resignation

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s chief of staff has resigned after investigators searched his home, as a widening corruption scandal engulfs one of Ukraine’s top negotiators in efforts to end the war. Al Jazeera’s Rory Challands reports from Kyiv with what we know.

\o7 WASHINGTON\f7 —  Here is a chronology of major events that led up to Wednesday’s resignation of House Speaker Jim Wright (D-Tex.). May 18, 1988–Common Cause, a citizens lobbying group, calls for a formal House ethics investigation of Wright, citing possible improprieties in the publication and sale of his 1986 book, “Reflections of a Public Man.”

May 26, 1988–Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) files a formal complaint with the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, or Ethics Committee as it is known, requesting a probe of the Speaker’s financial dealings.

June 9, 1988–The Ethics Committee, after an eight-hour session lasting late into the evening, votes unanimously to conduct a broad investigation of Wright.

Sept. 14, 1988–Wright testifies before the committee in closed session.

Feb. 22, 1989–After more than six months of investigation and statements from 73 witnesses, committee special counsel Richard J. Phelan submits a 279-page report to the panel on his findings.

April 13, 1989–Wright, in an impassioned House speech, denies that he wrongfully accepted gifts from a business associate or sought to evade House limits on outside income through sales of his book.

April 17, 1989–The Ethics Committee announces it has found “probable cause” to charge Wright with 69 violations of House rules, including acceptance of $145,000 in improper gifts from Ft. Worth developer George A. Mallick Jr. and attempts to evade House limits on honorariums by selling copies of his book to trade associations and other groups in lieu of accepting speaking fees.

May 2, 1989–Wright, denying he knowingly violated any rules, publicly appeals for an early hearing on misconduct charges to “present my side,” but committee members say they first must complete their investigation into other allegations.

May 9, 1989–Wright and a team of attorneys launch his defense against misconduct charges by criticizing the fairness of Phelan’s investigation, charging that it distorted the evidence to place Wright in the harshest light.

May 10, 1989–Ethics Committee votes to expand its inquiry to look into a Texas oil well deal that gave Wright a quick profit of $340,000 last year.

May 23, 1989–At a formal committee hearing, Wright’s attorney, Stephen D. Susman of Houston, asks panel members to drop the major charges against Wright on grounds his actions did not constitute violations of House rules of conduct.

May 24, 1989–Congressional supporters of Wright, working behind the scenes, fail to win agreement from committee members to reduce charges against the Speaker in return for his promise to resign office. Wright later disavows any interest in a “deal” on the charges.

May 31, 1989–In an impassioned one-hour address on the House floor, Wright offers to resign his House seat and his speakership and calls on his colleagues to halt the ethics attacks on opposing party members.

Serious financial woes have plagued the Palm Springs Art Museum for at least six years, according to internal documents obtained by The Times. Recent developments have opened a Pandora’s box.

On Jan. 15, the accounting firm conducting the annual audit of the museum’s 2024 books attached to its report a “letter of material weakness,” a standard accounting practice for alerting a client to the reasonable possibility that its internal financial statements are significantly out of whack.

Less than three months after the audit letter, in early April, the museum’s director suddenly resigned, and trustee defections began. A cascade of at least eight resignations from the museum’s board of trustees — nearly one-third of its membership — has occurred since spring. One resignation came on the advice of the trustee’s attorney. With 19 trustees remaining, according to a listing on the museum’s website, the total number has fallen below the minimum of 20 required in the museum’s by-laws.

Palm Springs Art Museum board chair Craig Hartzman did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Accountants at Eide Bailly, citing a “deficiency in internal control” at the museum, highlighted six areas of concern, including problems with reporting of endowment spending, improper recording of the market value of donated and deaccessioned art, and faulty recording of admissions revenues.

Former museum director Adam Lerner had reportedly been negotiating a three-year contract renewal when he stepped down. Without elaborating on his unexpected decision to depart, he was cited in a museum press release as leaving for personal reasons. Lerner returned to Colorado, where he previously headed the Museum of Contemporary Art Denver.

Reached by text, Lerner declined a request for interview, referring questions to the museum.

Financial problems at PSAM are not new. According to six pages of notes obtained by The Times, compiled by a trustee who led a task force charged with examining museum finances, the ending statement on the 2019 endowment balance was $3 million higher than the beginning balance on the 2020 statement. Audits and tax returns posted on the museum website confirm the puzzling discrepancy.

The notes say it is “highly unlikely” the funds were stolen. Instead, they question internal museum accounting practices, which can create a misleading appearance of fiscal health. By the 2021 audit, the outside accounting firm that had been preparing them annually prior to Eide Bailly had quit.

“This is always a red flag,” wrote museum trustee Kevin Comer, an art collector who retired after 30 years as a managing director at Deutsche Bank in New York, and who is a former professor of accounting and fiduciary management techniques at the Ohio State University. A trustee for less than two years, Comer resigned Nov. 6.

Reached by telephone, Comer declined to discuss the accounting firm’s letter or the task force notes.

Palm Springs Art Museum

(Guillaume Goureau/Palm Springs Art Museum)

Since late July, a lengthy anonymous email has also been circulating from a self-described “whistleblower with a direct relationship” to the Palm Springs Art Museum. Fourteen itemized complaints, most concerning fiscal matters, are presented with sobriety, plus a slow burn of understandable anger. Whether or not the unidentified whistle blower has an ax to grind is unknown to me, but plainly the email is not a list of wild accusations hurled by an unreliable gadfly.

