Sunday, December 21, 2008

Manager: Foundation powerless to enforce rules; punts on questions about $40K and Dubow fund

The Gannett Foundation's manager conceded today that the company's charitable arm lacks sufficient safeguards to ensure grants are properly managed by non-profit groups getting the money.

In a telephone interview, Pat Lyle also shifted blame to Western Carolina University for failing to credit the foundation for at least $40,000 in grants given to the North Carolina school at the behest of CEO Craig Dubow. "They did not correctly attribute that money to Gannett Foundation,'' she said.

Lyle said she does not know the whereabouts of the WCU money, despite growing signs it was deposited in the school's Craig A. and Denise W. Dubow Endowed Scholarship Fund. Lyle also said the foundation has no way to force any recipient, including WCU, to comply with requests that money be properly credited as foundation gifts. "That's their responsibility,'' she said. "We can't control that.''

Dubow is also chief executive on the foundation's seven-member board, its public tax returns show. The foundation's executive director is Gannett's chief publicist, Tara Connell, the returns show.

Dubow said intervening
Lyle contacted me after speaking to Dubow concerning questions I've raised recently about the foundation's management. "He told me to be forthright and honest and to answer your questions,'' she said.

Lyle said she received similar instructions from her immediate supervisor: Connell, the executive director. As vice president for corporate communications, Connell also is Gannett's top spokeswoman.

I first asked Connell about the disposition of the $40,000 on Nov. 29 -- more than three weeks ago. Lyle could not explain why it took until now for Dubow (left) and Connell to deputize her to answer my questions.

Lyle said she sends money to recipients with a letter reminding them about a rule governing gift attribution; the rule is on the foundation's website: "In any public acknowledgment or signage, be sure to note that this grant is from the Gannett Foundation."

But Lyle said the foundation doesn't have the resources to check every recipient to ensure compliance with rules, once checks have been sent. That is because Lyle is the foundation's only employee, solely responsible for processing 7,000 individual grants per year, she says. "I'm a staff of one person -- me,'' she said.

Ethics 101: Selling Marion, down river
Lyle's annual case load includes the huge employee GannettMatch program. If she worked 365 days a year, she would still need to process and review for compliance more than 19 grants a day -- an impossible workload. Plus, I do not think Pat should be expected to tell retired Chief Financial Officer Larry Miller: No, sir, you may not use foundation money for that purpose.

To me, Lyle's remarks simply add to questions about whether the foundation's officers are complying with Gannett's ethics policy on "protection and proper use" of company assets. "Theft, carelessness and waste have a direct impact on the company’s profitability,'' the policy says. "All company assets should be used for legitimate business purposes."

And, then there's the conflicts of interest provision: "Conflicts of interest also arise when a director, officer or employee, or members of his or her family, receives improper personal benefits as a result of his or her position with the company."

Dubow is the foundation's top ranking officer. It is funded entirely by Gannett, typically by selling newspapers and contributing the proceeds to charity.

In 2007, for example, Gannett donated the Chronicle-Tribune in Marion, Ind., to the foundation, which soon after sold it down market to Paxton Media Group in Paducah, Ky., after 36 years ownership. Price: $12.3 million, the tax returns indicate. That was more than enough to pay for the $40,000 to WCU between 2006-2007.

Questions: How would transferring company property into the Craig A. and Denise W. Dubow Endowed Scholarship Fund -- a fund off-limits to virtually every Gannett employee -- advance the interests of Gannett stockholders? How come I have to pry this information loose, even as everyone keeps dodging two basic questions:
  • Did the $40,000 get deposited into the Dubow account?
  • If it is not in the Dubow account, where is it?
Hello? H-e-l-l-o-o-o, board of directors?

The Dubows established their scholarship fund in November 2005 under a contract they signed with WCU that says the source of the fund's money would be "donations from family and friends.'' (Detail, left.) The Dubows restricted their scholarships to students in three N.C. counties, effectively making them off-limits to thousands of Gannett employees.

Lots of finger pointing
WCU has refused to say whether it deposited the $40,000 in the Dubow account, citing university policy on privacy of donor records. Responding to a public-records request I filed under North Carolina law, the school said last week only that the foundation had provided "support'' to the Dubow fund.

Dubow steered the money to WCU in two $20,000 grants, last year and in 2006, the foundation's public federal tax returns show. Clifton Metcalf, executive secretary of the WCU Foundation, said he could release information about the Dubow account to me, only after receiving permission from its donors.

