward of the money entrusted to it. Yes, there is some confusion from: 1) the ARC has never dealt with a disaster even approaching this size 2) it has never dealt with a money influx of this size. If it weren't an honest organization I wouldn't be a part of it. I've seen firsthand that funds are NOT frittered away and that many, many people have been helped by the ARC.
Isn't it better that the ARC says, "We can't handle any more money" than continuing to take it??? Just how is the ARC's pants around its ankles??
posted on October 31, 2001 09:27:50 AM new
It might interest people to know that the ARC has served several million meals in the NYC area, as well as helping to find lodgings for the ~30K people who were basically bombed out of their homes. The ARC flew in and is still sheltering a number of relatives of Pentagon victims who are still in the hospital.
Those are just a few examples I remember offhand, I can get more. If you have any specific questions, I'll be at my county's ARC HQ tomorrow evening and can get them answered for you.
I gave as much as I could, I have no problem with my money going to fund such efforts. It's unfortunate that people think they were misled into believing their money would all go to the victims, but aren't these worthwhile programs, too? Think of the construction workers clearing the debris-is it really so wrong that the ARC uses some of the funds donated to support the efforts of those folks?
posted on October 31, 2001 09:39:21 AM new
Helping those in need is NO PROBLEM!
Helping yourself to a "new phone & computer system" from those funds IS!
Millions of poeple depended on what they WERE told.....and are probably VERY disappointed to find out their contribution is going for new electronic gadgets on someones desk!
Hopefully, both contributors AND the agencies receiving these windfalls will learn from the way this was handled! The next time there is a need, we would like to feel comfortable about helping out......
posted on October 31, 2001 09:42:22 AM new
And just how are these efforts supposed to be coordinated? Carrier pigeon? More efficient equipment means more efficient service to those who need it.
Think about the coordination, planning, ordering, cooking, transportation, serving, and distribution of meals, not to mention coordinating the volunteers. If you think about that in the millions, it's mind boggling.
posted on October 31, 2001 09:47:59 AM new
They could have stated 90% will go to the victims and 10% goes to modernize ARC, or whatever the % would be.
In simple terms if you go door to door to collect for the United Way and before you turn the money in that was collected you went and bought a pair of shoes because you wore yours out collecting and you paid for the shoes out of what you collected.
Would that in turn be legal!!!
[ edited by jdani2000 on Oct 31, 2001 09:56 AM ]
posted on October 31, 2001 09:53:13 AM new
following the 11th there were long lines at the local blood bank peaple donating for New york or so they thought
Turned out local suppies were low so none of the donated blood left the county.
.
spock here...... TILL NOV 1 ANYWAY
Live long and Prosper
posted on October 31, 2001 09:56:30 AM new
(We can't handle any more money!) Would they have made this statement if they weren't caught with they're pants down,and their ethic's questioned? I think not, they would have let it continue to roll in!
posted on October 31, 2001 10:07:29 AM new
Like I said, there are problems that came about due to the size of the disaster and the amount of money donated. But the money is NOT wasted. I still don't understand just how the ARC was caught "with its pants down".
I don't know much about blood donation, but I do know that a lot of the blood stayed in my county. It was to replace the military supplies airlifted to NYC within 24 hours.
You might want to check on that.
posted on October 31, 2001 10:17:48 AM new
The ARC got caught with their pants down by stating that all money collected would go to the victims, and made no mention of using the money to make infrastructure investments.
Infrastructure investments may be needed and the best way to use the money. But the ARC should have stated this up front.
I don't think the donations would have been any less had they stated up front how the money would be used.
However, soliciting under one banner and spending on another is a public relations diaster. A diaster that caused the head of the organization to resign.
posted on October 31, 2001 10:27:17 AM new
Ok Reamond, I know I'm too close to it to see what others do. Yup, I agree they should've said the money wouldn't all go directly to the victims. So Healy resigns, Decker takes over, there is much scrutiny, accounts will be independently audited.
Good. So people will see that while a PR mistake may have been made, the money still isn't being wasted.
posted on October 31, 2001 10:34:02 AM new
My husband is the only person in his office that does not contribute to the United Way campaign each year. Do you know what it's like to be the one person that keeps the company from having 100% participation? We have selected our charities carefully and volunteer our time to several groups in the area. The company he works for will match our contributions (including a monetary amount equal to the hours we work) to these charities so we keep up with everything we do.
Since 9/11 he has been called greedy by people trying to sell him American flags for his vehicle. He tells them that if they were that American, they would be donating the flags to everyone instead of selling them.
Just be glad (or hope) your money didn't go to the Feed the Children charity.
posted on October 31, 2001 11:15:01 AM new
First--I did not participate in AFA. My donations went direct. All charities and those companies coordinating donations, each have to take a piece of the donation to continue their operations. That is a fact of life!! The fewer hands that touch the money, the more money is available for victims or other relief efforts. That is the reason I don't allow United Way to dilute my contributions either.
I am alive because our Red Cross has safe, modern equipment. When we are talking about blood transfusions, don't you want that too?
In 1977 I had over 75 blood transfusions in about 6 months. The Red Cross was able to get specially matched blood components for me quickly because of the detailed records they had on their antiquated computer systems. Of course I want them to have the latest, safest and most efficient infrastructure so that all of us can continue to rely on them if we should be in need. Yes, it is selfish but also very realistic.
They made a PR mistake but let's not cut off our noses to spite our faces!
posted on October 31, 2001 11:23:17 AM new
I too am a certified Red Cross Volunteer.
BUT I AM MAD AS HELL about the constant misuse of funds with excessive commercials and high salaries and other misuse of funds.
I no longer will contribute to anything with the RED CRSS LOGO on it.
**
I have also emailed EBAY and let them know of my concerns.
