DATELINE: October 18, 2007, Chicago
- Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
- Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
- Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
Matthew 5:10-12, as posted by an apparent Roberts supporter on a Tulsa World comment list.
Now the preacher looked so baffled
When I asked him why he dressed
With twenty pounds of headlines
Stapled to his chest.
But he cursed me when I proved it to him,
Then I whispered, "Not even you can hide."
Bob Dylan, Stuck Inside of Mobile with the Memphis Blues Again from Blonde on Blonde.
We aren’t yet sure what to make of the reports coming out of Oklahoma pertaining a lawsuit filed by three employees against Oral Roberts University (ORU) and President Richard Roberts, Provost Mark Lewandowski, Dean Wendy Shirk, and Associate Provost Jeff Ogle. It seems Fall brings scandal to college campuses. Remember all the commotion two years ago at American University?
An internal report apparently/allegedly prepared by Stephanie Cantese, the sister of Roberts' wife, Lindsay Roberts, contains descriptions of lavish and what would seem to be inappropriate expenditures on personal items, together with what might be characterized as inuendo...
| The Desktop Guide is Quickly Becoming the Must Have Guide for Nonprofit Executives Jack Siegel's new book, A Desktop Guide for Nonprofit Directors, Officers, and Advisors: Avoiding Trouble While Doing Good, has quickly become the go to guide for nonprofit executives and advisors. So what are people saying about the Guide? When our Jack Siegel introduced himself to one of the leading authorities on the law of federal tax exemption after she had made a presentation at a recent conference, the speaker said, "You're the 'Jack' in the Guide! We are fighting over your Guide in our office." A second speaker held the book up to two people who were asking questions after her presentation, exclaiming "I love this book. I tell everyone at conferences to buy it." One state charity regulator has indicated that the Guide is great and has recommended it to her fellow regulators. Some of our readers have followed the link to the Amazon.com Web site, but apparently have not bought the Guide. If they were turned off by the price, they should reconsider. One prominent attorney in the exempt organization field grabbed a review copy of the Guide and couldn't put it down. She has instructed a number of her clients to buy it, pointing out to them that for less than 1/2 hour of her billable time, they receive a lesson (and resource) that tells it like she would like it told. If you are starting a new charity, the Guide could save you thousands of dollars in legal fees by teaching you how to better utilize your legal counsel and framing the issues so you don't spin your wheels at $400 an hour. Buy your copy today at Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble, or John Wiley (the publisher). |
raising the possibility of an inappropriate sexually-related relationship--although the amended complaint does not specifically allege sexual incidents. The report is entitled "Scandal Vulnerability Assessment" and the copy filed as Exhibit A to the amended complaint attributes the authorship to Stephanie Cantese. What appear to presented as facts in that report are actually unsubstantiated statements which Richard and Lindsay Roberts deny, according to an October 14, 2007 article entitled Robertses Steel Selves for Crisis with Prayer, written by April Marciszewski for Tulsa World. Cantese was a government and community liaison "official," apparently charged with keeping tabs on the world for Richard Roberts. The central question surrounding this report is whether it is a list of rumors heard by Cantese (assuming she is the report's author) or an investigative report. April Marciszewski, Updated: New Claims in ORU Lawsuit, Tulsa World, Oct. 14, 2007.
Despite the denials, we would not be surprised if IRS auditors descend like biblical locusts on ORU and its books and records. This case raises all the classic issues that come with the intermediate sanctions—allegations of lavish travel, personal use of exempt organization assets, large expenditures on clothing, and unreimbursed home decorating expenses. There is even an allegation about a professional chef, "compensated through the television cost center [who routinely prepared meals] and delivered [them] to the house for 'testing.'" Richards Roberts contends that he reimburses ORU for all family expenses on a monthly basis. April Marciszewski, ORU to Employ an Additional Audit Firm, Tulsa World, Oct. 6, 2007. He issued a statement claiming that "an independent audit firm reviews financial transactions and controlling procedures."
A trip to Tulsa would not be the IRS's first one. One of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit alleges that he was required by Richard Roberts to enlist students to assist Randi Miller in her 2006 campaign for Tulsa mayor. Although Richard and Lindsay Roberts generally deny the allegations in the complaint, there seems to be some fire under the cloud of smoke when it comes to the mayoral race. An ORU spokesperson has confirmed that the IRS contacted ORU about these allegations in a May 3, 2006 letter. The spokesperson told Tulsa World in an e-mail that,
On October 30, 2006, ORU received notification from the IRS accepting the responses as filed and made recommendations to address certain deficiencies. ORU has complied with these recommendations.
Ziva Branstetter, ORU Was Warned by the IRS, Oct. 16, 2007. Of course, the IRS refused to confirm its involvement.
