The Nature Conservancy is hiring outside lawyers and one of
the nation's largest public relations companies to help head off a congressional
investigation following disclosure that the nonprofit has sold scenic properties
to its own trustees, internal Conservancy memos show.
The Arlington-based charity has retained Edelman Public
Relations, whose Washington office is headed by former Republican and Democratic
advisers, as part of a damage-control strategy that includes Capitol Hill
meetings, calls to donors, third-party letters to newspapers, full-page
advertisements and attempts to pacify charitable foundations, the memos show.
Conservancy staffers also are working to "place stories" in the media that
describe successful conservation projects.
"We will be hiring a law firm by the end of the day today
that will help us with the Capitol Hill issues," a Conservancy staffer wrote
this week, recounting a conference call among the organization's senior
managers. "There are Congressmen that are concerned and as you know we need
their support.
"We do not want them to launch an investigation of [the
Conservancy] and this firm will help us on these issues."
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley
(R-Iowa) and ranking Democrat Max Baucus (Mont.) said last Friday that they
planned to ask the charity to account for a range of practices, including the
sale of raw land at reduced prices to the organization's trustees for use as
home sites. Some of those deals have coincided with charitable contributions to
the Conservancy from the buyers, who then benefited from significant tax
breaks.
The senators' interest stems from a Washington Post series
last week that detailed the organization's rapid growth -- its assets now exceed
$3 billion -- and described how the charity's financial transactions have
benefited its supporters, including corporations that have paid
pollution-related fines.
The articles reported how the Conservancy had drilled for
oil under the breeding ground of an endangered bird, and how it had bought land
and services from corporations whose executives sat on the nonprofit's governing
board.
Grassley said in a written statement yesterday: "In my view,
the best thing for the Nature Conservancy to do when it comes to both its donors
and oversight from Congress is to be transparent in its practices and
forthcoming with information."
In a May 5 memo, Conservancy President Steven J. McCormick
told his staff, "As the story rolls out, we will continue our approach of
answering all questions and harboring no secrets." This week, his spokesman
declined to identify which law firm was being retained, how much its services
would cost and whether the bill will be paid with donors'
contributions.
Other Conservancy memos obtained by The Post show the
organization is mounting a coordinated, global campaign to protect its
interests.
"We . . . are working to identify firms that can help us
gain access to key offices on the Hill," said one memo, bearing McCormick's name
and e-mailed on Monday to the organization's executives in the United States and
abroad. "We have launched a proactive effort to reach out to all critical
members of Congress, key legislative staff and federal agencies."
Longtime supporters stand by the charity, McCormick wrote,
but others "have serious questions about our business practices, especially
surrounding the use of conservation easements and our relationships with
corporations."
Conservation easements are legally binding agreements to
restrict some commercial development, which the Conservancy routinely attaches
to properties before resale. In many instances, however, the easements have
allowed the new owners to construct one or more houses on the ecologically
sensitive sites, the series reported.
"In markets where the series has run, I think it is safe to
say that our reputation has been dealt a serious blow," McCormick wrote in the
memo, which was labeled "Importance: High."
"This is definitely the case on Capital Hill. There is some
evidence that the series is being distributed to other audiences that we care
about, such as the foundation community."
The conference-call memo states that the articles "upset"
foundation officials, particularly at the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation,
which has given the nonprofit more than $10 million.
A fourth memorandum says that the Conservancy is encouraging
"anyone, including partners and staff," to write letters to the editor
protesting the series.
In an opinion column published Tuesday in The Post,
McCormick said that, in response to the series, the Conservancy had suspended a
range of activities highlighted in the articles, including land sales to
trustees. The column said the Post articles were distorted and lacking in
context, and that they mischaracterized the group's mission and
motives.
Edelman's Washington office is headed by Michael F. Deaver,
a former Reagan administration adviser, and Leslie Dach, a former Clinton
administration adviser. Edelman represented the Red Cross after charges that the
organization had misled donors after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Other clients have included major corporations that have representatives on the
Conservancy's governing board, including General Motors Corp., Georgia-Pacific
Corp. and Southern Co.
"We have sought the advice of independent outside experts to
help us navigate through all stages of this process, from dealing with issues of
governance and transparency to how best to communicate to Washington-area
audiences about the steps that we are taking," the Conservancy said in a written
statement to The Post. "Our expertise is in conservation. It seems only prudent
to engage others more versed in some of these areas to offer us their
perspectives as we work through these issues."
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In
accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material
herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who
have expressed prior interest in receiving this information for
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information
go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml