40 Days Later: The Ryugyong Hotel of Nonprofits
The infamous Ryugyong Hotel in North Korea earned the nickname Hotel of Doom after decades of delays and unfinished construction.
Forty days into Kidstown International's website outage, is the Organization of Doom following in its footsteps? After all, one day of website downtime is practically a year in internet time.
Still under construction. No announced relaunch date. Plenty of unanswered questions.
Unlike the Ryugyong Hotel, however, Kidstown is still happily accepting donations.
Yet donors are left with some rather basic questions:
Which children's homes are actually still operating?
Which homes are receiving financial support?
And where, exactly, is the money going?
Coming Soon™ — A Kidstown International Production.
Kidstown's Website Is Now “Under Construction”
The website is under construction. The donation page isn't.
Kidstown won't give donors answers. But don't worry, they'll still take their money.
Kidstown's temporary website makes some interesting assurances.
“Our work has not stopped.”
What would the children from the closed Aleșd home say about that?
How long did it take Kidstown to update donors and its fundraising materials after the home closed?
“Their safety, well-being, and daily needs remain our highest priority.”
What happened after children reportedly raised concerns about the alleged misuse of funds intended for their care?
Were their concerns investigated? What were the findings, and what safeguards were implemented?
What did Kidstown determine happened?
Were those children adequately heard and protected?
“Faithfully stewarding every dollar entrusted to our organization.”
Every dollar?
What happened to the funds reportedly misused by Kidstown's former International Director?
Is sexting while at work—and while visiting the children Kidstown exists to serve—faithful stewardship of donor resources?
How are executive salaries and compensation determined?
Where is the financial transparency that allows donors to verify how their money is being stewarded?
“Donor funds are managed responsibly.”
Okay... Show donors the stewardship.
Where is the documentation demonstrating that?
“Continued patience, trust, prayers, and support.”
Kidstown is still asking for prayers—while explicit references to Christ and its identity as a Christian ministry have largely disappeared from its public presentation.
Why the change?
“During this time of transition and improvement…”
What transition? What improvement?
Kidstown keeps using those words.
But it still isn't telling donors what they mean.
Trust is earned.
Not requested. Not declared. And not manufactured with carefully chosen words about faith, stewardship, and prayer.
Trust requires transparency. Accountability. Proof.
Tell the truth. Acknowledge the failures. Answer the questions. Show the proof.
You don't rebuild trust by telling donors to trust you.
You rebuild it by giving them reasons to.
Five Months of Silence. Still No Answers.
After more than five months of silence, Kidstown finally communicated with donors—and still failed to explain what happened.
Kidstown acknowledges:
“We recognize that we have not communicated with our donors as frequently as we would have liked…”
There is an old saying: If they wanted to, they would have.
For more than five months, Kidstown didn't.
And now that they finally have, they still haven't told donors what happened.
No meaningful explanation for the leadership upheaval. No disclosure that a leader—whose employment was terminated for “gross misconduct”—was later brought back to assist the organization. No answers about reported allegations involving the misuse or theft of donated funds in India. And no explanation for what happened to a Kidstown-supported children's home in Romania.
According to official Romanian correspondence, the Kajántó Mária/Aleșd home ceased operating in June 2025, and the children had to be relocated to other licensed services.
Yet on October 31, 2025—approximately four months after Romanian authorities say the home ceased operating—Kidstown published a new Facebook post about the “Kajanto Maria (Alesd) Home in Romania.”
The post described what happens as “kids grow in a Kidstown home,” referred to the “kids of Alesd,” credited “the giving of their sponsors” for the children's summer experiences, and told readers:
“When you sponsor a Kidstown kid, and give to the mission of Kidstown, you give kids a new course for their lives.”
It concluded by stating that children “across Romania, India and Nepal all await sponsors” and directed readers to Kidstown's website to begin a sponsorship.
This was not simply an old webpage Kidstown may have forgotten to remove. It was new content published months after Romanian authorities say the home had ceased operating.
That raises an unavoidable question:
What exactly were donors being told they were sponsoring?
Kidstown also appeared to continue soliciting donations for children connected to the closed home into early 2026.
If Kidstown was publishing new fundraising-oriented content about the Aleșd home months after Romanian authorities say that home had ceased operating, how are donors supposed to determine which of Kidstown's representations about its overseas programs are current and accurate?
Donors should not have to independently investigate whether a children's home is still operating before donating money intended to support it.
Nearly six months after Kidstown identified Board Chair Leilani Lozier Salinas as Acting Executive Director, its latest donor communication does not identify who currently holds executive responsibility.