The coherent level of informed specificity certainly suggests authorship by a knowledgeable insider. Some stated grievances may have benign explanations, while others are troubling.

Comer pulled few punches in his own letter of resignation to fellow trustees, also obtained by The Times. The fiduciary expert, a former member of the board’s finance committee, said he was resigning on the advice of his attorney.

The board, Comer alleged, is sidestepping the fundamental fiduciary obligation to protect “the integrity of the museum, despite our best intentions.” The letter urges hiring both a law firm and a forensic accounting firm to review museum finances, partly to untangle apparently inappropriate methods in the past for the benefit of the current board, and partly to address potential liability.

An earlier task force suggestion to that effect was discussed by the board but went unheeded, he charges.

Especially concerning is a 2019 reclassification of some restricted funds. Task force notes suggest the $3-million discrepancy between 2019 and 2020 may have originated as a change in restricted funds to unrestricted status. Assets specifically donated for a particular function could then appear to be available for general operating purposes.

The museum consistently operated at a loss, the notes say, with some operating shortfalls covered by the 2019 reclassification. A deficit is not unusual for an art museum, but whether the reclassifications of some restricted funds were appropriate appears to be in doubt. Presumably, funds reclassified as unrestricted at the end of one year to make the financial filing look good may have had their restricted status restored at the start of the next year.

Restricted funds can include money raised through the deaccession and sale of art donated to a museum’s collection. Common museum ethical standards require income from deaccessioned art to be sequestered, used only for other art purchases, as well as for direct care of the collection. For accounting purposes, the monetary value of a nonprofit museum’s art collection is not considered a material asset to be carried on the books. Reclassification of sequestered art funds could support an appearance of general financial vigor.

During the lengthy 2020 pandemic closure, the cash-strapped museum made the controversial decision to deaccession and then sell a prized 1974 Helen Frankenthaler painting, which brought $4.7 million at auction. The 2024 audit puts total donor restricted funds for art purchases and collection maintenance at $7.8 million.

To pay the bills the museum has also been drawing down the endowment. According to the 2024 audit, the most recent financial statement currently available, the endowment is slightly more than $17 million — extremely small for a museum that last year had an operating budget of approximately $10.5 million.

“Endowment draws over the past decade totaled roughly $8 million, and contributions to the endowment totaled roughly $500,000,” the notes report. “Most years the museum operated at a loss, including for the last three years when the board believed we were profitable,” it states.

Such a disproportion between fundraising and expenditure, between money coming in and money going out, is frankly unsustainable for this — or any — art museum, especially when inflation is factored in.

The endowment is a nonprofit’s “seed corn,” eaten for short-term gain only at its long-term peril. Most disturbing: The notes suggest that while the five-person executive committee may have been aware of some of the situation’s more difficult details, the rest of the board appears not to have been fully informed of the museum’s financial position
.
“Bottom line,” Comer’s resignation letter astutely observes, “this is a leadership group that doesn’t know what it doesn’t know, and that is the most dangerous place in which an institution can be placed.”

The Palm Springs Art Museum has apparently wedged itself firmly between a rock and a hard place. Now, it is unclear how the museum can move forward without a full cohort of 20 trustees authorized to vote on making essential decisions — including accepting new members to the board.

LONDON — British Prime Minister Keir Starmer refused to say Wednesday whether he would urge President Trump to drop his threat to sue the BBC for a billion dollars over the broadcaster’s edit of a speech he made after losing the 2020 presidential election.

During his weekly questioning in the House of Commons, Starmer was asked by Ed Davey, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, whether he would intervene in the row between Trump and the British public broadcaster, and to rule out the idea that the British people would hand over money to the U.S. president.

Instead of responding directly, Starmer reiterated the government’s line since the BBC’s director-general, Tim Davie, announced his resignation on Sunday because of the scandal.

“I believe in a strong and independent BBC,” he said. “Some would rather BBC didn’t exist, I’m not one of them.”

However, he added that “where mistakes are made, they do need to get their house in order.”

In an interview that aired Tuesday on Fox News, Trump said he intended to go through with his threat to sue the BBC, a century-old institution under growing pressure in an era of polarized politics and changing media viewing habits.

“I guess I have to,” he said. “Because I think they defrauded the public and they’ve admitted it.”

The president’s lawyer, Alejandro Brito, sent the threat to the BBC over the way a documentary edited his Jan. 6, 2021, speech before a mob of his followers stormed the U.S. Capitol. The letter demanded an apology to the president and a “full and fair” retraction of the documentary along with other “false, defamatory, disparaging, misleading or inflammatory statements” about Trump.

If the BBC does not comply with the demands by 5 p.m. EST Friday, then Trump will enforce his legal rights, the letter said.

The row centers on an edition of the BBC’s flagship current affairs series “Panorama,” titled “Trump: A Second Chance?” days before the 2024 U.S. presidential election.

The third-party production company that made the film spliced together three quotes from two sections of the 2021 speech, delivered almost an hour apart, into what appeared to be one quote in which Trump urged supporters to march with him and “fight like hell.”

Among the parts cut out was a section where Trump said he wanted supporters to demonstrate peacefully.

BBC Chairman Samir Shah apologized Monday for the misleading edit that he said gave “the impression of a direct call for violent action.”

In addition to Davie’s resignation, the news chief Deborah Turness quit Sunday over accusations of bias and misleading editing.

Pylas writes for the Associated Press.