Interim Report of the Special Investigative Committee of the Joint Boards of Shriners Hospitals for...

7/30/2019 Interim Report of the Special Investigative Committee of the Joint Boards of Shriners Hospitals for Children April 10 2008

1/24

CONFIOENTIAL

ATTORNEY- CLIENT PRIVILEGED


2/24

CONFI IlENTIALATTORNEY~CLIENT l>RIVJLEGED

A. Qverview and Charge o r the Specht' Invp.sri23rivc Committee. This Inter imR e p or L i s m ade 1.0 Dr . Be r na rd J .emiellx. Im p er ial P ote ntate o f th e A n cie n t A rabic O rd er o f

Nobles o r the Mystic Shrine for North Am erica ("AAON MS '). an Iowa Corporation, andChairman of the Board of Directors of the Shrincrli Hospital:; fur Children ("SHe"), 3 Colorado

nonprofit corporat.ion, in accordance with his directive to the Special Investigative Committee

(the "Special Committee") of the BOilTd of Directors .md Board of Trus(ec~~)e "Joint Boards")

1)[SHe in September, 21>07. This Interim Report will dCI.aillhe course ofth~.~rk of the Spec ia l

Committee to. dale, ~QJ TJ epTeJ!m in ary fimJi"~s by lhe Special. Committ~$. ~~,~. tain issues ~hatwar ran t additIonal in ve st ig atI O n a nd r ep or tin g tu D r . LemIeux fur \C Q n S id , e r~~ . n ~~ ,' pOSSIbleremedial uctions hy the Joint Boards or the Members of A AONMS\ \f,~~ftl'I~a i ~ ,~ )

/\ \;:\ ~~,,\ 'I . ,~I'V

Th~ Special Committee was appoinled by Dr. ,..e m ~ i~ ~bn~T tn, ~uj~ ' : j f of Section5JO.3 of the Bylaws ofSHC, IJO Scptcmher 20. l007,' t l J , . i fu j~ f ; :e iJ~q\"'He(~er '. Ralph Semb,Chainnan of Ihe Board of Trustees and Prcsjd~nt of ~)i~tiJ~~Mr. ~~n~ ~racewe", Treasurer

an d Tl1Is tec : of SHe, e ng ag ed in unethical conduct h 1 jh ~ rv \;p .h J \g i!\.~\e'Xeculive evaluat. ionprocess (Ihc so-called 3600 review)l for Mr. Ed~5~:,!Vr~Ooni~lt\j)lrellttor of Development of'

SHe, during the year 2fJ IJ 7. The Special \:\ \ . \) ) 'Iv

Prior rt) its Illak~ l~~r:lfl,.ildp.i~~~~~\~{,rl.the Special Committee'=, inve::;Ligation wassuspended by an unr co~e~\\i~liorYor~~-t0lnt BOilrds ill Executive Session on Novemher 8,- \ .. ,.,\ 'v

'f t. ~:~;\\ ,\'nre initial m~'ilp:~1~.. h. ~ 1'~:"rOi;~~e.werc R~bt:rt ~umipsel;;d, M ~hJQIl He!\sey. Rflbcrt Bailey. AI M:l.d$enand Rnhcrt Sm,ll. :~~itlf.' . f J l f f l K ' c Spt.:t.;lill < . IJllI/lllllee 011Oct()ner 5, 10lH, MeSsr5. M :ldl:e n and Smithindic"cd 'hll' tlt Vier}:; ~ :i lS l ~rh service nn Ihe SpcI;ial ('umminee. Mr. lIailey indicated Imlly 10

members oft~ S~hio ' ~ j 'Ii. lila/he WII~ lIuahle 'n IIl!rvC .Iuc pcrs')",, ' r;'Jn~j,.It;;r,)l;("lS. On October 9,2007,Dr. Lelll~";< ~C()~li~lled ~ S~1 I Committee If) indude Ml;;WS. Turnipseed, Hesse>, anu JI)J1Jll"Q bles. Allrcfi:rc:nc~~~~J s~~iP.ti':'ill C ,hall meon Ihe SpecialColnllliltec u rec '>n:;r ; ,"rc:d by Dr. Lem i eux . Messrs.Madsen.: Jiley and S'~; t 1 i " flU/ ptlllicipate in the invc5/ig;lliIJII UIIU have hao nl' role in producing rhis Inr.crrmReport. , r:' \ ' I. .J , ;.

1 I~nder the j~\..1cr~h~:of :. JllnlCS Full. beclIlive Vice Prcsid.;nt of SI Ie,' each member of Ihe scni'Jr c;w;co:ut j :cstaff of S~~, \~ . cd on j.ob perfl)rm~nce ~)y 5ubltrdinllr~s, .)(her.~l1i(lr ellcculivC5 and members of rhe JoinlB.ulJrd~. 1 ",,. ~P!~~'lvalu:J"!)" P")I.:C"5 " reterJ'ed 10 liS :I )I}')" rc'l'~'W, an" i,~;,pplicJ fion tl)Mr. McG!)niC:t1 will bediscussed later 1n:;tJ1fS report,

IThe ~PCci31 ('ommil1


3/24


4/24

CONFIDENTJ ALATTORNEY CLIENT PRJVILEGED

Committee h'IS deemed the interviews conducled to dale as sufficient for the purposes of the

concJusi l)J1s e.xpressed in this In t e r im Report, but helieves that further i nt er vie w s a re nect::ssary

with respect to lhe matters raised by th e FawceLl resign3tion.

In ani icipl)(jon of issues likely 1.0be addressed in pursuing the Fawcell aspects of theinvestigation. counsel to the Special Committee h : . lS retained Dcloitte & Touche Forensic

Advisory S.:rvices to provide forensic accounting expertise :md support in reviewing financial

and accoun t ing n;cords relevant to the in ve stiga.tion . ~~\\ ' ; , ; . \

II. AppJicahle Ethical Principles (~ ~\it\

Thr.:re are several ethical precepts LhillpolcnlialJy apply)~ lh\lq~u~' .' ,.e in this

investig3tinn. Article I () of the Bylaws or the AAONMS s~6ifi~,s e \ b i ~ T h r i \ mes that arehinding IJfI Ihe: members of Ih,; Shrine and in parlir;ular o~. ~.,,~}e:;i n . ah~~i~'J '&lion 210.2t:mbodies a ('reed uf the Shrine and slales. in port: .~t'':)~~~vid\~~~ e ~ ip r '4 ~ )oursel yeS tointegri ty , virlue c.m d nobi . l i ty of chllractcr. O ur in t .en l!J .> p s '~Jl\bc h P ~ r n b k , our rela t ionshipstru~lworthy and our spir.its forgiving of each .oth~r." ~6fJi~,( 1 W F s e ts ,: ~ r \ v > aCode of Ethi.cs towhich all officers and directors of lhe ImpeTlal CO~Jatll hp


5/24


6/24

CONFIUEl"TJ AI.