Has a permanent Executive Director been hired? Is a search underway? Does Salinas remain Acting Executive Director? Who is currently accountable for Kidstown's day-to-day leadership?
Why are donors still left to guess who is running Kidstown nearly six months later?
The new update answers none of those questions. Instead, it is signed simply:
“The Kidstown Team.”
Yet Kidstown asks donors for continued financial support while declaring that it takes “stewardship” and donor trust seriously.
Where is the stewardship in asking for more money without answering serious questions about money already entrusted to the organization?
Where is the transparency in asking donors for trust while leaving out information they may reasonably consider important when deciding whether that trust—and their financial support—should continue?
Kidstown says the past year brought “changes and transitions.”
You don't say...
Actually, they don't say at all.
They don't explain to donors what the most consequential “changes and transitions” actually were.
They don't explain what happened to the Romanian home.
They don't publicly explain the outcome of the reported allegations involving donated funds in India.
They don't tell donors that Polinder was brought back to assist Kidstown after the departure of the Executive Director who had repeatedly opposed his reinstatement.
And their latest update doesn't even identify who currently holds executive responsibility for Kidstown.
Kidstown calls them “changes and transitions.” Donors deserve to know why the most consequential changes were left out.
The children Kidstown exists to serve deserve something more important than carefully worded assurances.
The children deserve accountability.
And if Kidstown wants donors to continue entrusting it with money intended for vulnerable children, donors deserve something too:
Accurate information about where their money is going, which programs are actually operating, who is responsible for overseeing them, and what happens when something goes wrong.
A Note on Context, Corrections, and Verification
Former leadership has stated that while some of the disclosures made on this website contain truth, important context is missing and the resulting narratives are incomplete. They have also explicitly declined to provide the information they believe is missing or to identify specific factual inaccuracies within the materials published here. Instead, they have asked that their personal knowledge of these events simply be trusted.
However, when the whistleblower initially came forward in 2024, trust alone was not considered sufficient.
In written communications, Kidstown leadership stated:
"...your anonymity may create limitations to our ability to substantiate action."
To address those concerns, the whistleblower surrendered anonymity, answered extensive questions, and provided contemporaneous records and supporting documentation. The organization did not simply accept allegations at face value, nor was it asked to do so.
Kidstown required the whistleblower to provide information sufficient to substantiate her claims. It is reasonable to apply the same standard when current or former leadership claims that the documented record is materially incomplete or inaccurate.
Notably, among every organization contacted regarding the underlying conduct, Kidstown International was the only organization that indicated anonymity would limit its ability to substantiate action. Other organizations reviewed the information provided without requiring the whistleblower to reveal their identity.
For that reason, this website applies the same evidentiary standard to claims that its reporting is materially inaccurate.
If important context exists, if facts have been misunderstood, or if any material conclusion is incorrect, supporting records and documentation are welcome and will be carefully reviewed.
This invitation remains open to Kidstown International, current and former leadership, board members, staff, and anyone else with firsthand knowledge of these events.
Readers are encouraged to review the primary source materials, contact Kidstown directly for its perspective, consider all available information, and draw their own conclusions.
Jason Vander Kooy Continues Contact After Being Asked to Stop
Despite receiving an explicit written request to cease contact, Kidstown International Vice Chair Jason Vander Kooy continued emailing the whistleblower.
As the exchanges progressed, his communications increasingly focused on the whistleblower's identity and credibility rather than the underlying governance concerns.
One particularly noteworthy statement:
"You leave us alone. We will leave you alone. Trust me, I would take that offer."
This statement came during correspondence in which the whistleblower was requesting accountability and answers to documented concerns about Kidstown International.
Why did Vander Kooy continue contacting the whistleblower after being explicitly asked to stop?
The correspondence below allows readers to examine his statements and the surrounding context.
"What Is Your Real Name?"
During an email exchange, Vice Chair Jason Vander Kooy asked the whistleblower, "What is your real name?"
But Mr. Vander Kooy wasn't responding to an unsolicited email from a stranger. He initiated the contact.
That raises an obvious question: If Mr. Vander Kooy didn't know who the whistleblower was, how did he obtain her email address in the first place—and who did he believe he was contacting?
He then spent months communicating with that same person using the same name she had used throughout her direct correspondence with Kidstown.
Mr. Vander Kooy later pointed to a pseudonym used by a Reddit user and claimed it as evidence that the whistleblower was using a false name.
There's an obvious problem with that claim: Reddit usernames are pseudonyms. That's how Reddit works. Users are assigned usernames and are not required to post under verified legal names.
A Reddit username certainly does not establish that someone used a false identity in private communications with Kidstown.
