Skimming To Get Rich
There is that about human nature, that in the pursuit of riches, scruples, ethics and morals somehow fall back to second place in the larger scheme of things. That larger scheme being, needless to say, the acquisition of ever greater riches, enlarging one's reputation, acquiring more respect and power, and in total enabling one to achieve personal goals questionable perhaps to some but enviable in the eyes of most aspirants.All that to say, if you've somehow carefully tended your garden of business and political contacts, said all the right things, moved in the correct circles, cleared your initial career hurdles, you're in the running for very special invitations. When you're invited to join some corporation's, university's, or other like enterprise's board of directors you're nicely on your way. One high-profile invitation just seems to lead to another. Each one representing another gold star in your growing profile.
Looks good, fellas. It's not the money, it's the connections. Which invariably lead to additional opportunities. Boards of directors pay back slightly in the elevation of one's bottom line, but right handsomely in the elevation of one's public notice, respectful admiration and trust. But there are also additional such instruments of representing conglomerates or high-profile business ventures, such as invitations to sit on a board of auditors. That per diem pay-back is immediate and rich.
Yes, there are dynamic, influential and responsible corporations, investment houses and banking institutions and others who take the process seriously and hand out invitations carefully, to those whom they feel can be trusted to actually perform the oversight entrusted to them by these positions. And then there are the countless others who invite public figures, celebrities, spent politicians who all enjoy the public limelight and whose association adds a superficial veneer of glamour.
Charitable enterprises in particular enjoy the utility of gaining the public's interest in cajoling high-profile celebrities to join their cause and become spokespeople on their behalf. Of course there are other business enterprises whose CEOs feel that they not only represent their companies but that the corporation itself is heavily indebted to their canny business acumen and it wouldn't exist without their stewardship. To some such individuals the company takes on a type of charity status, endowing them with the right to slip past their boards of directors and treat company assets as though they're their own.
It's debatable whether such arrogance goes untracked, unnoticed and rewarded. For one thing, most CEOs and CFOs reap such untoward rewards through salaries and additional emoluments for their questionable services they hardly need to go through the back door. And then there's the case of the lordly Conrad Black who felt that everything he touched turned to gold and that gold, like King Midas's, was his very own. He called the shots, all the shots, and assumed the mantle of nobility to boot.
Time will tell how a jury perceives Lord Black of Cross Harbour's spectacular career in bypassing normal business function to enrich himself. Certainly he had plenty of assistance from like-minded colleagues who felt themselves similarly entitled and quite possibly also ennobled by their connection with this brilliant man. Pity that so many of those public luminaries who were so quick to accept the honour and the easy money that came with business connections relating to Lord Black's enterprises are now quite happy to disown him.
All's fair in business, though, it would seem. Former Illinois governor, James R. Thompson, like some of the witnesses for the prosecution in Lord Black's trial of criminal malfeasance is a case in point. As yet another member of the audit team he regretfully recalls no specifics whatever. Yes, he did sign off on Hollinger documents which clearly revealed the matter of the non-compete payments now 'incriminating' Lord Black, et al, but no, he had no idea of the presence of those particular items of concern.
He was, as a highly respected lawyer, much accustomed to the niceties of the law and the upholding of lawful circumstances and behaviours, a 'skimmer'. He attested to the fact, over and over again, that he merely 'skimmed' documents' contents before signing off as to their veracity and legality. He cannot, furthermore, like many of the preceding witnesses against Lord Black, remember too much of what occurred with respect to the matters at hand.
And for this he felt himself entitled to be recompensed at the rate of $1,800 per day. Tough to get your mind around this. He and the others on the audit committee actually signed off, that is to say approved of the bestowal of millions of dollars in non-compete payments now considered to be misappropriated bonuses, funds withheld from shareholders, but that's how it goes; not his fault - he skimmed and got paid for it.
Is that very much different in kind from what Lord Black is accused of?
Labels: Human Fallibility
posted by Pieface @ Friday, May 04, 2007
<< Home