It is not an easy decision for any journalist to flag wrongdoing by philanthropic organisations that enjoy widespread trust and admiration. Responsible media companies know that what they print or broadcast can have a negative impact on the beneficiaries of those organisations.

But this ethical conundrum has its flipside. Charity groups that perform sterling work with the disadvantaged, the sick and the poor thrive because of the trust they enjoy in the wider community.

Such organisations will risk breaching this trust if any wrongdoing, even if it is just a perception, is brushed aside. Noble as the cause may be, wrongdoing or unethical behaviour by members of the charity can never be justified and the sooner the air is cleared the better.

It is within this context that the most recent controversy surrounding the Community Chest Fund has to be viewed.

It is not as if the media has a bone to pick with President George Abela, who chairs the presidential charity fund. Reducing the controversy to this argument, as the Prime Minister seems to have done when asked his reaction by The Sunday Times of Malta, is a disservice to society.

Last year, during a board meeting of the Community Chest Fund, the President proposed that the fund finance the travelling costs for a learning programme pursued by one of his aides – who happened to be the sister of his daughter-in-law.

The aide was to get training in eating disorders, which the President felt was an important development given the Community Chest Fund was jointly developing a clinic on eating disorders with the Health Ministry.

The cause is undoubtedly noble but the issue here is not the good work done by the Community Chest Fund and the President but how the man who society has held in high esteem for the past four years is perceived to have behaved.

Dr Abela clearly had a conflict of interest given the familial link when he proposed the fund finance the aide’s studies. At the very least he should have taken a step back and allowed the board the liberty to discuss the matter in his absence.

The Community Chest Fund is bequeathed to the Presidency by the public. The people trust that this charity, which has helped numerous individuals in their hour of need, is being run professionally for the purpose it has been created. It belongs to nobody and is no one’s fiefdom.

Admittedly, Dr Abela has given the Community Chest Fund a new lease of life. He turned previous annual deficits into surpluses, dishing out much more money to people in need and other organisations. The accounts are public and they do justice to the good work Dr Abela has put in.

But accounts do not delve into what is ethically correct and the most recent controversy is precisely about this.

The solitary calls for a boycott on donations to the Community Chest Fund by some individuals are unwarranted and premature. They will only harm the people who benefit from the charity.

But people have a right to know how the hard-earned money they donate to the Community Chest Fund is managed.

When controversy strikes, the least any organisation can do is be transparent about its actions. In the circumstances, therefore, the Community Chest Fund should opt for full disclosure.

A thorough independent audit of the Community Chest Fund’s work and decisions taken by board members will be a welcome start.