There I go again.  A hopefully provocative headline which will entice you into reading this post.  And you likely thought the subject matter involved United States foreign policy.  If you’re still reading this, it worked.

Actually, this post is about philanthropy, a topic which has received considerable attention during the last couple of weeks, largely due to the Washington Post’s David Farenthold and his investigation into the Trump Foundation.  Farenthold has pointed out a number of instances in which the Trump Foundation is guilty of either illegal or questionable transactions including:

• A $25,000 donation to Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi’s re-election campaign at the time Ms. Bondi was considering whether to join her New York counterpart’s case against Trump University.
• Failure to make a $1.0 million donation to veterans’ organizations in lieu of participating in a Republican debate until he was shamed into doing so after being exposed by Farenthold.
• Use of charitable funds by Trump to purchase two portraits of himself.  NOTE: The charitable tax benefit goes to the individual who donates the item to an auction, not the person who buys it.
• The use of charitable funds for donations to civic organizations  to settle lawsuits related to violations at his Mar-a-Lago home and one of his golf courses in New York.  The settlements were supposed to be paid with corporate or personal funds.

As reported by Farenthold, what makes this more unconscionable is the fact the Trump Foundation, since 2008, has been funded by third parties, not by Trump himself.

Sometimes I have to research an issue to better understand it.  This is not one of those cases as I have personal experience, having proudly been an associate for five years at the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation in Kansas City, Missouri.  What struck me as I read Farenthold’s reporting was not these individual instances of charitable malpractice, but the difference in philosophy between Trump as an philanthropist and Mr. K (as he was affectionately called by friends, colleagues and the Kansas City community).  Mr. K practiced what he preached and held himself to the same standards he expected of others.  For someone like Trump, who is quick to suggest he would be out front rather than “leading from behind,” you should look for him to demonstrate that leadership style in other aspects of his life.

Which brings me back to Mr. K.  When he felt people did not appreciate the heritage of Negro Leagues baseball or acknowledge the talent of the players who never had an opportunity to play for major league teams, he put up the money to build the National Negro Leagues Baseball Museum.  When he believed the rich history of Kansas City jazz might be forgotten, he funded the American Jazz Museum.  He did not wait for someone else to ask him to join these projects.  It was his lead funding, desire and initiative which brought others to the table.

Although not a charitable endeavor, Mr. K also demonstrated a commitment to his home town when he personally committed the dollars which secured a major league franchise which became the Kansas City Royals.  While many owners view sports franchises as a wise business investment, the extent to which Mr. K viewed the Royals as a community asset became clear when he directed the proceeds from the sale of the team after his death to go the Kansas City Community Foundation, not to his own foundation or to the family.

There is one other major difference between Trump and Mr. K.  Neither the Negro Leagues or jazz museums bares his name.  And when he put up the money for a new stadium for his beloved baseball team, he insisted it be called Royals Stadium.  Only after he was diagnosed with cancer and his imminent death became apparent, his friends and the community demanded the name be changed to Kauffman Stadium so they could honor him while he was still alive.

Mr. K’s philosophy of philanthropy did not extend to his business dealings.  Just the opposite.  The principles which guided the foundation were honed during his years as president and CEO of Marion Merrill Dow.  He was among the first to institute profit sharing with his workers.  He changed the relationship between management and labor by referring to everyone as associates.  He attributed his success to hiring people smarter than himself.

This is what taking the lead looks like.  More importantly, it is not demonstrated through individual transactions, it is manifest in the overarching philosophy on which those transactions are based.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP