Am I the only person who feels that the following two statements are contradictory?
Global Giving blog entry “Animals For Autism” dated Jan 27th 2012
“Over the last few months we’ve heard the concerns raised regarding a $50,000 grant awarded to an individual, Lea Kaydus, in July 2010. The project is to provide ten trained dogs to families of autistic children free of charge.”
“We have been in regular contact with the grantee throughout the grant period (including a recent site visit), and she is in compliance with the terms of her grant agreement and is scheduled to deliver the dogs to the requesting families starting in Spring 2012.”
Chicago Tribune article June 6th, 2012
“Global Giving representatives who visited the central Illinois facility in the winter reported that Kaydus was training the dogs, even if they had been temporarily relocated to other homes when the trainer ran low on funds.”
“Although the Pepsi Refresh voting site stated the grant would go to “train and place free service dogs with autistic kids,” Global Giving has said the terms of the grant do not require actual delivery and that the money may be spent on items that go “toward realizing the spirit of the grant,” such as building kennels and caring for the dogs.”
So,… basically they are saying that even if the families never get the dogs… they don’t care… because the spirit of the dream was realized? That is ridiculous… I thought they were granting dreams… not nightmares… and that is what they created for the families that HAVEN’T got a dog yet….