Today, informed of that, Lyle said she would contact Metcalf to discuss the matter.

Dubow's move to release information followed growing and unfavorable attention I have focused on the use of foundation money, under a benefit limited to top current and former executives. The Dubow-directed gifts came as he preached fiscal discipline, and began imposing sharp budget cuts across Gannett that have cost thousands of employees their jobs in the past year.

The management grants program allows executives to earmark $20,000 in annual contributions for favorite charities, ones that would often be ineligible under more strict rules for average employees. Last year, its blue-chip participants included Dubow; Chief Financial Officer Gracia Martore; two retired CEOs, plus retired Chief Financial Officer Larry Miller. Gannett is simultaneously paying Miller a $600,000-a-year consulting fee -- for the rest of his life, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission documents show.

Under the program, the foundation has given more than $1 million in 2004 to 2007, according to tax returns. I examined the documents under the federal Freedom of Information Act.

Tax returns: policy overlooked
In several cases similar to Western Carolina, the money funded scholarships named for executives -- without any credit to the foundation or to Gannett. Indeed, in a handful of cases, the foundation's own tax returns showed the money was going to scholarships honoring retired Gannett executives. That suggests the foundation itself isn't following its own procedures.

Lyle said it is important for the foundation to get credit for gifts -- as opposed to, say, the Dubows or other executives receiving credit. "It's one of the reasons why we give grants,'' Lyle said. "When we give money, we don't do so anonymously.''

Last year alone, the foundation gave $11.3 million to charity, according to its public tax return. Its mission is to help non-profit groups in communities where Gannett owns newspapers and TV stations. WCU is in Cullowhee, N.C.; the nearest Gannett business is the Asheville Citizen-Times, 53 miles away.

I asked Lyle why it was appropriate for the foundation to give $40,000 in a community without a Gannett business. She said the gifts "conform to the policy we have for management grants.''

The Dubow ties to WCU are unclear. Jackson County property records show the Dubows own a $1.5 million country estate on two acres in the gated Trillium golf community in Cashiers. That may explain why the couple restricted their scholarships to students from Jackson and two adjoining counties.

Buncombe County, home to the Citizen-Times, didn't make the cut.

Please post your reactions in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write gannettblog[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the green sidebar, upper right.

[Image: today's front pages, Newseum]

31 comments:

  1. So how many of the scores of other "donations" made over the years by the Gannett Foundation on behalf of other execs carry the name of the organization rather than the individual? I'll bet one dollar that the answer is not many. This has always been used as an executive perk and now they're going back and trying to make a shoe fit.

    Furthermore, if you're telling me that a foundation donating $40,000 to a school can't tell that school how it would like the gift to be credited, I've got a bridge--er, newspaper--to sell you.

    It's really incredible that you seem to have them scrambling on a Sunday. Clearly they're paying attention. It's amazing what falls out when a tree gets shaken. Great work.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jim: Now, can you determine whether the funds went to WCU to secure some type of favors from the golf club or some other group in the neighborhood? Do you think that the Gannett Foundation might look at some of these donations and question the reasoning behind making the qualification so narrow in scope (Three counties, financial need and a B average)? Does WCU select the recipients with the Dubows help? We're still missing some details.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dubow and Lyle re full of horse shit. First off, Lyle reports to Connell who reports to Martore, "the knife", who reports to Dubow.

    Do you see a pattern here? The Gannett Foudation is run by people reporting to Dubow.

    We just proved that Dubow is not the most ethically sound person.

    Maybe the Gannett Foundation should report into our legal department.
    I do know that the "Craig and Gracia" team control much of Gannett and they seem like they are involved in every detail. I find it hard to believe that this small $40,000 payoff would go unnoticed.

    I am going to write a letter to the Gannett Board of Directors and have them all investigated. I think we should all write letters to them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. So why the peculiar limitation on the Dubow funds, which can only be given to students in three counties? Who came up with the limitation, the donors or the university?.
    If it was all a mistake, will future funds be given to the university. The university, both as a non-profit and a public institution, has an obligation to show these donations were spent properly.
    I also find it surprising they would finally respond to you on a Sunday, apparently without the necessary paperwork at hand. Especially after this has been going on for two weeks now, I think, and Tara hasn't responded before.
    Maybe they will start taking serious questions seriously in the future, and come up with prompt responses rather than allowing things to fester, bloody shirts waved, and names to get dragged through the mud, etc., etc.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Do I understand this correctly?

