The Situation: Your client, a major newspaper publisher, is laying off thousands of employees during a deep recession. A blogger reports that a top executive -- Bob Smith -- is competing in a golf tournament where amateurs pay at least $12,000 to play with a PGA pro. The event is staged in a luxury winter resort in Southern California.
The Challenge: The blogger asks if the company paid Bob's entry fee, a "negative'' question that could tarnish the reputations of both Bob and the company -- if it is not answered decisively. You have 24 hours.
The Possible Responses: Choose the reply that would produce the most favorable view of Bob and the company:
1. Bob paid the entry fee himself, using a personal check dated a full ___ months before you asked your question. Here is a photocopy of that check, with only Bob's address and account number removed; note the bank endorsement date. Here is the tournament entry form he signed, showing the terms under which he is playing; note the date, and the signatures of the event's representative. Finally, here is the e-mail Bob sent to the publisher of the local newspaper, reminding him that Bob is personally paying for all his tournament-related expenses.
2. Bob wrote a personal check to repay the newspaper so he can participate in the events.
Please post your replies 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.
[Photo: bewitching spinmeisters, Larry Tate and Darrin Stephens of powerhouse New York advertising agency McMann and Tate]
Exactly. Bob was chiseling the company, and he knew it. Then he was caught red handed, and opted for a check. It is sort of like Tim Geithner's problems. He bilked Uncle Sam out of taxes, and wouldn't have paid it if someone had not drawn attention to the lapse. My question about Bob now is will he attempt to write off the golf event as a business expense on his tax return next year?
ReplyDeleteMy question is how many other things like this have Gannett execs done? While Connell's response was likely aimed at clearing Dickey, her lack of details just make him look sleazy. If in fact Dickey did pay write the check prior to the story, then why not just disclose that. It's not like it's a matter of national security.
ReplyDeleteExecutive bonuses should be coming up. Dickey will see to it that Connell gets a little extra for her "good deed."
ReplyDeleteSave the receipt and turn it in to finance for re-emursment
ReplyDeleteIf in fact Dickey did pay write the check prior to the story, then why not just disclose that. It's not like it's a matter of national security.
ReplyDeletePlease, get real, he did nothing of the sort (check writing before the event). Why wasn't it cleared by Tara WHEN the check was written and repaying the company. Gosh, corporate must really think we are all schmucks.
But these tactics are really corporate security taking care of their own pigsty!
Who really cares? I'm going out to play nine holes myself and I'm not a high paid executive. I hope Bob plays well and wins.
ReplyDeleteThe choice of Larry Tate (David White) to illustrate this is just sublime. The ultimate weasel. It fits.
ReplyDeleteIt is easy to tell that this drama and the comments of outrage on this event are all provided by out of touch folks to the business world. Jim clearly has NO CLUE how business is done in the real world. And the many followers of this blog unfortunately are also out of touch.
ReplyDeleteBob went to an event where he is the former publisher and had many ties with large advertisers. This is an event where the newspaper says thanks to those advertisers who help pay the bills.
The only story here is how out of touch all of you are. There is no big gotcha here.
So PLEEEEEEEEEASE stop with all of the congrats to Jim and everyone else thinking they have struck the pot of gold in catching the company doing something wrong.
Dear 11:21
ReplyDeleteBob's mom is standing up for him again.
Thanks Mrs Dickey!
11:21 pm. Actually, I know quite a lot about business -- monkey business, anyway.
ReplyDeleteAllow me to explain, with a story from 1986. It involves a savings and loan in Pine Bluff, Ark., called FirstSouth. It had mushroomed into the state's biggest financial institution in a suspiciously short time. I was the business-news reporter for the local, family-owned daily.
Around summer 1986, the vice chairman of FirstSouth -- Del "Pepsi" Brannon, as I recall -- threw me out of the headquarters building for asking questions he later characterized as prosecutorial.
Around this time, I asked the S&L's outside counsel, a prominent local attorney named E. Harley Cox Jr., why he was borrowing tens of millions of dollars from the thrift; I had discovered the loans by examining public documents.
Cox told me to mind my own business.
A few months later, the federal government seized FirstSouth -- declaring it insolvent as a result of massive accounting irregularities, in what was then the nation's biggest and most costly takeover of a federally insured thrift.
Cox? He was convicted of bank fraud. He served I believe three years in federal prison. President Clinton later pardoned him along with Marc Rich and others.
I wouldn't respond in either of the two ways, but more something like this:
ReplyDeleteBlogger:
Thanks for showing interest in our company.
To answer your question, Mr. Smith told us he used personal funds and not company funds.
We have no reason not to believe this employee. Still, even if we find he paid by personal check, questions remain, and we've launched an investigation that will answer them.
Specifically, we're intested in finding out if Mr. Smith's actions followed our company ethics policy.
What Mr. Smith did will likely increase company revenue, and that's great news given today's economic challenges. We applaud him for that, but only if he acted in an honorable way that's consistent with our company's ethical code.
I've attached a copy of our most recent ethics policy.
Thanks again for your interest.