A Tale of a Greedy Charity.

• biltmore
  May 28th, 2007 at 2:57 pm

  Wow, that’s freaking rediculous. What a bunch of crooked bastards.

• Yak Boy
  May 28th, 2007 at 3:04 pm

  Here’s the thing:

  The Salvation Army is NOT a charity, it is a CHURCH.

  There is no separation between the Salvation Army religious sect & the charitable organisation.

  They operate in much the same way as the Mormons or the Jehovah’s Witnesses - they give charity to the needy but use it as a cover to hock their religious beliefs.

  If the story had been about the Mormons or the JW’s squeezing money from another charity, no-one would have been surprised. But, for some unknown reason, the Salvation Army seems to have built up a veneer of respectability.

  Hopefully people might now take notice and start to see the Salvo’s for what they really are.

• biltmore
  May 28th, 2007 at 3:35 pm

  Oh that makes me hate them even more now. Thanks Yak Boy! I knew that something evil was going on with TSA.

• Another Jake
  May 28th, 2007 at 4:02 pm

  Psh. Every organization, charitable or otherwise makes some bad judgment calls. And honestly, I’d rather if Greenpeace didn’t get the money. Those folks are the Corleones of the green movement.

• Moon
  May 28th, 2007 at 6:28 pm

  Well, maybe when you get millions to donate to charity, you can ignore Greenpeace. But that obviously wasn’t the intention of the DiStefanos.

• Robert Aronson
  May 28th, 2007 at 6:36 pm

  The Salvation Army may have made a bad call, but Greenpeace is ridiculous. I’m all for preserving the environment, but not at the expense of aiding Greenpeace. They’re just crazy. From what I hear, most or all of the founders of that movement/organization resigned because it became nothing more than a radical, political machine filled with as many crackpot zealots as any cult.

  Also, people need to remember that there’s far more to every story than what one reads in the newspaper. It’s best not to jump to quick judgements. I tend to not trust any news story that seems totally one-sided, whether or not I like which side won.

• Jesus
  May 28th, 2007 at 8:04 pm

  The salvation army is a cult.

  In my city they make some people listen to their sermons before giving handouts (that were donated).

• a fundraiser
  May 28th, 2007 at 10:40 pm

  Thanks for the link! I’m glad you are covering this story.

• Eric
  May 28th, 2007 at 11:47 pm

  I’ve had a bad taste for the Salvation Army since a friend of mine went to help with hurricane relief (not Katrina). The Salvation Army provided them with coffee…at a charge. How cheap.

• Alex
  May 29th, 2007 at 12:05 am

  Bad call? Bad call is when you go for greasy Chinese when you know you shouldn’t. Or maybe hitting the golf ball with the wrong club.

  Filing a lawsuit to stiff another entity over money from the kindness of strangers is so much more than just a bad judgment call.

• Another Jake
  May 29th, 2007 at 1:02 am

  Let’s just say my definition of “bad call” is a bit broader than yours, anyway I didn’t say it was a “minor” bad judgment call. I’m just saying that some corporate loony made a bad decision that soiled the spirit of the organization. The salvation army is non-profit and somebody probably got too caught up in keeping the budget tight. or maybe they got greedy, but that doesn’t explain it too well since they don’t really pocket the money. I mean, there aren’t shareholders.

  Anyone picturing Mr. Burns writhing his hands and going all “Smithers! Go take those dead people’s money this instant! …Excellent.” is probably less right than someone picturing an overstressed budget-managing executive going all “How am I gonna keep this place running?! I’m gonna get canned!”

  It doesn’t matter anyway really since they will lose the lawsuit, greenpeace will get their cut, as they should, and somebody at salvation army will hopefully get the axe.

• Lasse
  May 29th, 2007 at 1:13 am

  Corleones of the green movement? What do you think all the industrialist lobby organizations are doing? At least one mobster works for the right cause.

• Dave
  May 29th, 2007 at 8:10 am

  Without knowing any of the details, my first guess is that the SA folks saw the redirection of the money to the Greenpeace Fund as a breach of the specifics of the Di Stefano’s will. Wills designating money going to organizations are usually very specific in where the money goes; it didn’t likely say just “Greenpeace”, but referred to a specific legal entity that existed at the time the will was drawn up. Apparently nobody saw a need to amend the will when Greenpeace dissolved.

  The Salvation Army folks were in the right, following the letter of the Di Stefano’s will, as the trustees of the estate had no business futzing with the details of who got what after the death of the Di Stephanos. The trustees, for whatever reason, chose to pursue the spirit of the will, and although I can’t say that I would’ve done the same, I can see their intentions. That said, I can’t fault SA for their actions; they were only trying to get the specifics of the will carried out, which to them was divvying up the money between the organizations specified in the will. Greenpeace Fund was not in the list.

  Those of you who do fault them would probably fault them regardless of the circumstances, as you likely would with any Christian organization. Guess bigotry knows no bounds.

• Eric
  May 29th, 2007 at 8:48 am

  nuke greenpeace

• Gerry
  May 29th, 2007 at 8:55 am

  While I would never give to Greenpeace,
  now I’ll also know NOT to give to
  the Salvation Army. No more Christmas buckets.

• phoenix
  May 29th, 2007 at 11:31 am

  Typical Salvation Army.

• Jake
  May 29th, 2007 at 12:28 pm

  My name’s David. *fart noise*

• a fundraiser
  May 29th, 2007 at 2:37 pm

  I thought you’d be interested to know that the matter has since been settled through mediation. I posted a follow-up piece on the settlement:

  http://donttellthedonor.blogspot.com/2007/05/greenpeace-survives-shake down-from.html

• c-dub
  May 30th, 2007 at 6:10 pm

  Robert Aronson says that Greenpeace is full of crackpots “from what [he] hears” — but then chastises people for believing everything they hear. How interesting.

  Another Jake: this clearly isn’t an example of one “budget-managing executive” making a “bad call.” A lawsuits of this magnitude wouldn’t get filed and litigated without the support of church leadership.

  And Dave, I really doubt that the Salvation Army was really “only trying to get the specifics of the will carried out,” as if the church were only looking out for the interest of the deceased. They were trying to get more money; the interest of the deceased was clearly contrary to theirs.

• Alex
  May 30th, 2007 at 6:28 pm

  The ending of the story is quite telling: the lawsuit is privately settled when Salvation Army goes away with the extra $6 million it would’ve gotten by cutting out Greenpeace.

  Hm, somehow I think that contradicted the explanation of “carrying out the letter of the will.”

Want your own avatar? Get one for free at Gravatar!