ShareThis Page
News Columnists

Rebutting Robertson

| Wednesday, Aug. 23, 2006

William Robertson purported to offer an "ethics lesson" in charitable giving to college freshmen (" Freshman ethics lesson: Principle is principle ," Trib and, Aug. 13). His basic text was a code of ethics that was created by, among others, the Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE), on whose board I serve.

Robertson specifically cited a provision that gives donors the right "to be assured their gifts will be used for the purposes for which they were given." It is sad and ironic that he should be offering this lesson, since he is seeking, through an expensive lawsuit, to undo much of what his parents did 45 years ago in making a gift to Princeton University.

The gift was made in 1961 by Marie Robertson. With the encouragement of her husband, Charles, a 1926 graduate, she donated $35 million to Princeton. An organization known as the Robertson Foundation was created to oversee the use of the gift. For its first 20 years, the board of the foundation was chaired by Charles Robertson.

Despite its name, the Robertson Foundation is not what we normally mean when we use the term "foundation." Instead it is what the tax code recognizes as a Type I "supporting organization." This means it exists solely to support a particular charitable entity, in this case Princeton.

Thousands of such organizations currently exist, and in each case the majority of the board must be designated by the supported organization -- not the donor. While Princeton appoints a majority of the seven-member Robertson Foundation board, Robertson family members fill three of the seats. For 45 years, Princeton has used the money provided by the foundation solely to support and advance the foundation's mission; the uses of the money have been regularly disclosed to and reviewed by Robertson family representatives.

Four years ago, William and several other family members filed a lawsuit against Princeton University seeking to seize control of the money their parents elected to donate to Princeton; seeking to overturn the governance mechanism their parents agreed to create which gives majority control to Princeton; and seeking to reverse a number of decisions that the board made over their objections, including one that has dramatically increased the value of the foundation's assets (now more than $750 million).

Family members have financed the lawsuit with earnings and assets from a private family foundation; William has declared that he will not work with Princeton University in the future.

In his column, Mr. Robertson referred to a recent Princeton donor, Peter B. Lewis, who he said gave $21 million to Princeton. In fact, Mr. Lewis' gifts to Princeton exceed $220 million and he has expressed great admiration for Princeton's excellent management and its stellar record as steward of the gifts it receives. Universities do have ethical responsibilities to their donors and Princeton has always taken these responsibilities very seriously.

In the specific case of the Robertson Foundation, Princeton takes great pride not only in the exceptional growth of its endowment but in the quality of the graduate program the foundation supports in the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs; the many students from the school who go into government and other forms of public service; the school's growing impact on government service, public policy and international affairs; and the significant improvements that have been made in the governance procedures of the foundation.

Despite Mr. Robertson's assertions to the contrary, this lawsuit comes at a time when the leadership of the Woodrow Wilson School and Princeton's commitment to the mission of the foundation never have been stronger.

Robert K. Durkee is vice president and secretary of Princeton University.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me