ARC battles the BBB: Watchdog pulls charity's report. (Late News).

The American Red Cross and Better Business Bureau's Wise Giving Alliance (WGA) both worked to mollify press reports of a downgrade in the disaster relief group's rating on the watchdog's Web site.

WGA had in late January requested answers to an additional three dozen questions beyond its usual 18-24 month review of a charity. Because of the additional questions, which were specifically related to post-September 11 activities that caused considerable public outcry, ARC was granted until the end of March to complete its task.

Though the watchdog's scheduled review of the human service organization was due for update in February, Bennett M.Weiner, chief operating officer of the Arlington, Va.-based WGA, said it recognized the need to follow up on the various public issues on the organization's recent relief activities. "We were asking for significant additional information, and we were willing to give more time," Weiner said. "We informed them in the letter that we would no longer be distributing the (previous) report (on its Web site or elsewhere)," which he added is its typical procedure upon expiration.

Stories about the change on the WGA Web site appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer. George Decker, the American Red Cross's interim CEO reportedly called comments by Art Taylor, WGA's president, "capricious and damaging to the Red Cross" in a letter he sent to the BBB's board.

When asked about Decker's letter, Devorah Goldburg, an ARC spokesperson said that the organization was concerned the public would get the wrong impression from Taylor's comments. "Unfortunately, that gentleman's remarks implied something that was very different from what our understanding was," said Goldburg.

In a later conversation, however, Goldburg sounded more peeved by the stories' headlines and generally concurred with Weiner's assessment of the relationship between the organizations.

While headlines had declared the Red Cross lost the BBB seal of approval, "We have not said that they don't meet standards," Weiner said. "We are just simply saying we have requested information to complete an evaluation.... We request information from charities all the time."

Weiner denied that any press release or other action had been taken to alert the media about the change on BBB's page describing the Red Cross, which noted the organization was being reviewed with questions in particular related to the September 11 activities. "We're not seeking to single out the American Red Cross in any way, but we will be responsive to the media when asked (about) the status of the field."

Weiner sidestepped whether there may be some slightly ripe reviews currently on its Web site, which does not list expiration dates. "To continue to post our now outdated (ARC) report is not going to give the public the full story," he said. "We believe that it's a nonjudgmental and factual statement."

Weiner continued, "Have we ever taken down a report because of questions that we've raised? Yes. This is not an unprecedented activity." He did not cite a specific example, but said, "Any time there's been a national charity public debate and issues raised that may impact on accountability guidelines, we may do something similar."

Weiner said that WGA received several hundred emails from the public with concerns about charities after September 11. Though the vast majority were generic, he said, "a number" were specific to the Red Cross. "The complaints are a relatively rare phenomenon on the national charities we report on," he said.

"The difference here is we've asked for quite a bit of information and asked a lot of questions about September 11, but I don't think anyone would be surprised that we'd do that given what's happened (and the) public controversy."

WGA will be doing reports on other organizations closely associated with the relief effort following the September 11 attacks, according to Weiner. "The Red Cross certainly has been center stage in all of this."