(Alot of good that did as we all know)
Hell, I would sooner get on a plane and walk into a firehouse and give them the money than participate in this sham.
It never fails.
The bigger they are,.. the more
out of touch they become!!
posted on October 31, 2001 11:34:02 AM new
I don't think anyone is claiming that the money is being wasted. What makes me see red is that the Liberty Fund was set up for one reason - to help the victims of 9-11. It was not set up to improve the infrastructure of the ARC - if that was needed than that should have been solicited through a separate campaign. I don't think the celebrities that have been on TV asking for my money were asking for it "to help the ARC infrastructure". I realize this is an issue with every charity out there, but this particular instance was different. And I don't buy the excuse that "nobody has ever dealt with a tragedy of this magnitude". What does that have to do with where the money is going?
I have sat on a United Way committee in my community that recommends where funds are allocated, and one of those areas is to the Red Cross. I believe strongly in what our local chapters provide to those in need, but after what the national chapter has decided to do I'm not sure what I think anymore.
posted on October 31, 2001 11:42:08 AM new
Hmmmm.... Well what do they do with the money, when:
My uncle was released from WWII POW camp, and RC volunteers gave him coffee and donuts then deducted the cost of same from his military pay. If you think this is not true, check out the other thread where others also shared their RC horror stories. Nope, not me. They aren't getting my money. When I'm certain the scholarships are set up, and properly handled, I will donate to scholarship funds for WTC victim's children so they can at least go to college as if Mom or Dad were still here.
posted on October 31, 2001 12:41:47 PM new
I was listening to talk radio yesterday. I woman had called and was telling the announcer how her father never passed a Salvation Army bucket without putting a couple of coins in it. When she asked her father why, he said that during WWI, the red cross charged for everything, doughnuts, coffee, etc. etc. However, the Salvation Army gave them that plus blankets and cots, etc. for free.
In addition during 1993 when we (the midwest) had the great flood, the red cross was charging the volunteers for cups of water. These were the people that waded in contaminated water (The Missouri river is horrible) stacking sandbags, helping rescue people and the red cross actually had the audacity to charge them.
The red cross will never get another dime out of me.
Oh yes while I am on a roll. over 100 million dollars from the fund went to various overhead "groups" within the red cross. They have definitely bitten off their nose to spite their face.
posted on October 31, 2001 01:13:59 PM new
I'm curious also...
In another thread on this subject it was promulgated that the RC had military paychecks docked for services they rendered in the field of combat and/or for POW's....
I would surmise, to do that, the government would be complicit as well, yes?
I tried for a few hours to find some substantiating evidence to back up the claims because I would find such behavior outrageous. I'm still looking...please direct me...maybe a book on Amazon or a web site perhaps?
posted on October 31, 2001 01:17:21 PM new
My dad who served in W.W.II was hospitlized
and when the Red Cross person came arround and asked him what he needed he asked for a tooth brush, toothpase, writing paper,
envlopes and a deck of playing cards so he could play solitaire. He told me that he paid for each and everything that he got that day from the Red Cross and he even showed me the playing cards which were stamped with a date and also said right on them "gift of the Red Cross".
This (the deck of cards)I have seen with my own eyes and while we are at it my father had no reason to lie about what happened.
He too also droped coins in the kettle every time we walked past a Salavation Army collection kettle. He talked of shipping out
of New York harbor and when the Slavation Army had a barge out in the river giving coffee and doughtnuts to all who wanted them. Some one else was on the docks charging for the same, although he never said who! Can I substanciate this?
Yes my dad told me this and he was not a liar!! However he is gone now so I guess you will have to take my work for it.
posted on October 31, 2001 01:24:15 PM new
Something just occurred to me....
Is it possible some or all of these anecdotes were the result of some profiteer making money off the RC's good name (at the time)?
From the stories I heard from my dad, who worked in the supply and ordinance areas, it was often chaotic and people and things were often not checked as thoroughly as they should have been, military-wise...
I'll see if I can find some VFW sites with forums and pose this question to them...I am curious to learn more about this...
posted on October 31, 2001 01:25:50 PM new
The caller was talking to Dan Roberts on 71.0 am radio (KC MO) yesterday afternoon.
I live in the Kansas City area, and another caller who was a volunteer during the flood in '93 stated that they (he)was charged for the water.
I do not believe 100% of what I read. I keep myself apprised on the day to day events, as it is a 'hobby' of mine. Here are a few news articles that may shed some light into my comments. I typically listen/read Fox news because I have found them to be more up front than the rest. I listen for about 5 minutes to other channels such as CNN and then have to change them before I get nauseous.
posted on October 31, 2001 01:26:29 PM new
I do not give any money to the Red Cross because when my father was a soldier during WW2, there was a flood along the Snake River and some troops were asked to help out. The Red Cross SOLD Coffee and doughnuts to the troops, while the Salvation Army GAVE away free coffee and doughnuts to our men in uniform. Very bad PR for Red Cross, memories linger.
posted on October 31, 2001 01:30:23 PM new
I usually try to stay away from such controversial issues but had to add this. In March 2001 my fathers house burned to the ground, no he did not have insurance. He and Ralph (the dog) were fine but it was a total loss. The Red Cross stepped in and provided him with: a motel room for 3 weeks, $200 certificate for Wal-Mart to buy new clothing, etc. & gift certificate for Food Lion for groceries. I know this is not any where near the catastrophe of Sept 11 but when you are disabled and lose everything you have at the age of 65, it means the world to know someone cares. The lady who handled my dads' case followed-up with phone calls to me to make sure he was okay. In this day and age when everyone is always in such a rush and has so many things to do it's nice to know they are there when you need them. This was the only time I have ever dealt with the Red Cross but it left me with a wonderful impression. Just my 2 cents. Barbara