ATTORNEY- CLIENT J)RIVILEGED

each executed a disdosl.lre statemenl on Apri l 22, 2007. ill which Ihey indicated thai t ha t t he y

were aware o '-no conflicts of interest withi" t.he meaning u rthe poli cy .

Ill. J~rlgar McGonigal

A. Dack:'TQUnd on Mr. McGQnlgaJ. Mr. McGonigal was hired by SHe as its

Corpor&lte Director of Development in September, 2()04. having served previolJsly as Chainnan

o f th e B o ar d o f Govemors of t he Shriners H o sp il~ 1 i n C h ic ag o. H e :lPPljed~~. a c(Jndidat~ for the

position of Ex~cutjv~ Vice P~esidenl o!' SHe, ~o s~lcceed. M.r. Lewis M.oln.j\r~~ut (h.at job was

given 10Mr. James full. St:nJor ExecutIves of SHC hClvc indicated th~e rt:J.~.onshlp bt:lweenMessrs. Full and McGonigal is nol. close, which they aTtribute illpart\t 't~., c\lid, et~n for the

p~sitj?n o!' ExeclJtiv.c Vice President. M~. ~cGonigal has oper~d r a . . . j" ~.~I/~:r l a P ) ~ n tl y ofdlrce~lon trom Mr. ,. ull, .anc1,1\.'fr. Full has rndleat.ed th ai h e hiJS/~I.~t d I r~..~~~... f j { t1 i e ,"lema I

workmgs of Mr. McGOnigal s department / n ]!II '.L~)\1

/~;_:'" ',,~~,:ir\?'~ n um b e r o f i~ di \lid ua ls in tc ~ic we d .by the SPf~i'~'~c;~'11mit~ , . , h , t c indicated th~l. M !".

McGomgal has weak Interpersonal skills , wl-lleh are o fT se l.b y ~ ..ng t~J.1. j~3"\ competence In hiS

position. Given that aJl important component of.hi~ J . i o b \ ~ S il~ t ~~.C.lio\~\:ilh local f1Jndraisingeffl)T1.5and local. d~vdopment o f! ic e rs a s well a\ ~~nl)ts~~\ervi ~~~s h~ve expressed the view

t ha t p e~sonaJ ilY '~ Impoltanl fo hl~ p~rfnrmdn:~;)3asc~,:Q ~~!~~r~ ~S wot personnel records- . .3Ild~vCllual1ofl. ma~erlals on ~r. ~c~I~",glll, L.h6u; ~ Cl)~S~~~I~~\dJs::lgreell1e.nf among. those whoInteract WIth lum as to hIS :iu,tablhty for hIS '.U~.~~iRdsll10. ~\J Ihe Speclal CommlUee has noviews all L.his maUer, What we

l~a~)~~lu?,1~\~al his record rcllccfs both strong

commendOl'o,lSand weaknesses. .(; (\\ \' \ /'\ \)

On Ocrob 31, 21)1)6, rf~~.~m~\~\~XeadqUaTtcrs and attempted to termin.te

M r. M ~Gonigal for poor per .. :~.;lnc~a~. 'i{l~:.~~rdH'tinn,~ Mr. S.emh r.eported to the ~pecialCom rm ttcc that he w as 3C ~ tfl~;teq\lC~ ..' Mr. Full In m eeting W ith M r . M cGOniga l to

terrninat~ his emPIOyme!. ~~J)'~lll15' \ h ~ C " " l i l 1 b with Mr. McGonigal, at which Ms. KathyDean, DIrector of Hum ~~~i~S rW '\st.fC , was present, was handlec1 poorly. Mr. Sembsta ted that M r. Ful . ": ., M rC f='leish'l:j,rAo illtt::rrupl thl; mecling an d e sc or t M r . M cGon igal

from the bui ld ing , W ~P'. . '. eJ U!;)~gilrdcda s hi gh ly em ba rr as si ng a nd i m p rop e r .

Inlervi~~~~? \i!~'.,;\':~~~?tives of SHe suggest that Mr. Semh's action in demanding

Ihe mcct.i.~g..~W Mf. '. i~~\naY have been uniluleral (nol al the requcst of Mr. filII) andtha~ he ~

baSIS ~!~w~th\~:\cr, tl , deCISIon could be fuunJelJ. The accounts o f S eO lo r ExecutivesfamiJiJ

1i - ' 'i t l 1 the:e. c , ; disagree with Mr. Scmb's rccolkction on :) number of key points,includi~~ \thr~ i~(,i~~. ~ of the m eeting w ith M r. M eGonigul. and the role of M r. Fleisher in the

meeting. \ fuadC:li tion , the Special COlllmittee has learned lhilt two members of the Joint Boards. \!'/ I

. 'q ; , /''...;./

M r . Scm b hilS i"dic.ncrl tha t M r . FIJI! was ; J fra id to < . :on f ron . M e . M.;(j'Jni~'11 ba~r;d IJn r;1),,':CrI1S aoou' M r.Mr:Gonigal'~ p',llc:n,i"J n:ac,ion. Mr. FilII hlls denied Il1il:. A t r h e 5uhscqllcn! mcctinl:: oflhc JlJlnl Boards, Mr. rrank RUlh. iI Tnl~lJ :c: o)f~JlC. r;MfrOllted M r . Sem I ) w i thevalmuio" m ater ials from Mr McGonigal' 1Ip e r~ l1 n n t: l files, illdir::I'iI1g Iha t hi!)pcr liJr m3 m:c: W


7/24

CO;\lFIUENTJ,\I.

ATTORNEY- CLIENT IJRIVILEGED

were aware Ihe Mr. Semb intended to rcrrninat.e Mr. I\.kGonigal in advance of the Jo in l Bo;trds

meetings ;n Novemher. 2006. and they helieve his purpose W;JS to accomplish the tem)jnation

w ith ou l se e kin g a uth or ity fr om th e .Ioinl. B oard s. T he Speciy Mr. h,lI'm NI),c:rnber 27, 21)()7.indicate, that Mr.

M cGonig :J I "dll(verl good success in fundr3isin:,; rc~ull'J. bu t nccd~ IIJ o'/er':orne perc~plinn$ Ih~( his communicalionand inlcrpcr:;lJnal skiJIs ;Ire not COmmell$lIrare ith hi5 cxecutivc r ')$iLion and that he ha:; rJcfT1IJnslr31ed a rigidity inm3nagemcnt style Ihat rnDy limit GlTOtegic initiari\es.

71)21~M.l.l


8/24

CONflnENTJAL

ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGED

procedure [ollowed hy M r. FuJI is to solicit from each Senior Executive the nam es of a . several

individual!> at different levels within SHe ilIld the 10c


9/24

was arranged in Boston ostensibly since Mr. McGonigal W:l5 there I)n SHe hospil.al development

matters, working with Mr. Bracewell, who was the Chair of lhe Development Commitlee. The

m ee ting w as h eld in th e headquarters of Vanlage Deluxe World Tr


10/24

CONFIDENTIAL

ATTOI~NF.:Y- CLIENT P R I V I L E G E D

In an Augusl, 2006 Im perial lJivan re/real, M r. B racew ell urged approval of the

C onvergence proposal. One of the partic ipants at the retreat ra ised the que stion of whether

Convergence was in any way related [0V31ltage Travel or Vanlage DMS. Mr. Bracewell reacted

very angrily If) this suggestion or such a relationship, due II) the laint a~sQciated with Vanlage

D M S.':o

M r . B r a cewe l l l at e r c r it ic iz ed Mr. M cGoniga l p r ivate ly ft1r l e a.ki ng d e t ai ls o f t h e M ay ,2 0 06 m e e ti n g i n B o st on . M r. M cGon ig 1 ha s d en i ed t h ar h e m ade a ny m em be r o f t h e ImperialDivan or Bl)ard /)f Trustees aware o r the details of that meeting. The Conver.' ence proposal wasnever subrnitlcd 10 Joint BOtlrds lor approval. (~~

\ ;1 '

The ::>recial Committee ha s received inli)rmation from Seni


11/24

CONFIDENTIAL

ATTOHNEY- CLIENT PRIVI LEGED

Direct and Vanlage DMS, Ihat was featllreJ on the Valllage DM S we!JSileY Mr. Bracewell was

upsel. by menlion of th is issue and lemlinatcd the conversation. T he PE P Di r e c t p ropos al wasge n e ra lly w e l l r e ce i ve d by th e p a rt ic ip an t s. a lt ho l.l~ h Mr. McGonigal n o te d i n a n e - m a il IQ Mr.Bracewe l" dated M ay 15 , 2007 , that i t wa:i n o t i n f.let c,)m para ble t o t h e c u r r e n t ammgcment

wit.h Barton Cot ton and cOllt.emphlled a h ig he r le v el o f s pe n di ng [o r Ihe S.lnlC o r lo w e r r e tu rn s toSHe. Mr. Bracewell did not receive this message well, and accuscu Mr. ~ 'lcGonjgaJ of undue

loya lt y t o Ba r ton Cotton, M r. M cGon igal subsequently use J in[onnatio/1 fr,om the prQ posa l byPEP Direct I" secure an increased guanml.y from Barh)11 Colton to SHe (\

Bolh Messrs. Bracewe l l and Sem b have indicated to rhe SPf~J 2 : ~ i l t e e that theiro~ly interest in seeking prop?sals I,rom vendors such C IS con:erg~~~~: "~~C~B4r~~\and PEPDIrect. wa.s to assure that SHe conSIdered compellllve ilJterna ..ll~~. 10 4 \ ,~~~J1 a.J,m ~.~~.~iL~thrs. Mr.McGonigalll:lS expressed sympalhy with 'his view, al1d has ai~~ h 1'r't'\H ~~,; li~~'~J P 6eValllatealternative proposals. He noted that there were, in his min~f"~< fig~"f; r~1~'Ylt~\'6individualsto calise SHe to ~o more th311jus! ~onsh.lt:r opt ions, bl~~~~~I' t o push: theb~~in~ss (I) tJleseal te rna te tim15, \V11.hout due rcg:lrd for the perfolTl1at;lCl(\ffj'~f1rlon\f~tt~n\or Its rlght.s unde r

existing contracts with SHe. \ \\'. \\ \.\ \/,I", \ . ,'.\ \/

Within a month after Mal' pr~senlationo/'j\.~r.:$'~~V\elJ l)~all li'm iling his contact with

Mr. ~cG~nigalllnd. to raise :I n~J ~ber of perfO~rD:llt~e:ret.~l$},iss~e~iT lvo lv in~ p ro~J JeJ Jl s al lJ~ehospItals 111Sl. LoUIS ~nd HawaII. Mr. M c.~q?rgaA ~~~e (~l II1Is change In 3ttltIJ de was msom.E: w~y related 10 hIS assessment 1l..f..Lh~.u,\e~~..J!)ii1 p ." ,\d \ ; 3 J s ', n d "huff of efforts In replaceBarton COUOIl. I~~~:( /~\)>

.. It appears that effor.ls b~ ~jt4~~~~~s~re);J1C blJsil~ess cOI1~inued into late 2?07:Mr. C m ouo n ; po r ts a m e e ti n g I,f.!Np\e~ber, 20l17\~~th1vfr.Se m b, In M r . SCl11b's office a t S I IC

[-Jea~(IUanCrs, in which M T ..~~~ie'lil~.),~ilt.~e ..kW k 1 r. Bracewell Ilad communicated wi th M r .LeWIS of Vantage DMS an~~~rvarlt:Jg~JJ~ ~3S prepared to offer wh"le"l~r was necessary to

bU~oul SHe's obligati .: tojl!~~tQt~o'n':~J&' ~'inolto rcj~r.tcd Ihis ide~, 3S he .had com~ tobelIeve the Messrs. S m ::a 1~\~ra,we)J,..:d~not simply motIvated by an II1leresl In Improving

I. 'I \ \ \:

;':.~ 11:.. '1 ' l~- t" '~ : " ~ ' ' ' ' ;'f. \ \l) The Special ( ~f~" , > ~ ~l.:lltbl)rS "1'1)01 rhe V31~13ge OMS wehsi l e dcs.cribin.~ ! .he:jlJ inl ,:, '.III~ble10 explain the rre~ence of contrary

informal;'", olllhe llIlernet. OltJlOUgh it is p


12/24

CONFIDENTIALATTORNEY- CIJ ENT PRIVTLEGEO

the SHe d ir e ct m a il solic ita tion program . but had a pc:m iclJlar inlerc st I n V an ta ge D M S r ega in ingthe business . Messrs. Semb and Bracewell have denie d that they had any such communicationsw ith M r. L ew is or M r . Cinotto. They r ep or te d I h< lt t he ir o n ly recent c om m u n ic at io n s w i t.h Mr.