    The Dubows (half of whom are not employed by Gannett) created endowments in their names at UT in 2003 and at WCU in 2005, and then the Gannett Foundation funded the endowments in the two subsequent years for each, UT in 2004 and 2005 and WCU in 2006 and 2007?

    That's a pattern, not a mistake. In either case, the Dubows could have dedicated the grant for Gannett employees and their kids, but because the funds were created before GF paid into them, GF stipulations might have been handily irrelevant ... except that this pattern makes it pretty clear the intent was for GF to fund the endowments when they were created.

    I guess the question is how much each Dubow and their "family and friends" really funded, because if it's insignificant, one or both scholarship funds may be considered criminally fraudulent. Dubow's employees and his employers' assets are not "family" or "friends," and as such the account is laundering some of the paper trail on the money.

    Why?

    Are you, Jim, saying Gannett Co. board of directors makes charitable contributions directly in the names of brass as a salary perk?

    Would that seem like a tax-evasive event to you? It does to me. This is a form of salary, which should be taxable before the Dubows give it away and take a tax deduction of a PORTION of the contribution, as the law entitles them to, not the whole $40,000 or whatever total.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Freaking awesome, Jim.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I just rejected a comment that speculated about an executive's minor children. Please don't try to post comments about children; they should not suffer because of choices made by their parents.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I just don't care about this story if it simply comes down to whose name goes on a legitimate donation from a legitimate foundation. IF Dubow got other benefits from this, something tangible from the university or a tax benefit to which he should not be entitled, then I would change my mind. If you could come up with documentation sent by the university to the IRS, for instance, that listed the Dubows instead of the foundation, then that becomes interesting. Similarly, if the university gave "donors" preferred treatment in some way, and Dubow rather than the foundation took advantage of that, I also would be interested. You've got more work to do.

    ReplyDelete
  9. C'mon all you free riders -- surely Jim's work here is worth at least $10!

    ReplyDelete
  10. I sure hope no one has any bright ideas about turning Pat into a scape goat. Can we all agree on that?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Cripes, Pat sounds like she shares the same workload most of us do - overwhelming mountain of stuff to do, and when the going gets tough, thrown under the bus for traction.

    It sounds like she was pretty forthright with you in your conversation, Jim. But with C.D. telling her to honestly answer your questions, I hope she wasn't fashioning her own noose. From what I read, honesty and being forthright aren't exactly rewarded by those in McLean.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I agree. I hope Pat is not a scapegoat.

    Why didn't Tara get back to you Jim? Instead, they make Pat Lyle the new spokesperson for Gannett?

    Tara must be too busy with her new role as the Content One director.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm looking at the 2006 Gannett Foundation return, and see a $145,330 expense item for legal fees paid. That makes me wonder whether or not the foundation did, indeed, pay a company to oversee the grant awards to make sure they comply with all the complicated rules and regulations---including enforcement. Wonder what the contract says about the scope of work included for that $145,330?

    ReplyDelete
  14. I submitted the comment about the Dubow's children.
    Three thoughts:
    1- If they are in college, they are not minors. They are over 18.
    2- If the attend a school where the Dubow's are donating money, it is indeed part of the story.
    3- Did you not post previously that another Gannett exec who donates to a day school in suburban DC send her children there? I might be incorrect about that, not sure.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Jim, great job. The picture is becoming clearer. Don't let this one go.

    Great blogging is like great reporting -- you follow your nose for news, grab hold, then report the hell out of every little twist and turn until something breaks loose.

    And it will.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Jim:
    If you want to deduct charitable donations from your personal income tax, you must have a signed receipt from the donor.
    If the school gave a personal receipt to "family and friends" of Dubows, you should be able to get a copy of that.
    You might not be able to show he deducted the "donation" on his own taxes, but it would be a good "tell."

    ReplyDelete
  17. 7:02 am: You bring up a point I plan to tackle soon: The $186,481 in legal fees that Nixon Peabody's Rochester, N.Y., office charged -- again.

    That shop has been sucking off Mama Gannett's teat for plenty long enough. The firm's getting paid more than poor Pat Lyle!

    ReplyDelete
  18. 1139 PM, I think we'd have to consult an impartial tax expert before concluding no violations here.

    I see a problem in setting up a personal endowment with the purpose of laundering foundation, not personal, money through it. It appears to me that Craig and Denise, who is not a Gannett employee (remember, this didn't go through personal IRS returns, joint or otherwise -- this detail matters), evaded tax law to make all $40,000 of certain salary compensation tax free instead of a portion of it, as would have been the case if it had passed through the Dubows' hands.

