I would imagine that continuing to allow the cobranding of communications, collateral and events, after receiving substantive and evidence based complaints, is an indication of compliance and support for the behaviour a partner exhibits.
If I were responsible for millions of dollars of taxpayer funds being channeled into a charity that has a history of significant complaints about financial management, intimidation and bullying (much of that history supported by corroborating stories from multiple sources), I would take seriously a request made to investigate new claims. If for no other reason than to protect the brand that is associated with the public effort to save lives through organ donation.
My personal experience has only been over the last year. What has come to light since I started documenting my experiences is that a systemic pattern of poor and questionable behaviour by Transplant Australia across multiple states, multiple events and a considerable number of different people has been confronting.
When a funding organisation continues funding of activities of a partner despite knowing of unresolved and credible complaints, it seems to indicate that the behaviour is acceptable and the damage caused to individuals is not a concern to the funding organisation.
I am hoping that this is not the case and that some action is taken to address the concerns raised and reunite a fractured community which needs reunification to have the impact needed to increase next of kin consent and donations of critical organs and tissue to save lives.
Comments