By Neal B. Freeman on 6.12.09 @ 6:07AM
Controversy continues to grow at the Ford Foundation -- at the
expense of those it is supposed to help.
We reported
last month on the controversy building around the new Ford
Foundation CEO, Luis Ubinas. It now appears that we understated
the scope of that controversy.
As you may recall, Mr. Ubinas had announced in April a
McKinsey-style reorganization of the foundation staff, replete
with much title-tweaking and assignment-shuffling. In an
interview with the New York Times published on April 14,
however, he had stated that the proposed overhaul would involve
no staff reductions. That statement is now inoperative, as they
used to say in the Nixon Administration.
Here's what we know of the situation, recounted to us by several
foundation employees who, fearful of retaliation, have requested
anonymity. (We sat on this story for ten days, trying to verify
the identities of our anonymous sources. That inquiry was mooted
when the Wall Street Journal's resourceful Naomi
Schaefer Riley broke the cutback story yesterday morning.*)
In early May, Mr. Ubinas announced to the staff that, in view of
the economic downturn, management would be forced to cut
expenses. He announced, further, that management had decided to
accomplish that objective by offering "generous" severance
packages to non-exempt staff members. The details of these
packages were then delivered to approximately 140 staffers, who
comprise almost half of the 300-plus Ford staff in New York. A
majority of the targeted staffers were women, many of them single
mothers. Recipients of the package were told that they had until
June 22 to accept the terms of the severance. Thereafter, Mr.
Ubinas made clear, management reserved the right to begin layoffs
unilaterally. "Exempted" from the "generous" offer were all Ford
managers, directors and senior executives.
The Ford employees who have contacted us live from paycheck to
paycheck and depend comprehensively on healthcare benefits
provided by the foundation. It would be difficult to overstate
the intensity of their feelings. One of them describes the
intramural mood as "total despair."
That Ford would need to trim spending comes as no surprise. Its
endowment, by our estimate, has fallen over the past year by
almost $4 billion. We do not quarrel with Mr. Ubinas's analysis
of the problem, but rather, with his proposed solution. Remember
that Ford's mission in life, its very reason for being, is to
help the less fortunate among us. For Ford to offload its
economic pain onto its lowest-paid employees appears to be
institutional hypocrisy of a high order. (In his introductory
narrative to the Ford staff, our sources remember, Mr. Ubinas
recalled that his own mother's life had been foreshortened by
inadequate health care.)
And then there's the matter of style, which can play a critical
role at defining organizational moments like these. In one of the
staff meetings, Mr. Ubinas mentioned that, in stressful times, he
relished the chance to get away to his weekend home in Vermont.
That remark struck some of his traumatized listeners as a
Reginald Maudling moment. Okay, we're dating ourselves. Reginald
Maudling was a prominent British politician back in the day, his
career peaking with appointment as Chancellor of the Exchequer in
a Tory government. He was a skilled technocrat, good with
numbers, but generally regarded as flinty and uncaring. To warm
up his chilly image -- to add a little compassion, if you will,
to his manifest conservatism -- Maudling was persuaded by
handlers to receive a delegation of the unemployed. The idea was
that he would be photo-opped listening sympathetically to woeful
tales from disadvantaged citizens. Sir Reginald took as much of
it as he could and then, glancing impatiently at his wristwatch,
interrupted the proceedings by saying. "Well, I don't know about
the rest of you, but I've got work to do."
With all of the turmoil at the Ford Foundation, where, you might
reasonably ask, is the Board of Directors? Isn't this precisely a
moment for some adult supervision? Not so many years ago, Ford
boasted one of the most powerful and prestigious boards in the
country, graced by statesmen of international repute, major
university presidents, Fortune 500 CEOs and others of comparable
eminence. The current board roster is: Kofi Appenteng, Afsaneh
Beschloss, Anke Ehrhardt, Kathryn Fuller, Juliet Garcia, Irene
Hirano, Clifford Hudson, Yolanda Kakabadse, Robert Kaplan,
Thurgood Marshall Jr., Richard Moe, Narayana Murthy, Peter Nadosy
and Richard West. It may well be that we travel in the narrowest
of professional circles, but -- save for the late Justice
Marshall's son -- not one of these people is a name in our
household.
We are left to hope that these Directors, who are ultimately
responsible for the institution they lead, will choose to make
names for themselves at this critical juncture.
________
*UPDATE: I now learn that Ms. Riley of the
Wall Street Journal was quoting the Chronicle of
Philanthropy. Apologies to the Chronicle.
-- Neal Freeman
topics:
Ford Foundation