Very old news, indeed.
I heard anecdotally several years ago that the Red Cross had no plans to send anyone into New Orleans in the event of a flood or storm, either paid staff or volunteers, because it was too dangerous. The RedCross FAQ page was putting it into print - more or less - but the spin was that they were being told by the authorities to keep clear.
National Geographic's warning last year included this.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency lists a hurricane strike on New Orleans as one of the most dire threats to the nation, up there with a large earthquake in California or a terrorist attack on New York City. Even the Red Cross no longer opens hurricane shelters in the city, claiming the risk to its workers is too great.
Seems to me that if they had an official policy not to endanger their people because the place would not be safe, it would be okay to simply say so and state the reasons why. I understand how that would be some kind of PR problem for an agency almost entirely dependent on volunteers, but an outspoken voice of the Red Cross might have raised the credibility of unheeded warnings.