L ew is c on ce m e d th e p ossib ility th at M r. L ew is w o uld m ake a m a jor giti ro SHe o u t o f t h e

proce eds of the Selic o fone h i s bu s im :s sc s. Th i s gin has never m aterial ized.IV. Willard 1,'lIwcet.t

Mr. fawcett resigned as Controller of SHe in J :' 1 1 1 1 . 1 a r y , 2(1)8 afte\~career with SHC

stretching back over 25 years . In his exit interview with Ms. Oea.l~. e sf~t~ that he felt asthough he had bet;:n forced out. and passe d over for promotion to the P.Q~!" n ~ f.1 .. hi Financial

~ fficer, ~ e al.so, stated that s.enior SHe individuals, includingMr. ~~t11~td. :' , .~b , ~eredlSTespec t lu l 01 h Im and th~t hiS m o: ) t re cent perform ance ev.aIH~tW ~.I.\hll~~.C.6h....~j. . p . 'a ted byMr. Full to be m o .r e negative than thc~ should. h:J Ve .heen .~~!C ii9fl~\Gi~ J.I.. .: . lann ed thatmembers of the Joml Boards had commllled ViJnous vlolq.r(q~I~.l?t~11\ytW :itr h r. Scmb hadsigned the Jnlc.:maJ Revenue Service Form 1)90 for the~~1"~2p'~6 n~~'1st~dil}ga letter fromMr. Fawcett t/fflched to 'he Return that Slated cuncc(l:n~\lib~tJhe c o 'ff ,~ . tJ e s s of infonna t ionincluu.ed in the return. He also stlgge~l.cdlh'lt Mr, Scmlj.J1/ld d i } e i ; t . ed h i-m , \o "make up whateverinformation he needed 10 complete the ~l)()s[$i~\\rr.~\)'dJ~~,tedlh,hehad hired an attom~y La

pursue c1iJ im s against SHe t hat m ay inv()IVc~~tuq,~~~i~~l\arg~/

The s i~ .ua tjon w i t h M r . F:l\vc~tt~~~~;J~~C~d\~lJpeCiaJ C o m m i tt ee i s n o t ~ e ~ ai n

as t~ lhe. wel~ht th3t sh ou ld b e gl~~n,~~J~~~l$! t~ dup.ears. th at h e h n either Form W -2 or Form 1099-MISC and Fonn990) and business Iransactions not in the best interests of SHe (presumably involving conflict of

int.erest or private henefit or inurem ent) The lawyer did not l1lenlilJn the 2006 Form 990 or


13/24

rela ted correspondence re l~rrcd to in Mr. F;JW C~L J.':; exit in lc rv ie w w il.h M s. Dean. H e also h:l::;

n ot provided an y 3ctual docum entation 1.0 subslanti,lh; Ille claim s.

It is difficlJh to evaluat.e the seriou:sness of l!lese issues without signitic3J1t additional

invest igat ion. Mr. Fawcet t's a ll ega tion s m ay be an im a ted by a desirt: 1.0 o bt ai n a significalll cash

settlement fm rl1 SHe, 3JJd could be embcllished by him towiJrrJ this end. It is entirely sensibk 10

o bt ai n a proffer rdlecting s e ri ou s a nd sl.lh5f.anlwe ITliltters of cOllcem as a condition to any suchsettlement The Spccial CQmmillee proPIJS


14/24

CONFIDENTIALATTOI~NEY- CLIENT PRIVILEGED

---~---~"'~--app3re that Messrs , Semb uno Bracewell i~noreu important elements of the 36()" review

rro ' 55 , i n c lu d in g . the necess i ty for c()n l ident ial i ty of Ident i t ies of th e reviewers , When. erviewed, hoth them professeJ Lo understand the prol;css, but their aclions were inconsistent

with those slil(cments.

The;i';;;-rtjv~uempt t o t e rm i n at e M r . M c G on i ga l o n O d o be r 3 1 , 2 0 06 a ls o speaks to

these at t ifUdin :J1 i ssues_ M r . Scm b 's explanation thilt he w as ac t in~ a t t h e d , i~t ion ofMr, Fu l l i sinconsistent wi th other information r ec e ived by the Speci iJ l Co m m it tee a J 1 O \ J .? p e a r s self-serving,We believe that this was an instance in which, due to his I>osition as Preside~; .. SHe: Mr. ~embfelt it was within his prerogative to terminate a Senior Executive, and i~QK~ WIthoutsufficient regard fo r any support fo r the decisio 'n the personnc r , 0 . Gonigal .The Special Committee views such exercise of aUlhon po, . la ' . d or e

organization in an era in which em p loym en t tenllination d.~.' '. r l~ r~; : ,~ '. , . . t igaled at.considerable expense a.nd loss to employers. The McGq4f~ t~~. In \~I . ng does notappear to he an isolated incident Senior Executive L3desfri~: , 'a ~ 1 r~ i among seniorm a n a ge m e n t a t SHe a s a c on s eq u e n ce o f rh e act ions f1 \ li; t 'U r~ i. Juls ~~r.. M ess rs . Sem b ; JndBracewell. ullen accompanied by the i~pli.cit~ threll~


15/24

CONFIDENTIAl .


