The unfolding scandal at the American Red Cross has triggered a wide range of criticism — but not all observers see it as a black eye for the relief organization.

On Tuesday the charity’s Board of Governors announced that it asked for — and received — the resignation of Mark W. Everson, executive director of the Red Cross National Headquarters, in Washington. The board said it removed Mr. Everson after it learned that he had “engaged in a personal relationship with a subordinate employee.”

While the incident is expected to damage the group’s already
beleaguered reputation, Jack Siegel, a Chicago lawyer who specializes in nonprofit law, writes that the board should be applauded for its move.

“The board took decisive action, saying that we are an organization that is not dependent on one individual. To us, this looks like a board that has chosen to govern. That’s a good sign,” he writes on his blog, Charity Governance.

Such sentiments were echoed by Mike Burns, a charity consultant, on his blog, Nonprofit Board
Crisis.

“The Red Cross board has acted responsibly and the public should be grateful and appreciative and most importantly, can begin to put their trust back in an institution which certainly has not proven its own trustworthiness over the last few years,” he writes.

But Trent Stamp, executive director of Charity Navigator, sees little silver lining in the whole affair.

After Mr. Everson’s departure, “morale among staff and volunteers will suffer. Contributions will lag. Public confidence will plummet. And as a result, the Red Cross will be less equipped moving forward to do what they are chartered by Congress to do — to serve as America’s first responder. And all because one married man with children couldn’t, well, you know what he couldn’t do,” he writes on Trent Stamp’s Take.

Other charities may feel the negative fallout from the Red Cross, too, suggests Lucy Bernholz, a nonprofit consultant, on her blog,
Philanthropy 2173.

Citing the Red Cross incident, the public problems at the Smithsonian Institution, and a scandal engulfing the philanthropic Astor
family,
he describes the situation as a “Bad day for charities.”

Indeed, on blogs written by people from outside the nonprofit world, the comments are fairly negative about the Red Cross and charities in general.

The title of one recent blog entry seems to sum up this feeling: “How Large Charities Like the Red Cross Rip Us Off.”

What do you think? Should the Red Cross board be praised for its move? How can the organization recover its already damaged reputation? Would you have asked Mr. Everson to resign? Will the scandal hurt fund raising at other charities? Click on
the comments link below this post to share your thoughts.