Chuck Bennet in a recent article in AM New York wrote about contractors giving money to a charity that is run by a Transport Authority officer. It was also revealed that the contractors were given assignments by the Transport Authority. Thus the donations are deemed to be “with strings attached” and in violation of the state Public Officers Law.

America is a generous nation. In 2004, Americans gave close to $250 billion dollars to various charities. According to the Wall Street Journal, in 2005, the average household gave 2.5% of its after-tax income to charity. 

Why? What are the motivations of the givers?

It is very difficult to determine the true motivations of those who give to charity. I wonder if it really matters. What is important is that money is given to the charity that will ultimately benefit those that need it badly. If the motivation of a millionaire (or should I say a billionaire?) in giving a large amount of money to the local hospital is to have his name on a plaque and be recognized in society, it is sad but it doesn’t matter. What does matter is that the hospital will benefit from his generosity, and that patients will be helped. Motivation is a private matter, a matter of conscience.

The ideal model of giving is of course:

“But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing” (Matt: 6:3)

In other words, do not boast about your giving, keep it a secret. You will at least then be sure that you did not give to be honored and recognized.

In the Jewish tradition the most highly considered community service is the one of preparing the bodies of the departed for burial. Because it is absolutely certain that those who benefited from the service will never be able to pay back.

The Hebrew word for “charity” is Tzedakah, which means justice. It is a very different concept from charity. While charity may imply generosity for those less fortunate, justice is more an action taken to correct an injustice. It totally changes the rapport between the giver and the receiver.

Maimonides, the Jewish Philosopher ranked eight levels of Tzedakah. The second to the highest level is:

“To give to the poor without knowing to whom one gives, and without the recipient knowing from who he received. For this is performing a mitzvah (a good deed) solely for the sake of Heaven.”

As Antoine de Saint-Exupery once said:

Charity never humiliated him who profited from it, nor ever bound him by the chains of gratitude, since it was not to him but to God that the gift was made.

In a recent article in the Financial Times, columnist and legal counsel Patti Walmeir says that: “for decades bribery has just been just another cost of doing business” and that “more companies are now finding that what previously seemed like harmless acts of foreign palm-greasing can cost millions.”

The French company, Total, the world largest oil company is under investigation both in France and in the U.S. for bribing foreign officials and individuals.

The same is true for the German company Siemens, one of the world’s largest electrical and telecommunication company. (Ranked 22 on Fortune Global 500 companies)

What is bribery?

Most likely we were all offered bribes in the earliest part of our lives by…..our parents!

Some say that bribery is a parent's best tool. Offering child a treat in exchange for induced good behavior does qualify as a bribe.

A bribe is a gift given with the intention to change the behavior of the person in a way that is not consistent with his or her responsibilities.

There is a difference between bribery and extortion. A bribe is offered to obtain a favor but an extortion is a demand made under threat. 

Rabbi Asher Meir thinks that there is a difference, (at least a moral difference) between a bribe given to expedite an action that the person would take anyway and one which he or she would not.  It is one thing to bribe a building inspector to expedite the delivery of a permit if the building is in conformity with the building code. It is quite another matter to bribe a building inspector to grant a permit when the building is not in comformity with the code.

Others have a more absolute view.    

The U.S. Government has a clear, comprehensive definition! More than 30 years ago, in 1997, Congress passed the Foreign Corrupt Practice Act (FCPA) that covers every U.S. company or any company that does business in the U.S.

Bribery violates justice and fairness. It also damages trust. As John Jay Hooker said: 

“But there will be no justice, there will be no government of the people, by the people, and for the people, as long as the government and its officials permit bribery in any form. “

Paul Wolfowitz, the President of the World Bank, is under much pressure for having played a significant role in the promotion and salary increase of a colleague, Shaha Riza with whom he was romantically involved.

The issues here are cronyism, conflicts of interests and fairness.

I asked a friend, Clement Rey, his thoughts about the issue and here is his point of view:

There are three aspects to the story:

1. The romantic relationship.

It was dangerous for Mr. Wolfowitz and Ms. Riza to be part of the same organization with hierarchical links, even though these were not direct.  Even without any wrong-doing this situation might have led some people within the organization to question Mr. Wolfowitz’s integrity.

2. The hiring process:

If the information published in the press is true, Mr Wolfowitz imposed some automatic rules regarding the way Ms. Riza results would be assessed. These rules, imposing an automatic "outstanding" rating for Ms. Riza's accomplishments, translated into a maximum salary increase at every revue. The amount of the salary is not necessarily relevant. What is most disturbing is the mechanism set in place. What should have been the result of an objective review became an imposed and automatic mechanism forcing the people in the revue process to act unethically and maybe unlawfully.

