Retired U.S. Army Gen. Tommy Franks, who led the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, was paid $100,000 to endorse a veterans charity that watchdog groups say is ripping off donors and wounded veterans by using only a small portion of the money raised for veterans services, according to testimony in Congress today.Let's assume for the sake of argument that Franks was acting with good intentions here. He was asked to help a group whose stated purpose was helping veterans; he was offered $100,000 for his involvement. Seems like a win-win situation, right?
Gen. Franks' involvement was revealed as members of Congress questioned Roger Chapin, who operates Help Hospitalized Veterans and the Coalition to Salute America's Heroes Foundation, charities that congressional investigators say spend only 25 percent of the money they raise on projects for wounded veterans.
The charities were graded "F" by the American Institute of Philanthropy because so little of the money is used for actual charity projects or services.
Chapin testified he approached Gen. Franks in 2005, and he agreed to let his signature be used on mass mailings seeking contributions to his charities.
* * *
"Gen. Franks did support the Coalition to Support American Heroes back in 2004 and 2005. The General made several speeches for the organization because he supports the idea of taking care of our disabled veterans. He also premitted the use of his name in direct mailings for about a year," Michael Hayes, chief of staff for Franks & Associates LLC, said. "He ended his support for the CSAH in late 2005 when he learned that the percent of money raised that was going to the troops was less than 85 percent, a figure which was then and remains today his critertia for supporting charitable organizations."
Wrong. Turned out to be a lose-lose situation. The only winners here were the people who got rich off this scam to capitalize on American support for veterans. Veterans certainly didn't profit much from this venture. And neither did Franks, who now faces questions of personal ethics and integrity over this fiasco. (Not to mention this fiasco.) In my imagination, I picture Doug Feith joking about Franks to his friends over a drink "Who's the f--king stupidest person on the planet now, buddy?"
Clearly, Franks had an obligation to do more of what we lawyers call "due diligence" here. He was a retired 4-star general with a very high public profile. If he's going to lend his name to causes, organizations, candidates, etc., he owes it to himself to ask some hard questions, to make sure those causes are really worthy.
And it's not just Franks' integrity that's at stake here. It's the integrity of what he represents — the military profession, and more specifically, the general officer corps. There's nothing wrong with retiring from the military and using your experience and expertise to make a living, even a really good living. I wouldn't be where I practice law today if not for my military experience, and there are thousands of former/retired military officers working in the private sector on the basis of their experience. I don't think there's anything wrong with this, and I don't begrudge Franks for the work he does, the money he made on his book, or his various consulting gigs.
But though we have separated from the service, we still represent the military and the profession of arms. It's a matter of honor. We have a professional culture of norms, values and ethics to uphold, even when we no longer wear the uniform. This is true for former captains; it's even more true for retired general officers. Franks' behavior is out of step with this tradition, and with the profession.
So what should Franks do here? I think it's simple. He should disgorge the $100,000 he got from this charity, and donate it to a cause that actually helps veterans. The USO, Red Cross, and Fisher House Foundation come to mind. Ball's in your court, general.
0 Trackbacks / 37 Comments