The whistleblower initially contacted former Executive Director Fred Hartsook using an anonymous Proton email address. Mr. Hartsook responded that anonymity could limit Kidstown's ability to "substantiate action." The whistleblower then disclosed her identity and continued communicating with Kidstown under her legal name.
Mr. Hartsook even searched for the whistleblower on LinkedIn after learning her identity.
No evidence has been provided showing that she subsequently represented herself to Kidstown under multiple false identities.
Which makes the sequence even harder to explain:
Jason Vander Kooy obtained the whistleblower's email address. How? From whom? He contacted her. He communicated with her for months. Then he asked, "What is your real name?"
How did he know whom to contact if he didn't know who she was?
What Was This Alleged "Warning"?
Kidstown International Vice Chair Jason Vander Kooy claimed that former Executive Director Fred Hartsook had "warned" the Board that the whistleblower was allegedly using multiple names and email addresses.
When asked to provide evidence of that warning, Vander Kooy provided none.
If the warning occurred, where is the documentation?
An email? A text message? Board minutes? A written report?
And what evidence supports the underlying allegation that the whistleblower used multiple false identities?
Vander Kooy has also referenced his personal friendship with Hartsook when explaining why he would not discuss certain matters involving the former Executive Director. Yet he attributed statements questioning the whistleblower's credibility to Hartsook without providing documentation establishing that Hartsook actually made them.
That raises two very different possibilities.
If Hartsook did not issue the alleged warning, why did Vander Kooy attribute it to him?
If Hartsook did issue the warning, what exactly did he tell the Board, and what evidence did he provide?
Hartsook's documented communications with the whistleblower expressed support for her concerns and opposition to Polinder's reinstatement.
Was Hartsook simultaneously supporting the whistleblower in his direct communications with her while questioning her credibility in communications with the Board?
The available correspondence does not establish that he did. Nor does it establish that Vander Kooy accurately represented his statements.
The alleged warning could clarify both questions. If it exists, why hasn't it been produced?
Where Is the Factual Rebuttal?
Kidstown International has repeatedly characterized information published on this website as "misinformation."
But what, specifically, is inaccurate?
The evidence presented includes direct communications concerning Kidstown's India program, official Romanian government correspondence, public filings, screenshots and written exchanges with Kidstown's leadership.
Three questions deserve specific answers.
The India Program: If the information concerning the reported misuse of funds is inaccurate, which statements in Rusty Polinder's own written communications does Kidstown dispute? What evidence supports its explanation?
The Romania Program: If Kidstown disputes the documented closure of the Alsed/Kajántó Mária home or the withdrawal of its operating license, which findings in the official correspondence from Romania's National Authority for the Protection of Children's Rights and Adoption does it challenge?
The Identity Claims: If the whistleblower allegedly used multiple false identities, where is the correspondence documenting those identities?
To date, Kidstown has not provided a documented rebuttal addressing these specific questions.
Instead, its representatives have characterized the website as misinformation, questioned the whistleblower's identity, demanded her residential address and attributed an alleged warning to a former Executive Director without providing documentation of that warning.
The underlying evidence is available for examination. Where is Kidstown's evidence contradicting it?
If important context is missing, provide it. If the documents have been misrepresented, show how.
This website welcomes documented factual corrections. Identifying specific inaccuracies and providing supporting evidence would allow readers to evaluate both the original reporting and Kidstown's response.
Why Did Kidstown Demand a Home Address?
Kidstown International Vice Chair Jason Vander Kooy repeatedly conditioned the release of requested governance documents on the whistleblower providing her private residential address—even after she supplied a valid corporate mailing address in Tigard, Oregon, that she regularly uses.
Vander Kooy subsequently introduced another requirement: former Executive Director Fred Hartsook would need to confirm the whistleblower's identity before the documents could be released.
That raises another unanswered question:
Did Mr. Hartsook provide Mr. Vander Kooy with the whistleblower's email address in the first place? If not, who did?
Vander Kooy initiated contact with the whistleblower. If her contact information came from Kidstown or its former Executive Director, why was additional verification from Hartsook necessary before the requested documents could be released?
And regardless, why was a private residential address necessary when a valid mailing address had already been provided?
These requests did not occur in isolation. Kidstown was already communicating with the individual who had reported serious misconduct within the organization—the same individual whose anonymity Kidstown had previously indicated could limit its ability to substantiate action in 2024.
The whistleblower subsequently surrendered her anonymity, answered Kidstown's questions and provided supporting evidence.
The additional requirements raise questions about Kidstown's identity-verification procedures and its handling of individuals who report misconduct.
Despite multiple requests, the requested governance documents have not been provided.
According to written communications from Kidstown International's then Executive Director, Rusty Polinder's employment was terminated effective September 30, 2024, after his misconduct came to light and he admitted wrongdoing.