    The GF has rules about who can benefit from the money and about recognition to GF. Those internal rules were violated in this evasion, and as chairman of the GF board, CEO of Gannett Co. and husband of Denise, Craig Dubow is liable from all sides of this.

    Remember that in the case of WCU, the papers Craig and Denise signed require the WCU paper trail on the money and recipients be addressed to them, personally, at the corporate address. I think there could be legal contention about whether those documents belong to Gannett, GF or individuals Craig and Denise (who doesn't work for Gannett), because they set up the fund before GF funded it (though using the corporate address, showing intent, IMHO).

    ReplyDelete
  19. From what I read, honesty and being forthright aren't exactly rewarded by those in McLean.

    Isn't that the truth. Looking at this flop it's downright "Mafia"-like.

    ReplyDelete
  20. If Lyle's work is exclusive to foundation duties, why is she a corporate employee? With the corporate chain of command like it is (with Dubow in it), that seems like a major conflict to me.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Why should Lyle have to answer questions you have about scholarships from Dubow and his wife, someone who I don't think is even employed by Gannett?

    This is all so unbelievably twisted.

    ReplyDelete
  22. 8:23, it doesn't matter whether the children are minors or not. This isn't their doing, so they are not fair game here.

    ReplyDelete
  23. 11:39 makes a great point. IF, (big if) these donations led to some preferential treatment that Dubow benefited from personally, you could see there being another layer of issues.

    For example, if these athletic scholarships led to better season tickets at Texas Longhorn football games, or even free tickets, or other perks afforded to substantial donors, it starts to get a little more unseemly.

    In the future, maybe there should be a requirement that all donations that come from the GF should be credited to that non-profit.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I agree with 823 AM that the college costs and whereabouts of the Dubows' offspring are fair game in this discussion. If they're in college, they are not children, and their college finances are tied to their parents' and therefore not unrelated.

    They may not have asked to be part of the issue, but their parents are public figures who made their college finances relevant discussion.

    I'm wondering, do the Dubows have kids in college, or near or recent grads?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Offspring of any age have no place in this discussion, I don't believe---that is, unless they want to contribute. Please don't drag them into this.

    ReplyDelete
  26. If I were Jim's editor on this story, I'd ask this question: Do the Dubow's have any children attending a college where the family has a named scholarship program in place?

    If yes, big part of the story.
    If no, that's fine.

    ReplyDelete
  27. 1:34 pm: You are right on.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Was this foundation money counted as part of Dubow's salary/benefit package and included on reports filed with the SEC?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Excellent and timely question, 5:25 pm. I aim to find out.

    ReplyDelete
  30. From a tax perspective -

    Assumptions:

    GF sent checks to WCU/UT
    WCU/UT gave the public credit to CD instead of the GF

    *IF* CD did not claim this money on his taxes as a personal donation, then there's nothing illegal from an IRS perspective.

    *IF* CD did claim this money as a personal charitable deduction BUT the GF issued a 1099 to CD indicating the money as additional income, then there's nothing illegal from an IRS perspective.

    *IF* CD did claim this money as a personal charitable deduction AND the GF didn't send a 1099, then there IS potentially something illegal here. *BUT* because personal tax returns are private, even for the CEO of a public company or the head of a charity like the GF, we as the public have no legal right to see those returns.

    Regardless of all of this, and the potential violations of GF and Gannett policies relating to GF funding, the likely outcome of this, assuming any changes actually happen, would be better enforcement of GF policy and the removal or modification of the executive perk for directing foundation money (not a bad thing in and of itself).

    There's nothing wrong with the Dubows' setting up a scholarship with any number of requirements (winners must have a mole on their left butt cheek)

    Funding that scholarship with GF money when not properly attributed is a different story, but again, is not illegal (don't get started on the whole Fraud thing, this doesn't really qualify)

    As far as what and how WCU handles the money, that isn't legally the responsibility of the GF.

    Finally, I suspect that while I consider what is going on quite inappropriate, it is highly unlikely that the BOD is going to worry about the paint job in the galley when the ship has hit an iceberg.

    ReplyDelete

Jim says: "Proceed with caution; this is a free-for-all comment zone. I try to correct or clarify incorrect information. But I can't catch everything. Please keep your posts focused on Gannett and media-related subjects. Note that I occasionally review comments in advance, to reject inappropriate ones. And I ignore hostile posters, and recommend you do, too."

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.