Commiuecs. The Special Committee does nol I11CtlJl 10 imply thaI I.his authority is exercised

impmpcrly in m os l c I rcum s tances . To the COnl ra , .y . rhe p r lJpe r p e r fcm l lance of (he dut ies

delegated lo Ih e Trustee Officers and CommiLtee Chili,.:; under the exi:;ling SHe Bylaws

u n q ue sti on a bly r eq u ir es s ig n if ic an t t im e , and t .h e m anagem en t o f over 20 la r ! lung f ac i li li e s wi ll

i ne v iT a bly i nv olv e t ra ve l by k ey O f fi ce r s tlnd Committee m e m b ers , 1 n v ie w o f r ec en t In te rn a)R e ve n ue S e rv ic e g U id an c e a n d in v es ti ga ti on s o f le iJ di ng c h a ri ti es by S ta te A llo m e s G e ne ra l a ndthe United Slates Senate r;in:J.nce Commillcc,!; i t is ;mpor1;ll1t that SHe tie C lT cu m sp cc t , utexpendjJ.uL&T~1Y of'Iicc I ~~~er-5- tlfld TrusteeS: Trf The ' l IT 5 S C rlc e -o T a ro ". accountable

~ of i l l tenlCll l inancial 31;counting and e x p en di tu re c o n tr o ls . there is the\~r~?ect ofabusf; of

pe rq uisi te s in violation o f f ed ~ ra l a n d S!.3te ta.x .u:d char it ab le t ru s t ' a f s W ~f~sues ident i ~edby Mr. fawcell. are exacfly the sort of potentIal problems that c6~i~~rJ~~!~ . eXIstmg

Immagemcnf culture. ':: '~I:: J

. 'i,e Sped:!) CorhmlUeru-also co~:d ;bo~t th~f~ .~~\J\afW~~\~';r..f~.~!:nr'ervie~s wit,hMessrs. Semh and Bracewell. In the case of Mr, semr~:W ~ot~!t19af.\maueifon whIch hIsaccounts did II?!. 5qua~e wi,l.hIhe other. (sometjm.es ~~II~~.r;;''s~U~CC6bfip~t9ttratio~ or he had 0.0clear recollection or SlluatJons for whIch I J lher Jndlv ld l iaJ~ rec ~\ted a~:vt.tY'de(jmte role 011 IllS

part. The inconsistencies and J;)ps~' (Y,a gc~~, ',. ...- ~ilrtJCU a

significant Ihat h e h as lim ite recolleclion ,"lo1Cfn '8 :":. e 2 - 9 Fon n 990. a lthou gh heacknowledged tl1 .1 t he did in fact ecul.e i f . '1.\ 'U e .. can rcadit p.aJ.bL 111the demands on him to sign large numbers dJ~'illre';S o n ' . )j~t..fS He and the general principleth~1 he looks lor an .approval of.d.ocul.!'ents"~~r11~S)'~~ ~N)jeh;llf of the organization, , Hisfallure to have a speCIfic recollectIon abou~~ ~C~l~nt ~:b.nportill1t as the Form 990, especially

since he had never been asl(ed to Si.g' i tJ~~~~~~\t\Yb~?~.:tu ' rJ~sscriou:s l : t ) ( Jcerns about his ac!ionsand t h e credihilitytJfhis dcn ial.Q r~ ~t~t~\le~f~\~dt~J Mr. Fawcet t ,

Mr, BmcewclJ adm4':td\.~ ~ ~ j i i \ J ~ )b J r SQ r the J oint Boards at the meetin g inNovemb er, 2007, tha t h e s t f l .~ ( a ~ ~ t ~ c ~ M ~ :~ h c = Special C()mn~it(~c.'s in l~rview wit.h him, onNovember 2. 20m. Ap~cll tJ . . [i)COI1~tJ.'L~ legal wunscl on thIS POIllL p no r 1 .0 the IntervIew

and was adVised, con: e t 1 ~ ; ~ i ; ~ 'QJirgi~~J~ pennit.s Lhe Laping of a phone conversation so longas at leasL one persIJ. '" s~. . {J r.t0rtllnarely, he apparl:ntly did not seek advice on whether this

mle WQulli i1ppl~..wherl;. ~ i!~di'.lts(JIl thE: call arc in di fferent states, some of whicl l requirec on se n t o ~ a ll . ,o u i i , ~~ ::~~i~re'\di~lgof a telephone convcrSiJtiOIl. I n t h is instance, t\\oo of(he par1lclpan. a~e.' ~ , ~es~":!i\'require m U h J a l consent, and Mr. Bracewell's actIons were

4 : 1 i ~

" E > , , : l ~ ~ l ~ ! : ,' .~I,,' ""b"" .~ roo'Ii" of '"''' ' ,""" ". "."'., '"vest;O"'.o>' '" Th, J. food G,n,Tmst (C~eJ~i\f~ c.,l/l tp t~ 10 CF.O, abusc IJrpc:rt.Ju;9ilc:S and hellefiu ~nt:llock of BoardlJvl: rs ighl) , AmericanUnive,'Sh d!'ll'n~f; ....,!&I'J by Ullivc:rsily Presidenl). Alh:ghcny H';lIlth allli Educatil)n FOlJnr la l ion ~eltcE:s~ivccompen:;a 'o!,~nrJ ur1~r'Jper eltpc:ndirmes 011ptrquisjlc~. indll.J illg sl'ldilltll boxes and corT)!)ralc aircraft), '!1le

Bishop TT1.lk '(~ 'xl ; t ss~~ecompe:nsati'm and penl'lis;l~S as well a conlliels of inieresl lInd Jilck nr R()3rd n...erstghr) andthe r':nilcd Wlly eif 'A9"cr icu (abuse ofpcrq'.Iisih::', in.~idc:r Ino""I:,j'"I" dc;;igned r() dj~g";~c 'JhllIJIVCl.T~n6dcti'Jn3, lock

or Board ovcr:li~h't;"n


16/24

CONFJ DENTJ .AL

ATrORNEY- CLIENT PRIVILEGED

therefore legally questionable . The concern ra ised is thaI hi; ; behavior, in not seeking consent

from the Spcci


17/24

CONFIDENTIAL

ATTORNf'::Y- CLIENT PRIVILEGED

in r~(alial ion for his opposition to iniUat ives by M essrs. S em b an d B racew ell. in a dditIo n,espe cially in l igh t o f fhe circumstances surrounding Mr Fawcelfs resign


18/24

CONFIDENTIAL

ATTORNEY- CLIENT PRIVILEGEO

in the proceeds I)f the mailings.J-l Mr. Lewis W:lS directly implieL' lted in t .he Postill Service

proceedings and he, other senior execufives of VFS :Jnd the corporation faced criminal ch:lrges,

which were uhimatdy settled in October, 2003, wilh a p

n(),~ 21. alGI) t1j~do~ed that V:m'a~c Travel lIse,j o.:omplilJlcnr;lry O:TlIi~ep:lckases In drive bU5incss 10 its direcl mail

affiliotes. :wi that his practicc was l,"iqll~ am ong direct m oil 30Jicil1lt!on firms.


19/24

CONFIDENTIAL

ATTORNEY- CLIENT PRrVILEGED

u n d er st an d t he r e t o b e a n y r cJ 3t io n sh ip s h e lw e c n CO/lvergence a nd V n n ta gc D M S . T his is

di f l ic l J lt to credit, as the m e e t in g w a s sugg-eslcd by M r . L e wi s ofV"nl.agc DM S. Convergence isbase d in B e th e sd a, M ary la n d, an d it i s un l ike l y t ha I i t s r ep r esen t a t ives \"01l1d choose Lo schedulea m ee t i ng w i t h SHe at Vanf.agt:: Travel ' s otlices, o r t h a t V a n t a ge Travel w ou ld ho s t t h e m e e t in g ,if Vantage D\1S were not involyed. Thi~ is home UI.IIby lhe uncolltrovl~r1ed [act rhat the

prese:l tation materials indicated ajoint ven ture between the two firm s II) pro vide (he services.J3

V i ew i n g l .h e c ir c um s ta n c e s i n th e l ig h t mosl f avo ra h le t o M e s sr s. ~ f a. cew e l l a n d S em b ,

an d assuming t h a. t M r . B r a cew e l l w a s genuinely surprised t h at V a n t ag e D . ~ f~ :~ O l) J d h a v e a r o lein the p r opo s al , h is s ubs e q u en t actions lIre nor consistent with h is r~4rl.~dst8t~'{Jents that SHe

coul? t l ? ' do bu s i n e ss w i th V a n t a ge O M S o r o th e r V a n l ~ gt ;- r~ .l .( \l e .~ C O e 1 ~ _ n : ~ I ~ e . ~ ' . : " r. . .~CGon igaJhas ,"lheated Ihal Ihe Convergence proposal was dT 2006reneet an awareness that there IS~1I1~a'ge ~~~~,. p~""clpauon 011 Va~la.ge Tra.~el cruises byleaders of AAONMS who 3Js'XR3pp\n\lo\j,e \O~ ~~ ld'lnl Bourds i t " , " ! drlvlTlg hus/JlcSS to otherVant3ge-relarcd bu ..,inesses ...(~~~~ J i .r s \ptcpselikir ( wh:jf the Sper. ia . l COn1millee has come 10un?crstand as vantalS.e's mi.~~.i~.~tJn~.M ~ g r t; r .o . p d S j J J g cr"ise pa.ckages to win business for otherUI1II..S. .~ !;~~,.. '~ \';\ \'t/

.... I \ v~....1: \', '

T h ~ A p r il, 2 " V~\1ae rujse\)l~which Messrs. B r ac e w e ll a n d C i n ou o atlended (h e

pre se.ntat~o n h t. M .C . ' ~ . :~ ~ i 1 1 S Q ~ ,.. IS this p alt .e rn . I I .wolJl~ seem in(;~nsisl.~nl ~ith wl~at theSpecial S om nJ:(.t~~~ .. r h ~~~tand are V~nl age . s husmess practlces, tor Vantage fravelto p~nmt COI~PF)~ ;".0 \ ~s Ices to theIr crUise customers ~l~hI)UI some. bc::n~fit to

vantag~.AI. l~~ver 1 ! . . hIS bould have been C:lllse for 50me SusplwJn concernmg linkagebetwee:~~~~ rp~cct ~ ~\ ~ ta.g~ DMS. Not smprisingly, the r e la ti on s h ip b e t w e e l. ' V a n t ag e~M S 4 ~ ij r M C ~ < 8 .) r e c .; ,: e a K le . eV I d en t a n d w a s l lp p a rc n t ly e x po s ed by M r . M cGOniga l ill lheu m e o t \ i l > b May. '1 ,',:R sentalJon6.

~1:J .~ ;J I J~~d IIp;:posaJ by Vantage O M S tn huy nul SHe's contract.rJal obl iga t ions to

Barton C~~i~~'ich hadjust been renewed in Novcmber, 2007), so r.hat Vantage DMS could___ . "J.e

lS It appears Iha l V;tnlagr: J)~S regll l l l rly CQ lln a .~I~flul large porlil lns IIflhc wl)rk a55l)cii l r~r:1wirh conductingch'Tit .able $()lit:ilation campaigns. W e undcnlamJ !.harPE P Direct provided cQn,fitfemh/c hack lJllicc an d pTtJdllcr;i )nsupport fQf Van'''se OMS ., ,he Ijnt


20/24

CONFIDENTIAl,


hecome the direct mail vendor lo SHe, is fiJrther evidence that Messrs. Semb and Bracewellwere enten.aining the prospect of business reJ31ionships with V31)lil.ge DMS in spite of the Jo in l

Boards contrury statemeniS on this poinl . Asil!~ from the prospective conflict of interestconsiderations, such 3 proplJsal would have crealeu possible liabilily fur SHe 3nd Vantage DMS

f or in t e rf e re n c e w i t h Ba r ton C oL ton 's c on lr a ct u ,, 1 r e la li on sh i p.

Tht : : c on ti nu in g C O n li l. cL with Vantage T rave l a n< .lVanlage O M S C,1J1I lol be r econc il ed withthe expla.natj,)ns offered by Messrs. Semb and Br31;cwcll, and creales a ver{s't,rong inference that

there is some motivation for them 1.0 h.1VC involvement in whal was 3 serjf~of proposals thatappeared to emanale from Vantage, directly or imJircclly. These: faets1~~f) s iJ & 8 .. st that they areat best insensitive tu the seriousness of the prior problems with VFS I~~I~di ~:'nt . the r isksof fiJture relalionships with V3Jltage DMS or affiliated cnmparHes.)!.I . r~' ests the

Iype o r behavior Ihal :' !he re~on fod13v;ng 'he Conn.el on~ol~~": '

Will).; the SpeCIa l C.ommlUec CM appreClate~.~o~:i')the~ ~r~';IblyIIlnocentexplanations tor individual events in this chain vie\'.~\ ~Ji!;~l3tiO~~es.j.C \ explanations growincreasing lenuous in the context of wh~l is. cJcar!l ~;'a erit~.~ act1~~\ ~y Vantage OM~ to

become a vendor to SHe. The SHe Conflict oj)~e e~ Pollcy\ spct;.VicaJly addresses. ~lftS,

gratuities or l iJVors rcceived by a cQvered ~,,('kl "U ltM ,c'( cir~umstances where i t m ig11 t beinferred thal such action was intended Lo injfue~c~or. ~~ p,jss~lv inf luence the director,lnrslee, orlic(;r or employee in the perffJnl1. lJ~~ ;" f IJ iS \ l I l i l s < .~ .~ i"\ he vpn l rcy aIso r equ i r es that anymember who may have a conniel of j n~5 !~~r~~\~\Q~C a record of such and "refrainfrom voting or directly or indirectly )~flU:~~'il~~t. r att.~~pt;l)g to influence, the vole of theJirectlJr~ or truslees." T~e facl that S~~.~.j&ao\5J ~u~~I$\tt.u~sacl husiness with Vantage OMS orM C S DlTecl of Interest.

Measured against 'h

f',~~~~~~ij~~iconduct viola tes the C onn i e r of Interest

Polic}'. While the Special 6 t; 1 fu iU - & ~ ~a n i~ /1 )detemline the extent of personal benefits hereceived froOlVan'?ge llIj,v ~{)~~ilq'll,"' by Ihe~c individual~, ;a s if wall by lhc Juim JJQ8rds in determining no t II) dDfurther business wirll VFS in 21l03.


21/24

CONFrOENTI.I\I,

ATTORNEY- CLIENT PRJVJLEGED

Committee on April 2,20)8, that he received complimentary p(1ss"ge.~/) IJ l1uer Ihe terms of the

Conflic t or Interest Policy, tJlis should have bee n d isclose d a nd Mr, Bracewell shQuld nol have

par ticipated in any discussions involving potent;:]1 rfeCllJ llgs with Van tage DM S or ~ompanies

affiliated wilh it in o r 2 00 7 In stead h e p al1 ic ip al.ed In th e discuss ion of th e Convergencepro pl')sal and the pre se ntat ions on May )4, 2007, efJdd't~'ldlf~ctly \/:!,r),ndittclly (TOm \';Intage

T ra ve l or Va nta ge OMS during the relevant period. a n ~ lJ,{ Sp~j:ll C C :f iv ~ l{ le e is not aWtlrc ofany evidence 10 the contrary, there is lillie doubt tha'Nl~'h~. b e e h : i~\vo(~J with Mr. Bracewell'sefforts to promol.e allemalivl~ ~irecr mail vefJtI~\.f p~BQ~~cl I;~ \~~,j I hr ~ 1J gh c on t ac 1.S w i thVimtagc Travel, and has had mdepenJenl An~acts ~ltl\:-M ~. J.)~~IS. HIS support [or :vrr,B r ac e w ell 's i n it ia ti ve s c an b e c o ns id e re d f~~.be-'enIiIi1J ~~'d~n:,c t t h aI v i ol at e s tJ 1 C C o n fl ic t o f I

"

.1' I ~.'v - ",I \ ),. . ", , Lnt.eresLPo ICy any constitutes a serJolJsyr.e,~c\~J,:u~ J F V ~ 1)\\11 rlgll!

The impact of the conflic t ~f ~JJfjs.~~~~~l~'~..(~\~l~gllifi.edro the ex ten! ~"at. it reJate~ totllC e ff o rt s t o r e m ove M r . Mccro'~rt~I\T'lC~~~hg ~f~leN ovem be r, 2()()f} temlmatJon mcetlngand the interventj(~n in thei6.0.~I:{~!~~.W."; P o f b .~ . e \ s . ;~. .o~~oj'/~Iosely.'m tl~t:r.~jt.:t.:l i.)n of pr~po.sals fhatcame as < t . result 01 CO~t3CI .S 'I.m;(.\raJ ~~.~~T~~~~~~!\s IJolI;d bel ore, m d l v lc1ua l even t s III.'s~lat~onmay a dmIt of a lte rnative e . lpnaLlon(:b.uh


22/24

CONFIDENTIAL

ATTORNEY- CLIENT PRIV1LEGED

I f M r . F aw c et t's c la im s c an b e s ub sta n tia te d , SHe c ou ld f ac e l i a b i l i t y fo r 50-called"excess hcndit Irans3ctions" under the Inlernal, Revenue Service int.ermt:diale sanctions

rcgime.~1 An excess henefi( t.ransaction occurs when an Insider, c.g., a key officer (such as

Pres iden t , CFO or (,FO) or d i rcc fo r o f :: l cha r it ah le o rgan iLa lion , who has powe r to inf luence the

char it y , oh ta in s .10 am oun t o f m o n e y o r o t h e r benefits I rum the o rg :J J liZ3 lion i ll an am oun l tha t i snct commenSllr:I.t.e with the value provi.Jcd 1o the o rg an iz at io n . T h us far. w h at w e k n ow o f M .r .Fawcett's al lega t ions include improper reimhursemenl of e xpens/;s that .d id not fur ther theexempt purp/)ses of SHe and contracts that were not i n the besf interests (J ~5HC and may havei n vo lv e d s e lf -jo t.c re s t o n t h e p ar t o f m e m b e rs o f th e J o in t B o a rd s. A n i~sid~r~l~ i s i n vo lv e d i nexcess henetil transacl.ions may face liahility for excise/taxes r3ngin~~,. m'~ of the excess

benefits from the transaction (plus possible failure to I 'eport penal. L ie . 5 " e t 1 W e.T.e ~ ~ l t i :os ~ to 200%of the exces:; henef i ts from the I ransac t ion, (plus possihle failurC(tO TC~ _~~~ajj .. ~itinterestC06S): ift h e } ,n s i de r d~e .s 1101. corn~cL t h e e xc e s s bcnct i ! an d 17~\~~-a l 1

s . : ~ ~[ ( t i t ] c.hari tabJe

organlz3.tlon. In a~dlt.J Q.n,th e J n t er n al R e ve n u e ~er~l~e A~imR~)r~1:..~ri~~~aJ tJ es up toS20 ,OOO. pC~lt . ra~l~actlon , I I I the aggregate, ~ n a ll IrJ dJ ~ P ~ lf fr w h d: J ~ p ro ~ a n e x ce ss b e ne fitt.ransa~tlon .. ~01 I h e T n t.e r n al R evenue ServIce may /oil~'r-~v.~.ke){l~ ~npl. status 0 [ Lhe

org3Jllza tlon . ~ ', \ "\ \' \ ~~\ Vr ',\ \ I~ -,:/

or grt.:atcr concern is Mr. Fawcett's all~~i~~ (" 'W - ~ ~ l~W C \~~hasize is 1JnslJbstant ia t~d al.this time) th:J1.t.he 2(J06 Form 990 may incl~2Fi~.~p~t-.r'~~in~9-f~ertain items, and that thefon n w as e xe cu te u by M r . Serob n o tw f~ Q st iK . (!J J1 k : . - t . tT e{ :~ q~ nt J l jC < lI 'O n by M r . Fawcett ofi rr e gu la ri ti e s i n t he re turn. I f fhis alleg~nlu.hll?' oht to \e~ricc(. SHe a n d M r . S e m b w o u ldf ac e v e ry s eve r e c onsequence s . ( '1 ::0\{~(./\) . -._--.

E v e n ifany f in a nc i al irre~~t~~~t~\eJ'ed .d \ n o t i m p li ca te c ri m i n ~ 1 liahil~ty. tJleirex~stence may re~e(;t a b~cak~~,J~\Jl~rna. L~~~~i"lc~'~l:rols ~n r J I~~k l)foversight by the!olnt ~f)3rds. It IS essentJ ~.J ~ .~ .~ r .~ t..~ ~ .:r~"~l~t n e y be ,spc.clflcaJ ly ,den1.ltled hy :\1r. Fawcett belJ1vestlgatecJ amJ addresse!'1fh d's~~ c:~~, 6Jat SHC un of c:ltclIlptinn were i$Rucd on ""Iardl 28, 2008, 7J Fed. Reg.16519 ( n & i0 8 1 . ']"b~"'cd 13t'fI'C considered in determining whether rc\,oClu;rJ/l is appropriate when .here is anCl tCC!! lb \~~et'r '~'''I~~~~!been Ii~alizcd wilhou,L ~.ajlJ r rev. isions , These factors include: (J ) The size: and s~ope? fthe ~r3'-n~~.'IIII~.~"'Cg\lj. d ongol llQ ex~m ~l 3~l lv" ,es : 1'2) fhe Sl~.c and s cupc l)~ l~e l:.\cess benefir r r :>nSilcUOIlSIn rclRh.>nll) . r q , e sl,.c 'nd s co pe o f the orgaOlzalll)ll S regular IIlld ,"~'JIII~ exemp' aCllvltle:l; (J ) Whether Iht

l)rg'iJi7.atio~l1pll.~linvolved in muhiplc excess I)encfit tral1:1ae,irms with IJ Ilr: OT m'lte persons; r o t) Whether theIJrgilni:lIl'ioll has !!rtPJemcnred safegu:Hd:l thlll ure rr:",",""hly car..: luh!d '0 rrev~llt excess benefit tnm5.c:t;lJn~; llnd(5) W J'l:thl:r t1,~xi)'~~henefit Il'all~aCliOl1 hilS !xcn eurrc::ch:t.I, III' Ihe "rl&:1I1i;7.:JI.iO/l ha~ made gtlod faith CtTIJrt3 t"seck correction Irol11 the dbqushlied pel"on~ who henclitcd from the CXCCSlSbem:lillnlllsaclivll. All fllctors are

considered III c;.)rnbinarion with each other, ant! ,h,; IRS mllY nssi;';Jl well IeI' Q r lesser weighllo some faCI"r! Ihlln tr J

others. The fOUl1h and filth 11iClor$ w,1I wei&h Illlwe heavily in lav


23/24

CONFIIlENTIAL

ATTORNEY- CLJE~T I>RIVILEGED

SHC.4':' The ma.nagement letter from SHe's outside illll1itors at KPI\IG , dated April 6,2007 (the

"KPMG Lctt~r"), idcnlit.ied a number of signiticant issucs concerning expense reimbursement

poli cy that require prom pt atlention, :md review of th e expense items described i n t he K P M GLetter may yield evidence of lrans3cl .ions that req'J ire corrective a C l.ic :m .

4f

,

Based on ils findings, the Special Comrniuee J1liJkes th e toliowingJ7;commendJlions Lothe Imperial Potentate, for his consideration and presentation to the Jl ) int B O ~ { ~

1. . The reprima.nd ~,. Messrs. Sl;;mb and Bracewell for ~,~.on ~ t~ .! ;he ~.\onnjct,ofJnter~st Policy itn~ the rcportmg 1)[ any repnmand 10,the .M~v.~I~erl)~~, ~~ Annual

~eetmg, Th: repnmand should also make reference 1.0 VIO la.tJ o. n~!~J.th.: ~.'"~ .!! : ~ l1 \.~\i..' teS of SHeand of AAONMS. .,J :~:~~" i'1 1 !~ 'Y

. . . , . . . : ) 0 1 - - ~ : f t : q \ :1,1 .2. further investIgation by the Spec,al (or9fl !!.t~.P.lto t1 1 ! ; ' ! ll.e~allons made by Mr.

Fawcett, j n clud i ng i nve st iga to ry work by both jn~~a a~Gh-un1. ih~:1,p'C~onnel ami Sen iQ rEX,eclJtives at SH~ as w~1J as inde~endcnt 'Qrensi~ac~o~)~ng ~ot~to lit'p"erf(JTlned by Deloitte& fouche For~nsl c AdVIS~ ry ServIces, .t~\'.~\~:\\ ., .

3. AuthonzatJon of a.1I l leCess~F{ W lJon\ .~a~etJ~ll' 55 \, m~ltcrs Iden. t . Jf ied 10 thelO v 1 .P G Letter wIth respect, to expense rei " . li1se~ni h d ' l , . c le and revIew of relmhursemcntrecords of 'he Members of tlte Join' B~. ~!s'~or ,~eu


24/24

CONFIDENTIAL

ATTORNEY. CLIENT PIUVI .LEGED

6. Im plem entation or program for corporate cumpliance, including a hotline or othersimilar confidenLial means for employees, Senior Executives, Tn/stees or Directors to reportsuspc::cted incidents or cQrporate wrongdoinl$. C I)n t l ic L of interest, violations of corporate policy

or violations of law, and which requires confidential investigation of any such reports andreporting to appropriate corporate authorities for rl;sl)lution and corrective action.

Interim Report of the Special Investigative Committee of the Joint Boards of Shriners Hospitals for...

Documents

Transcript of Interim Report of the Special Investigative Committee of the Joint Boards of Shriners Hospitals for...