In what we consider to be a very unwise move, ORU has refused to release its exchanges with the IRS, according to Tulsa World. Like it or not, that correspondence is highly relevant to the pending lawsuit, meaning that in all likelihood ORU will be asked to produce it as part of a discovery request. In other words, it is coming out sooner or later. Experience has shown that attempts to control damage by hiding information almost always backfire. The obvious question: If the IRS decided not to revoke ORU's tax-exempt status, what is in the correspondence that ORU doesn't want the public to know? Although we can only speculate, it may be that the IRS found violations, but elected to require corrective action rather than revoking ORU's tax-exempt status. That could be viewed as validating the lawsuit's allegations on the politicking issue, thereby raising further questions as to whether there is any validity to the other allegations that have been denied to date. Once again, we can only wonder why, if there was an inappropriate political intervention, did the IRS not revoke the ORU's tax-exempt status?
Of new interest to the IRS should be allegations in the complaint that incomplete and possibly false statements were made to IRS investigators by an ORU official. No doubt that may cause the IRS to re-open its investigation. One of the more interesting lines in the complaint is a reference attributing the following mantra to one of the plaintiffs: "We don't do local politics because it turns neighbors into entities." Immedidately preceding that statement, there are statements that this plaintiff and ORU students were involved in Republican campaigns outside of Oklahoma. The complaint reflects a belief that these activities did not constitute prohibited interventions under the tax law. We suspect that the IRS will nevertheless examine these activities if it decides to revisit ORU. The question will be whether these were school-sponsored activities. The complaint states that all expenses were covered by the Republican National Committee, but that may not immunize the activity if ORU or its employees recruited students on campus during classtime--we don't know whether that is or is not the case.
At the end of the day, this is a classic whistleblower case. As is often the case, whenever someone blows the whistle, somebody is fired. At this point the three professors are the ones who are out of jobs--two allege they were wrongfully terminated and the third alleges constructive discharge. But yesterday Richard Roberts issued a statement indicating that he was taking a leave of absence. April Marciszewski, Roberts Takes ORU Leave, Tulsa World, Oct. 18, 2007. In the statement, Roberts said,
I pray and believe that in God's timing, and when the board feels that it is appropriate, I will be back at my post as president.
Roberts may be praying to God, but it is the board who will likely determine whether he returns. In other words, we still do not know who will be out of a job at the end of this tale.
And the story does not end here. There also are allegations in the lawsuit of document destruction—spoiliation—as part of an alleged effort to eliminate damaging evidence. Specifically, the amended complaint alleges ORU's financial controller was terminated three days after the original complaint was filed. The amended complaint then states:
Within hours of this loyal employee's unceremonious removal from his office, witnesses have reported that voluminous materials and documents were shredded and destroyed, constituting spoiliation of evidence.
The complaint suggest through its allegations that the board of regents was passive. It will be interesting to see whether the findings support that suggestion. According to the complaint the board was provided with a copy of Exhibit A (see the complaint above), if we are reading the complaint correctly, on July 16, 2007--the compaint is ambigious on this point. What we can't figure out is why the regents didn't immediately place the whistleblowers in a protected status while it conducted a thorough investigation. Maybe that happened, but the complaint suggests not.
If we were on ORU's board we would be very concerned about where all these alleged-to-be false rumors are coming from. More importantly, we would want to know why Richard Roberts and the other defendants have inspired such apparent animosity on the part of some in the university community.
As we said, this will not be our last post on what is likely to be a long player with lots of legal implications--the Tulsa World Web site is now bookmarked on our computer. If only Ted Koppel were still heading ABC's Nightline. In Koppel's absence, Richard and Lindsay Roberts made the now perfunctory visit to Larry King's show. It is reassuring to know that the Eyes of Tammy Faye Baker are looking down on the material world.
Internal Revenue Service - Circular 230 Disclosure: As provided for in Treasury regulations, any advice (but none is intended) relating to federal taxes that is contained in this communication is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any plan or arrangement addressed herein.
THE FOREGOING IS NOT AND SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS LEGAL ADVICE. IF LEGAL ADVICE IS REQUIRED, THE NONPROFIT OR OTHER PARTY IN QUESTION SHOULD SEEK THE ADVICE OF QUALIFIED LEGAL COUNSEL. If you liked this post, please visit http://www.charitygovernance.com for a description of our training and consulting services. You will also want to acquire a copy of Jack Siegel's book, A Desktop Guide for Nonprofit Directors, Officers, and Advisors: Avoiding Trouble While Doing Good."
Copyright 2007, Charity Governance Consulting LLC. All Rights Reserved. You may not copy any portion of this post to a computer "clipboard" for re-posting anywhere or e-mailing, or otherwise reproduce this post. If you want others to review this post, you may provide them with a link to this web blog. Any use of the material or ideas in this post by reporters or other publishers shall make reference to Jack Siegel, author of "A Guide for Non-Profit Directors, Officers and Advisors: Avoiding Trouble While Doing Good" and this web blog. For additional information call 773-325-2124
