Will Gannett Foundation officials disclose more details of the company's executive charity benefit program when they file the 2007 federal tax return in coming months? The foundation's tax returns for 2004-06 disclosed the names of CEO Craig Dubow (left) and other current and former senior executives allowed to steer about $424,000 in 63 grants to pet charities under a little-known executive perq I discovered. In my examination, those grants appeared especially at odds with the foundation's mission.Foundation officials likely are finishing the 2007 return now; Executive Director Tara Connell told me the return will be available after May 15. That creates the dilemma. Here's why.
I'm not convinced the foundation ever intended to disclose anything about well-paid executives dipping into the foundation to enrich their alma maters and other favored causes. I'm not sure the Internal Revenue Service even requires the disclosure. Indeed, the names appear only in statements attached to the three years of returns I examined; I doubt foundation officials ever expected anyone (i.e., me) to actually read the documents.
So, now what does the foundation do? If it doesn't include executives' names in the 2007 return, it'll look like the foundation is trying to hide details of a benefit that shows the charity isn't so pure after all. And, of course, if the foundation does publish the names -- well, officials there know they'll see the names splashed across Gannett Blog again. (Golly, maybe even USA Today -- right next door to the foundation's offices in McLean, Va. -- will write about them!) The dilemma is all the greater because executive director Connell also is Gannett's chief communications czar. How does she act as an arms-length steward of the foundation, while simultaneously looking out for the image of her bosses?
And, of course, there's the biggest question of all: the program's future. The foundation can't undo any executive-led gifts made in 2007. But it can certainly end the perq right now.
"The foundation can't undo any executive-led gifts made in 2007. But it can certainly end the perq right now."
ReplyDeleteRight. But will they? Gannet is such a MESSED up place to work. So glad I no longer do so. I'm just hoping someone, somewhere at the Post, The Wall Street Journal, Slate.com, SOMEWHERE, shines a light on this horrific mess - for all the world to see. And you're absolutely right - Connell's two jobs do pose a sharp conflict of interest.
Keep up the good work Jim!