BY BOBBIE WILLIS
After
All is Said and Done
Caroline Frengle on FOOD, firing, friends and foes.
EW: The events preceding your firing
came to light in the context of inappropriate
use of funds. How did it feel to be at the center
of these events and this context as it unfolded
in the public arena?
CF: Well, I think it’s two different things.
First, the allegations and how to deal with
them in a way that gives me an opportunity to
set the record straight. I chose not to be public
in terms of that, thinking I was protecting the
agency, because not only was it an attack
against me, but it was damaging to the agency
— my first concern is the agency.
There was just no truth in what was being
said. I didn’t want to get in a pissing contest or
a she-said he-said kind of thing, because that
isn’t helpful. I chose — and was asked by the
board, as were all the other board members —
not to discuss these things in public. But the
people who were leaking, or rather giving, in-
formation to the press didn’t feel so obligated.
If you say things enough times, plant seeds
of doubt, tarnish my image and reputation in
the community, then it doesn’t matter what
the truth is. Even board members who were
good people decided to fire me — or ask me
to resign — in the end, because the argument
10 AUGUST 28, 2003
from more vocal board members was, “Now
her public perception is ruined, and that’s the
perception of the agency.” This was all leaked
by a particular faction on the board, the dam-
age was done, and then they said, “See now,
we can’t keep her.” None of this needed to
happen. None of those things were
issues that were worthy of front
page news.
Then there was the personal part
and how to deal with this in terms of
my “public image.” I’ve never been
into image — (laughs) luckily. If I
had been, I would have been de-
stroyed. Primarily I’m a person
whose path is more important than
where I’m getting to.
When these really serious, vi-
cious allegations came out, I felt
like I was walking around the com-
munity completely naked. And actually, it
was like, “Well, I am [figuratively naked], and
here I am.” Whatever’s left after you strip the
clothes off, that’s who I am. When I realized
that, it was like, “So what?” I still am who I
am. While it might be sort of embarrassing, it
doesn’t matter. The people who know me and
love me, still know me and love me. And I
know and love myself.
EW: In the R-G coverage, your comments
seemed measured, even careful. Did you feel
free to give your side of the story, or did it
seem that would only feed the fire?
CF: I felt it would feed the fire. People
said to me, “You should just kick up a fury,
because they’re after your hide, and they’re
not going to stop until they get it.” I did what I
could do to convince the board they were
going down the wrong track. I spent a lot of
time answering each one of the board mem-
bers, trying to inject reason into the process.
But minds were made up months ago, and
most of what happened was to achieve an end.
There was nothing in the audit — that
came clear. The big hype was waiting for the
audit results and all of this mismanagement,
and there was nothing there. It was a very cal-
culated, manipulative plan to get rid of me
and make sure that FFLC was primarily in-
volved in emergency food distribution, and
that’s all. [Balancing emergency food distri-
bution with nutrition education and aware-
ness has been a major point of contention at
FFLC.]
EW: Why do you think you were targeted
and dismissed this way? Do you think it was
work politics? Were there more personal is-
sues at play? Was it some combination of
both?
CF: It was a combination. There was a
faction of the board kind of behind what hap-
pened. As a strategy, several [incidents], not
large ones, were lumped together, painting a
picture to the rest of the board that was very
purposeful — implying I had lied and had not
been forthcoming. Then it looked like, “This
is huge!”
A responsible board would have, in my
opinion, brought [the infractions] forward one
at a time. In fact, I had pointed out several
things that needed attention, and then it was
turned around so that it was like, I’m out of
control.
“
The people who
know me and love
me, still know me
and love me.
And I know and
love myself.
“
I
magine you love your job, but there’s
suspicion about inappropriate charges to
your expense account. The suspicions
and an itemized account history get out to the
local paper and next thing you know, you’re
reading all about it in the news.
There’s an investigation, even a formal
audit — you are found innocent. Still, your
boss says, “The damage to the company’s rep-
utation is done,” and you get canned. Sucks,
huh? Welcome to life the last couple of
months for former FOOD for Lane County
Director Caroline Frengle.
This past April, former FFLC
Development Director Joachim Schulz circu-
lated a memo outlining concerns for FFLC’s
fiscal policy and direction. July 19, The
Register-Guard reported that the FFLC board
was calling for a special audit of agency credit
cards, zeroing in on Frengle’s spending. July
25, The R-G reported that FFLC had released
the credit tab itemizing Frengle’s purchases
— a release made before the special audit was
complete. On Aug. 16, The R-G reported both
that the special audit had cleared Frengle of
any wrongdoing and that she had been “dis-
charged,” which is fancy for “canned.” In five
quick months, Frengle’s career had unrav-
eled.
During our interview, I am struck first by
the clear sense of grief still upon her, a week
since her dismissal. She speaks carefully; her
eyes get a little shiny through parts of our dis-
cussion. Her foremost concern is the reputa-
tion of FOOD for Lane County and “the good,
good people” who make up its staff. Though
she firmly believes that someone, maybe sev-
eral someones, had it in for her, she refrains,
for the most part, from mentioning people by
name. She chooses, even in expulsion, not to
point fingers directly, not to speculate specifi-
cally on why her career has come undone
after nearly 20 years. Here, after all has been
said and done, she sits down with EW to talk
about the aftermath.
