 |
Saturday’s Seattle Times is reporting that former Whitworth University trustee Tom Delanty has been sentenced to five years in prison for stealing about $150,000 from an elderly lady while serving as her financial advisor. The larger question is why he was ever selected to serve as a college trustee. There is a local lesson here. |
The Seattle Times story on January 22, 2007, explains the predicate for the larger question. The lead paragraph reads:
“With his Ivy League degrees, corporate successes and alumna wife, Tom Delanty seemed like a Whitworth College fundraiser’s dream: an untapped well of wealth with ties to the campus.”
A later paragraph in the same story says:
“After donating $225,000 to Whitworth, a private liberal-arts college in Spokane, Delanty was named to the college’s board of trustees and sat on two influential committees.”
But Whitworth never checked Delanty’s background thoroughly. The college pretty much believed everything he and his wife proffered without question. Why? They waved lots of money. Had Whitworth checked, it would have found that much of his resumé was false. In fact, Whitworth would have found he was a convicted felon.
An October 16, 2007, article headlined Board prays for former trustee, alleged victims in Whitworth University’s newsletter, The Whitworthian, reports:
“Subpoenaed conversations between Whitworth staff members, trustees and Delanty show he had an interest in becoming more involved in Whitworth’s endowment and investments.”
So why did it take so long for Whitworth to become concerned about Delanty? The appearance of having money is often an effective blinder, a rationalization to avoid doing due diligence. As The Whitworthian article goes on to say:
“There was an implied trust that is assumed when someone is appointed to the position of trustee of the college.”
In other words, they were blinded by the money they thought he had.
This is the lesson that ought to be learned by all college administrators, boards of trustees, and the citizens who vote for trustee candidates. Wealth does not equate with honesty and integrity. Resumés can be inflated. Choose trustees as carefully as you choose employees. Then check their backgrounds.
$o what i$ the question again? $ome people are $o important they mu$t be on a board. money i$n’t the only rea$on, well, ok, it i$. the an$wer i$ thi$, $imply money.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Comment by TheWiz — December 13, 2008 @ 4:16 pm
Wiz,
I agree. It’s sad when people who select the trustees are overly impressed with exaggerated resumés and blinded by the money. Then too, some predators also have delusions of adequacy and competence.
Comment by Bill — December 13, 2008 @ 4:22 pm
“It’s sad when people who select the trustees are overly impressed with exaggerated resumés and blinded by the money.
CHARITY TRUSTEE’S A BUSTEE
Comment by TheWiz — December 14, 2008 @ 4:52 pm
Wiz,
Thanks for pointing out an example of a pure, “I’m in this only for myself” predator, Bernie Madoff. He’s Carlo Ponzi’s clone. That he was able to do as much damage as he did for as long as he did it is less a tribute to his criminal skills and more a condemnation of the regulatory agencies who are supposed to protect the people from these types of schemes. Of course, it’s pretty difficult to protect greedy people from their own greed if they don’t really want to be protected.
The other type of predator makes sure his/her reputation is bolstered by appearing to give benevolently, all the while making even more sure to take what he/she feels he/she’s entitled to in profit. These are predators who feel they’re “entitled” to profit at other people’s expense.
Then there are just plain incompetent dupes who may be “well known and respected in the community” but are blinded by the promise of money and are devastated, shocked, and appalled when the “other people’s money” vaporizes.
Finally there are the decent and honest people who are trying to do the right thing, who are reasonable and cautious, and who are not blinded the promise of money in a scheme they know is too good to be true. These people are the keepers, the ones we want to have on foundation boards and otherwise managing the public’s money entrusted to them.
Comment by Bill — December 14, 2008 @ 7:25 pm