Give an overview of the case (i.e. who, when, where, and what is the problem or situation)
In 1981 Peter Smith became a member of the board of trustees of the MCA after being a long time donor and contributor. And in 1989 he became the board chairman. In 1989 the board hired Keith Schmidt as the MCA’s executive director due to his reputation to aid in the expansion of the MCA. Smith and Schmidt clashed on the speed of the expansion and their roles were not clearly defined. After a heated discussion over the expansion and Smiths disagreement with the boards decision to support Schmidt on the rate of growth Smith cut ties with the MCA. The MCA proceeded with the expansion of the MCA as envisioned by Schmidt. After a number of years have passed and the completion of the MCA expansion Peggy Fischer the new board chairman is faced with trying to collect on the pledge of 5 million dollars that the Smiths had made prior to his leaving the MCA. Peggy has to seek alternatives to try to collect because the MCA is a bind because the expansion is unfunded and the MCA is now in debt.
Question 1 Part A: Is Peter Smith micromanaging Keith Schmidt?
The relationship between Peter and Keith has not been an easy one. While Peter did tend to micromanage the day-to-day activities over exhibits and artist to …show more content…
Peggy should try contacting the Smiths to try to convince them to honor their initial pledge to the MCA; however this will prove difficult not only due to the previously strained relationship but the newly developed health issues. Peggy can offer a payment plan to the Smiths as well and advise of the new FASB rules and the detriment that it imposes on the MCA. She can then see if a worded letter that was a fear tactic threatening a lawsuit that would enable her to have them fulfill some if not their entire