As for FFLC running at a deficit, and this
huge debt load we carry — it’s more than we
want, for sure. But we had a mortgage of
$500,000 on the warehouse when we finished
— we didn’t get enough in the capital cam-
paign to complete it. We’ve taken on
$250,000 since. We had some difficult years
and weren’t alone in the nonprofit world,
which is not to excuse that. But they were dif-
ficult years — we distributed almost three
times as much food for the same amount of
money. And it’s just an impossible thing to do.
We were in the process of coming to terms
with that.
But that was a big opening in terms of my
management, like — “OK, she’s not doing it.”
This year, without the audit adjustment made,
we’re in the black about $59,000. So, we
don’t have a deficit. On a cash basis, we’re
ahead (pauses and catches herself) — they’re
ahead.
There’s a huge feeling on the board, and
only this board, that I’ve never run up against,
having always worked in partnership before.
One of the mantras of this whole deal has
been, “You work for us. We don’t work for
you.” There’s some real ego involved here.
EW: An R-G editorial (8/16) noted that
FFLC has outgrown you, implying that with
FFLC being your “baby,” perhaps you could-
n’t handle the letting go of control that hap-
pens with an organization’s growth. Thoughts
on this theory?
CF: If that was the case, why throw the
baby out with the bath water? Why damage
the agency? If, in fact, they just wanted to take
a look at leadership — certainly we needed
some policy revision, some internal controls,
there’s no question about that — then I would
have worked with them. I suggested doing
that — to come up with a two- or three-year
plan to make sure that everything was on tar-
get and to find someone to replace me.
EW: The same editorial mentions FFLC’s
board has “adopted a new set of policies
defining limitations on executive practices …
[that] should prevent the types of problems
that proved to be Frengle’s undoing.” Was
there any sense of collaboration between you
and the board on adopting such policies to-
gether that might have avoided this situation,
or at least allowed you to work it out inter-
nally?
CF: I thought we were in a process of tak-
ing care of internal controls and policy revi-
sions. I mean, it’s true — I was there for 20
years. I did have a sense of entitlement as a
natural outcome of having been the founder
and person in charge. Boards come and go,
and while they’re the boss — and I totally re-
spect and understand that — they are not
long-term. They turn over. And so, in fact, I
was the continuity for the agency, as well.
A faction wanted me out well before any of
this came up and, in fact, engineered the allega-
tions and the leak [of information]. The group
wasn’t large enough to get rid of me when it
first started. I don’t know at what point it turned
over. I had trusted that it wasn’t a done deal and
that they really did want policy revisions and
internal controls, that it wasn’t necessarily me
they wanted gone. I was wrong.
EW: Was there tension between
you and the board, or between you
and any co-workers that might
have precipitated the events of the
last few months?
CF: Well, certainly after
Joachim Schulz wrote the memo,
there was tension between him and
the staff. And there had been ten-
sion simply because he wasn’t
doing his job.
Also, about a year ago, there
was a board member, with the help
of the chair, who was consistently
abusive toward me and discredited me in front
of the rest of the board. At that point, if the
board had stepped in and said, “No, this is not
the way we act at FFLC, under any condi-
tions” … if they had been firm in their respect
for people, like the agency is, this would not
have happened.
EW: Has this situation created increased
self-consciousness or defensiveness for you in
your everyday life?
CF: No, it’s been the other way around. I
make sure I go to all the places I’ve always
gone to. I have not “hidden out.” The last cou-
ple of months have been so surreal in so many
ways, because it’s just so stupid.
In terms of my feelings, they’re very deep,
and I do have my public self, but there’s not
much difference [between the private and
public]. I’ll be in the grocery store, and some-
one comes up to hug me — which has hap-
pened a whole lot — and I just immediately
get tears in my eyes because of the goodness
coming toward me. The goodness has been al-
most as intense as the bad stuff.
EW: How does it feel to have worked so
hard for so long at a job you clearly loved,
and to have it end in such disaster?
CF:I don’t think this will settle here, be-
cause it’s wrong. I have belief in the universe
that things don’t work that way. I didn’t get to
stay — and in personal ways, maybe that’s
just a kick in the butt, and I need to be doing
something else. I’m going to be patient and
wait to see what the next thing is. But no mat-
ter what I do, this shouldn’t end, can’t end like
this — it’s not the way of things for it to end
on a stingy, nasty, malicious note.
EW: Final thoughts?
CF: The community has been the food
bank. That’s a value we’ve had, but it’s also a
reality. You can’t have a place like FFLC
doing that much without the buy-in of the
community. There are thousands of volun-
teers down there, and thousands of people
who provide resources. And we never ask for
just resources — we ask for commitment to
the cause. People are part of the solution.
They’ve been participating for the whole 20
years — some of them have been there since
the beginning — and they may need to step up
and say, “Listen, this is our food bank. It’s
been damaged and we need to heal. We need
to reclaim it.”
ew