Should we have a say in how a charity spends donated money?

[purepurple]

There are calls for a hospice boss to resign after they spent £50,000 on art work for the chapel.
www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/blackpoolnews/Resign-call-to-bosses-at.6071651.jp
Apparently, the artwork is now worth 3 times what thay spent on it (according to my local news)

Here is the artist
Penny Warden
Personally, I don't have a problem with spending this money on art.I quite like the paintings. There are 8, all six foot, similiar to the one titled 'Rapture' in the second link.

DH, however, is not happy. He has done a sponsored bike ride in the past, to raise money for the children's hospice. He thinks it is a waste.
What about you?

Should we have a say or is it a waste?

I think that we get a say in as much as we could stop donating, I nearly did that once when a charity I supported launched some crazy internet safety campaign.

As to it being a waste, my gut feeling is that it is.

However I presume that Charities do invest money in things and could the artwork be thought of as that?

I'd have preferred they spent the money on actually helping people rather than decoration.

I'm very fussy re charity giving (except for anything DS school chooses as DS should gain his own beliefs as he grows up), I prefer charities where the bulk of money raised is actually spent on the cause rather than salaries and advertising etc.

Charity is giving money in good faith that it will go to those it is intended. I think it sounds a bit mean to give money to a charity with stipulations as to how it is to be spent : it kind of stops being charity IYSWIM ....

Perhaps the thing to do is to become a more active memeber of a charity or to donate something other than cash which will be more benefit to theose in need e.g.: I didn't give money to the Haiti Appeal, but have no hesitation in giving clothes and other household things to be shipped over ...

Sorry, I hope this makes sense

"I think it sounds a bit mean to give money to a charity with stipulations as to how it is to be spent"

I worked for a charity for a long time and we use to have what was called "restricted funds" where money was raised for a specific project and by law that money has to be spent on that project.
Surely the charity should have specifically fundraised for the pictures, then they wouldn't have upset their general donors.