But his termination did not end the matter.
Internal communications document more than a year of efforts to return Polinder to Kidstown. According to the Executive Director, Polinder persuaded multiple Board members to advocate for his reinstatement despite the Executive Director's continued opposition.
The Executive Director explicitly attributed the pressure from certain Board members to their personal relationships with Polinder:
“I am absolutely blown away at the lack of integrity and bad behavior of these board members--all to protect their personal relationship to a man who has proven himself untrustworthy.”
In the Executive Director's Own Words
Throughout the dispute, the Executive Director repeatedly explained his opposition to Polinder's reinstatement:
“Rusty has convinced multiple members of Kidstown’s Board to lobby me… for his reinstatement.”
“I believe it is imperative to honor your experience, the integrity of our Christian ministry, and all who interface with Kidstown in any way that we do not reinstate Rusty to his position.”
“Everything you have shared is a critical point for me to deny Rusty’s reinstatement.”
“I can no longer be removed as a way to make a pathway for his reinstatement.”
By November 2025, the Executive Director had specifically identified the evidence he received, including reports and screenshots documenting Polinder's conduct, as a critical reason for opposing his return.
These communications document a sustained conflict over Polinder's reinstatement, rather than an isolated disagreement.
January 2026: The Executive Director's Departure
By January 2026, the conflict had reached a breaking point.
The Executive Director separated from Kidstown after describing an “irreconcilable wedge” between himself and certain Board members over the continued effort to reinstate Polinder.
He subsequently wrote that he had “lost the fight to protect Kidstown's ministry.”
At the time of his departure, he stated that he did not know whether the Board intended to reinstate Polinder, adding:
“I can honestly say I assume that they will.”
The former Board Chair also separated from Kidstown during this period.
What Happened After His Departure?
Following the Executive Director's departure, Polinder returned to assist Kidstown.
In March 2026 correspondence, Vice Chair Jason Vander Kooy confirmed that Polinder had been brought back to “help organize paperwork,” although Vander Kooy characterized his involvement as temporary rather than a formal reinstatement.
The Executive Director had opposed Polinder's reinstatement for more than a year. Following his departure, Polinder was brought back to assist the organization.
The communications presented below document the chronology of that dispute and the Executive Director's stated reasons for opposing Polinder's return.
Nothing presented here suggests that the former Executive Director supports, participates in or is affiliated with this website or its conclusions.
March 2026 correspondence with Kidstown International Vice Chair Jason Vander Kooy provides important confirmation of events surrounding Rustin Polinder's return to the organization.
Vander Kooy confirmed that Polinder was no longer employed by Kidstown. However, he also acknowledged that Polinder had returned following the Executive Director's departure to "help organize paperwork."
That distinction matters.
For more than a year, the former Executive Director had opposed efforts to reinstate Polinder. He ultimately left after describing an irreconcilable conflict with Board members over Polinder's reinstatement.
Following his departure, Kidstown brought Polinder back to assist the organization.
Was the Door Permanently Closed?
Although Vander Kooy initially stated that there were no plans to reinstate Polinder, his response to whether that decision was permanent was less definitive:
"Right now, the door is shut with Rusty coming back. Is that forever, or one year, or something different, I dont know."
His statement confirmed Kidstown's position at that time but did not rule out Polinder's return in the future.
This distinction is particularly relevant given that Polinder had already returned temporarily following his termination.
Personal Forgiveness vs. Organizational Accountability
The correspondence also establishes that Vander Kooy was aware of Polinder's prior misconduct while continuing to meet with him personally "as a friend."
In explaining their relationship, Vander Kooy emphasized repentance and forgiveness.
Personal forgiveness and organizational accountability are separate matters.
What safeguarding and accountability standards should govern whether someone with documented misconduct is permitted to return to a position of trust within an organization serving vulnerable children?
And what responsibility does a nonprofit board have to evaluate documented misconduct independently of its members' personal relationships?
Questions Left Unanswered
When asked about the leadership conflict surrounding Polinder's attempted reinstatement and the former Executive Director's departure, Vander Kooy declined to address the matter, describing it as a "separate issue."
He subsequently stated that several issues raised were "missing facts or are simply not true" and suggested that the website's author was "trying to take down the whole organization."
Vander Kooy later referred to "all the misinformation" being published.
When specifically invited to identify the alleged inaccuracies and provide supporting documentation, the correspondence presented below does not show him doing so.
The emails are provided below so readers can examine Vander Kooy's statements directly, including his acknowledgment of Polinder's temporary return, his comments regarding possible future reinstatement and his responses to questions about organizational accountability.
