Over the top: Charities know what they are doing. (Out on a Limb).

The ruckus over who controls the money raised in the aftermath of the World Trade Center and Pentagon terrorist attacks is missing the point. Talking heads, such as Bill O'Reilly of the O'Reilly Factor on the FOX network and in his syndicated column, have been attacking charity leaders regarding the money distribution. Guests on his show recently have included Dr. Bernadine Healy, president of the American Red Cross and Ralph Dickerson, head of the United Way of New York City, who were skewered over the distribution of donations.

There are more than 140 charities, including those recently formed as the result of the tragedy in N.Y. and Washington, D.C., raising these monies. There have been calls by the general media and government officials for coordination among all these groups to ensure that the monies get to the intended recipients.

Some of the donations have restricted purposes, such as designations for scholarships for children of firefighters or police officers or to pay mortgages. Some is unrestricted.

Eliot Spitzer, New York State's attorney general, would like the job of coordinating the effort. Some have touted New York City Mayor Rudy Guiliani as the coordinator once he leaves office.

Some of the larger charities involved in raising money for the disaster relief, such as the American Red Cross, have objected to the state as the overseer, and rightfully so. It is akin to having the fox watch the chicken coop. The attorney general is responsible for regulating charities in the state and therefore, as an overseer, could be in a conflicted role. Government regulators are not the best monitors for this type of action.

Legitimate inquiries into the $1billion -- and growing -- outpouring of support for the victims of the September 11 tragedy need a response. Most of the demands are for a release of the funds now. However, raising questions about overhead, such as administrative expenses, and who gets what and when, only muddy the waters and cast unreasonable doubt on the whole effort.

Nonprofit organizations such as the United Way, American Red Cross and Salvation Army, have a long and honorable history of dealing with natural, and in this case, a horrific man-made, disasters. They know how to give aid and ensure that victims and their survivors are treated with respect. They are also well-versed in raising and distributing funds as quickly and legitimately as possible.

To suggest that somehow a government overseer peering over the shoulders of these groups, could ensure legitimacy to the needs of the victims and survivors is preposterous. Any politician or elected regulator is too susceptible to political pressures to add legitimacy to the work and decision making of an impassioned and dedicated group of charity officials.

Too, designated gifts or endowments to scholarships, for instance, need a trained hand, that charities have, to see that gifts get where they are suppose to go.

The rush to distribute almost $1 billion in gifts is quite understandable. Everyone wants to see that survivors are helped quickly. Also, these grants and distributions must be done as cost efficiently as possible.

Rather than appoint an overseer, although someone like Guiliani might offer an unusual credential and interesting ability to do it, nonprofits might be better left to do their own intra-coordination. There is enough public and media pressure to do so.

Nonprofit organizations understand the benefit of proper reporting and communicating. Letting people know, by category and not individual, how gifts are being spent is not only good policy, it is common sense. In this time of coming together united by a national tragedy, nonprofits once again are in an unique position of being helper and healer.

These organizations should be motivated by their donors to share what classes of recipients are being helped while at the same time, maintaining a proper privacy for the victims and recipients.