Advertisement

Advertisement

News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education

Giving Thought to Donor Intent

One by one Thursday morning, a panel of lawyers, philanthropy experts and angry college alumni (some wearing multiple hats) recounted details of myriad legal battles involving institutions – Princeton University, Tulane University, Randolph College – and the miffed donors whom they represent.

The speakers’ stories turned into messages of warning. In their estimation, it’s a tough time to be a donor. Too many colleges violate the trust of philanthropists by redirecting gifts intended for a specific purpose without giving adequate notice. And with colleges receiving $28 billion in charitable gifts in 2006, the stakes are higher than ever.

This commentary about the state of higher education philanthropy found a mostly sympathetic audience gathered for a conference sponsored by the Center for Excellence in Higher Education, a new nonprofit group that wants to represent the interest of donors ready to make major gifts.

But is the wary philanthropist a common character? Sure there are high-profile cases of donor-college relationships gone bad, but what about the rest of the landscape? Not surprisingly, there is disagreement.

“We’re hearing the exceptions to the rule today,” said Paulette Maehara, president and chief executive of the Association of Fundraising Professionals and a conference panelist.

“It’s a far more common problem than people think,” argued Lynne Munson, an adjunct research fellow at the Center for College Affordability and Productivity. “People are often unhappy with the use of their gift, but not all donors consider legal action.” (They might not have the means or the will to sue, she explained.)

To that end, several panelists urged donors to pay close attention to how their gifts are structured. Laws on donor rights are in flux, argued William Josephson, former assistant attorney general-in-charge of the New York State Law Department’s Charities Bureau, and those giving to colleges can’t always depend on state courts to sort things out.

Ron Malone, the lead plaintiff attorney in Robertson v. Princeton, a case involving Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, said it’s important for donors to consider whether they will have the legal standing to enforce how a gift is used, and whether the recipient college has mechanisms in place to report on how money is being spent.

More donors are demanding that kind of information and wanting to know what’s happening along the way with their gifts, said Anne Yastremski, an alumna of Randolph-Macon Woman’s College (now the coed Randolph College) and executive director of Preserve Educational Choice, the alumna/student/donor organization supporting litigation against the college over its decision to admit men and to sell off part of its art collection.

But Malone said donors who have specific ideas in mind for their gifts often fail to clearly articulate them when talks with colleges take place and papers are being signed.

“It’s during that period of euphoria over the gift-giving process when donors need protection,” Malone said. “Once that check clears, attitudes can change. [Those who handle the money at colleges] aren’t bad people; they are just asking the wrong questions,” he added. “They’re saying, ‘What’s the best way to spend the money,’ rather than, ‘What covenant do we have with our donors. What did we agree to do with their money?’”

Craig Lerner, a law professor at George Mason University, said donors shouldn’t be surprised years later if a gift made with only general terms isn’t supporting something they approve of down the line, particularly if they are giving to sources they don’t know well. Instead, he said philanthropists should consider finding someone or something they truly believe in, limit a gift to five or 10 years and have enough trust so that strings don’t need to be attached.

Added Ruff Fant, who identified himself as a donor to Vanderbilt University: “The tendency toward highly targeted gifts isn’t good for higher education.”

Frederic J. Fransen, executive director of the Center for Excellence, said the group has commonly heard from donors who have been troubled by circumstances surrounding their first donation and want help getting through the process the second time — often still wanting to give to the same institution.

“We’ve been accused of coming to existence to help donors put strings on gifts,” Fransen said. “Our longterm goal isn’t to get involved in transaction matters. It’s to get donors to be satisfied with gifts the first time around.”

For that to happen, it’s important for college officials to stay in constant communication with those giving to the institutions, said Maehara, president of the Association of Fundraising Professionals.

Her group has guidelines saying that colleges should ensure gifts are used as specified by donors, and institutions should get “explicit consent” from a donor — including a meeting — before altering conditions of a gift. In the event that there’s no mutually satisfactory way money can continue to be spent, the guideline says, the college should return the donation. (Maehara said she’s rarely seen that happen.)

“Most donors, when you ask them about changing conditions of a gift, they’re willing to talk,” said Maehara, who was formerly a fund raiser at the University of Hawaii. “I’ve never had a donor say no.”

Added Fant: “Lots of gifts are given with no problem. I donate, and I trust the people here. They know more about the university than I do, and I let the experts and people who make every-day decisions take care of it.”

John Lippincott, the president of the Council for Advancement and Support of Education, the association that represents fund raisers in academe, said in an interview earlier this fall that the majority of donors trust colleges.

“The fact that giving to American higher education has been doubling every decade is a sign of professional and solid relations between donors and universities,” he said. “There’s an enormous track record of success. Have there been a few high-profile instances of disputes? Yes. Are they in any way indicative of a widespread problem? I see absolutely no evidence of that.”

Elia Powers

Got something to say?


Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Advertisement

Comments

Nobody loves me!

Waah! I am rich and nobody is paying attention to me. Waah!

Working Poor, at 9:10 am EST on December 7, 2007

You are correct in observing that CEHE focused on the sensational rather than the typical — there is a niche market here and money to be made. If you factor in the increase in litigation generally, and the huge increase in both amount and number of donors giving to charities (not just universities), one would expect an increase in donor suits, especially when someone is there to encourage donors to sue. Little attention was devoted to mediation and informal resolution which Paulette Maehara pointed out is the most typical way in which changes regarding donations are handled.

The second panel was a much more thoughtful look at why people give and why they may be disappointed at some point after giving — and often without a good reason to sue anyone, but rather out of shame or anger at their own lack of clarity at the outset.

