In regards to the Magnolia Therapeutic Solutions Case Study and how my decision compared to the board members decision were closely the same. There were a few differentials that I feel that the full grant should have been issued to an extent but final decision of not being conducted. Mary showed substantial size of how much help was going to be needed during the September 11th attacks on America and with the experience of how Magnolia was conducted previously to help individuals with Post Traumatic Syndrome Disorder. When the board made their decision to approve the budget for Magnolia it was done in haste; the grant should not have been submitted to the board within their budget so the board members could have seen what the true submissions would have been.
With the past acknowledgment of how Magnolia supported individuals before September 11th and the success it brought it was only natural to follow through with what the board members did. I think we base our decisions off of facts, recognition and references from what is brought to our attention. Being able to go off those facts will be able to make our minds up how we want our decisions to go.
Mary had shown a challenged yet great organizational infrastructure when conducting this organization. The employees of Magnolia had grown in numbers which meant that their grant was going to exceed what asked for the previous years; going from six employees to thirty-four is a high increase of funds to be shelling out. I feel I would of asked Mary to produce the records that correlated with the budget submitted; Mary did nothing more than put her budget together by using the grants and fundraising from the previous grant. Mary made her budget with a grant she was not yet approved; not even taking into consideration if the grant was reinstated or not.