Did Mr. Wolfowitz benefit personally from Ms. Riza’s raises? If that is the case, then we may be dealing not only with an ethical issue but maybe with a legal one as well.

Mr. Wolfowitz’s integrity and judgment is being questioned. It is true that he did apologize and his apology should be accepted. But will that apology repair the damage significantly? Mr. Wolfowitz acted in quality of President of the World Bank, which plays a crucial role in supporting developing countries around the globe. His actions reflect on the credibility of the institution as a whole.

3. Consequence for Ms. Riza.

Ms. Riza really lost credibility too. What if she really deserved the outstanding ratings she received during the last years? No one would believe that now....

Whether Mr. Wolfowitz will be dismissed or resign is still not sure, but the sad story illustrates how poor judgment in facing a conflict of interest can destroy one’s reputation and stain life-long achievements.  

I have always viewed this comment as problematic. It is most often said as a compliment. But what do we really deserve? It is true that hard work, dedication and loyalty has its rewards, especially in this country.

Recently The Wall Street Journal issued a special report and survey on American CEO's compensation. The survey indicated that the median salary and compensation was approximately $2.6 million and that the highest salary paid to an America CEO was $54.6 million.

But are we really "entitled" to anything?

I believe that we are rather blessed (some people say "lucky") to live in a society where such rewards are not only available but also abundant.

What about those people in the developing world who would be overjoyed with 10% of our salaries? What about the homeless on our streets? Are they not entitled to a roof over their heads and a decent meal? They may have made some wrong choices in life, but that is not even certain. We have made wrong choices too, perhaps.

These are difficult questions. I do not have the answers; I am not sure anybody does.

It seems to me that we are living in a society that is becoming, more and more, a society of entitlement. Many believe the world owes them and they want it now.

Not all have that attitude. Some years ago, Louis Finkelstein, then the Chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary and David's Finn's uncle, was offered a raise. He vehemently declined. I suspect that he was content with his salary and that a raise was unnecessary. He most likely believed that additional money paid to him would be at the expense of the institution.

What if we tried to change our view and attitude from one of entitlement to one of gratitude? After all, what have we that we did not earn? Health, the capacity to work, some intelligence, education, and experience, as well as opportunities have all been granted to us.

I think that most psychologists would agree that being grateful would significantly improve our outlook in life as well as our mental hygiene.

As the Latin philosopher, Cicero once said:

Gratitude is not only the greatest virtue, but the parent of all other.

On Sunday April 22, 2007, I participated in an Armenian rally in Times Square to honor and remember the victims of the Armenian Genocide of 1915. There was approximately 8, 000 participants, demanding that Turkey recognize the Genocide. New York Senator Chuck Schumer, New Jersey Congressman Frank Palonne and New York Congressman Anthony Wiener were eloquent in support of the demand.

I am particularly sensitive to Turkeys’ reaction because my grandfather, Mihran, was murdered by the Turks in the genocide that killed more than 1.5 million Armenians. The Genocide is undisputed by historians worldwide, and has been documented by journalists and diplomats. Yet it is has always been actively denied by the Turkish Government. Turkey is the only democracy that does not give access to government files to international historians.

Japan has also been under pressure from the International Community to accept responsibility for forcing Asian women to work in brothels during World War II. Yet Prime Minister Shinzo Abe denies that the Japanese military had any role in forcing women into sexual slavery.

Why is it so hard to admit wrongdoing?

I believe that the two major reasons are the fear of losing face and the fear of financial consequences.

We never want to lose face. Yet admitting wrongdoing creates respect and builds credibility.  Financial consequences can be also be mitigated when an honest admission is made. 

We always counsel our clients in a crisis situation where wrongdoing has occurred to take full responsibility. Kathy Bloomgarden, our co-CEO in her book Trust-The Secret Weapon of Effective Business Leaders, writes: “Admitting publicly that a mistake has been made is always difficult, and usually embarrassing too.” And she adds, “ When leaders show that they are dealing to the best of their ability with negatives, public opinion about their organization turns sympathetic surprisingly quickly.

John Kennedy understood that very well. After the Bay of Pig fiasco, he publicly admitted his mistake, accepted the blame and took full responsibility for his actions. Kennedy’s popularity was greatly enhanced since this episode.  His approval rating attained levels never reached before.

I wonder what would have happened if Attorney General, Albert Gonzales, when he appeared before the Senate had said: “I have now examined the issue and I realized that I made a mistake. I will reverse my decision and have the Federal Prosecutors that have been fired re-appointed.“

I suspect that it would be the end of the story.     

As the author and cofounder of the Poetry Society of America once said.

“Admitting Error clears the Score, and proves you Wiser than before.”

These words of wisdom can benefit all of us, as well as both the governments of Turkey and Japan.