Thursday's Washington Post highlighted a problem likely not unique in nonprofits but because of the times, clearly visible. 

According to the article, a recent study of 29 veterans service organizations have taken the money and run distributing and benefiting veterans a lot less than the veterans huge amounts of donations are intended to serve.  Documented inappropriate or mis-spending includes one vet organization that pays the ED $420,000+ and the Exec's wife $100,000+.  And of course our nonprofit watchdog on the Hill, Senator Grassley says that "Taxpayers are subsidizing that tax exemption," Grassley said through a spokeswoman. "Sitting on donors' money or spending too much on contracts and salaries doesn't benefit the public."

The real problem with stories like this is that the facts aren't necessarily the facts. The facts as spun by the press certainly make the bad look really bad and the good look really good but the background that explains the "why" is not presented.  For instance, it's not clear that the ED and wife are in the wrong (may be worth the money and maybe providing un-replicable services) but on the face of it and in the press and public's eye, pretty unacceptable. 

I for one would raise the question as to the return-on-investment from an investment such as this nonprofit group has chosen to make but that should be up to the board and in reality, these questions about improper or inadequate spending are all nonprofit board (governance) questions.  If there's failed oversight here, it belongs first and foremost to the boards and that's where this report should have started and ended.