Of course, universities and colleges are comprised of people, and people in academe also can pursue narrow, petty, selfish ends that may distort and violate donor intent, but the record would suggest these instances are not very prevalent. Rather than anecdote, evidence and context would be useful; understanding of the relevant laws would be helpful, and understanding of the Gift Relationship would be helpful.

TR, at 10:55 am EST on December 7, 2007

Randolph College

I do not believe that the self appointed alumae unhappy that Randolph College is admitting men should have been represented on the panel about donor intent. There is no evidence whatsover of any gifts made to Randolph Macon that were restricted to single sex education. Ms Yastremski did not even make that argument. Nor were the four paintings to be sold restricted by the Louise Jordan Trust as Ms. Yastremski tried to imply. The four paintings were purchased by the college with its general funds and became assets of the college to be disposed of the the Trustee’s discretion. The Randolph College dispute is not about donor intent. It is about living in an overly litigious society in which anyone disappointed about anything feels they should go to court. Let the Trustees and the administration of Randolph College manage the school with its new and highly successful admissions policy and deal with Randolph College’s assets in the manner they think best consistent with their ficudiary duties as Trustees. Colleges should be managed by Trustees, not by judges, and least of all by alumae.

Ruff Fant, at 12:45 pm EST on December 7, 2007

Do some reading...

It is a pity that Mr. Fant continues to fail to identify himself as the husband of a Randolph College trustee and that he (and another Randolph trustee present for the first session) did not stay to hear the second panel. I suspect they could have learned quite a bit — like when one of the legal panelists opined that the R-MWC trustees had a fiduciary duty to seek a cy pres decision from the Court before using the hundreds of millions of dollars in charitable assets of the woman’s college for a coed college (which is exactly what the charitable trust lawsuit in appeal before the Supreme Court of Virginia calls for).

Mr. Fant is entirely incorrect about the four paintings (two were outright donations to R-MWC, one was purchased with student fees levied with the purpose of buying art, and the most valuable, the Bellows, was purchased by a community association and donated to R-MWC). Perhaps Mr. Fant should take the time to read the pleadings in the lawsuit in question — or simply go to the Maier Museum website and look at the “donated by” line for each painting. While it may be tempting to rewrite history to sell $40+ million in art, it clearly was not the intent of the donors that their art donations would be sold to “decrease endowment spending from the $153 million endowment from 9% to 7%” after R-MWC was no more.

As always, PEC would be delighted to speak directly with the Fants or any other trustee about these issues.

Anne Yastremski, Executive Director at PEC, at 7:15 am EST on December 8, 2007

Woman’s College Donations

Wouldn’t all donations to a single-sex college come with the intent that they be used for single-sex education by the very nature of the institution and its mission at the time of the donation? R-MWC completed a $104 million capital campaign two months before the coed vote. The campaign theme was “securing women’s education for the 21st Century” — the intent certainly seemed pretty clear to all of us that donated to it.

R-MWC Alumna, at 7:20 am EST on December 8, 2007

Mutual Respect

The trauma of the narrow Randolph dispute aside, in my decades of raising donations for private and public colleges and universities, I have found that most donor unhappiness has stemmed from a lack of clarity and understanding at the outset. Too often in the eagerness to close a major gift, the institution’s representatives leave some important issues unresolved, or either side of the transaction fails to put in writing key expectations. As in so many other relationships in life, it can turn out that there are unstated assumptions on each side; donors who expect to be able to pick a scholarship recipient, deans who think they donor won’t mind if the chair is left vacant for a year to help cover a salary shortfall elsewhere.

All the gritty details need to be explicitly agreed upon in writing — use of the gift, who manages the funds, donor recognition, payment schedules, etc. Picture the institution fifty years from now: how will people then know how to handle this fund and does the agreement have sufficient flexibility to make it useful in that unknowable future?

The donors and the institution are not adversaries (at least not at the time of the gift). Rather, they are partners in trying to accomplish something greater than either could accomplish alone. A successful partnership is always grounded upon mutual respect. Maintain that, be very clear, get it in writing, and stick to the agreement. If circumstances change in the institution, talk with your partner.

R Ashton, at 9:30 am EST on January 17, 2008

Advertisement

 Jobs Related to Giving Thought to Donor Intent

or search for jobs directly.

Executive Director, Foundation
Lone Star College System

Located just north of Houston, Texas, our five campuses serve 1,400 square miles. Our student enrollment is nearly 50,000 in ... see job

Director of Development — College of Arts and Science
Loyola College in Maryland

Director of Development — College of Arts and Sciences and School of Education Position Summary: The Director of Development ... see job

Administrative Officer (112101)
Northeastern University

Northeastern University, founded in 1898 and located in Boston, is a private research university that is a leader in ... see job

Director of Diversity in Annual Giving
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

The Director of Diversity in Annual Giving will report to the Director of Annual Giving. This reporting relationship will be ... see job

Director of Annual Giving, University Relations
University of La Verne

Position # 2804 – Director of Annual Giving, University Relations The University of La Verne has an opening for a Director ... see job

Contract & Grants Analyst
University of California, Riverside

The University of California Riverside invests in your future through employee training and career development, access to ... see job

Assistant Vice President for Institutional Advancement
Gustavus Adolphus College

Gustavus Adolphus College seeks an Assistant Vice President for Institutional Advancement and Director of Development to ... see job

GRANTS MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATOR — John Hancock Center for Physical Activity and Nutrition (31214)
Tufts University

The goal of the John Hancock Center for Physical Activity and Nutrition is to develop sound exercise and nutrition programs, ... see job

Development Officer (112092)
Northeastern University

Northeastern University, founded in 1898 and located in Boston, is a private research university that is a leader in ... see job

Student Accounts Representative
Corinthian Colleges

Everest Institute, a respected member of the Corinthian Colleges’ network of schools, is dedicated to helping students ... see job