The NonProfit Times - October 1, 2008 - (Page 9)

DONOR INTENT Continued from page 7 the university is putting too much emphasis on an academic approach that only produces scholars.The family said that the university placed only 85 out of 886 graduates in first jobs in the federal government or international relations. “Are they oriented toward scholars, or a practical application?,” Robertson asked rhethorically. Robertson, who graduated from Princeton in 1972, has worked to maintain a high level of visibility for the case, writing often about it. His most recent article, distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services this past July, accuses Princeton of using delaying tactics and links the case to other donor intent disputes and an aura of mistrust regarding charitable giving. “What is really going on is an attempt by the plaintiffs to regain control of the funds that Marie Robertson gave to Princeton more than 40 years ago and to try to overturn a decision she made,” said Robert Durkee, vice president and secretary of Princeton University. “One of the great ironies is that they go forward under a ban- use of PRINCO. The university maintains that it gained major victories with Shuster’s rulings because the judge rejected the family’s request for a jury trial and ruled that the foundation’s certificate of incorporation allows the university to spend the foundation’s realized capital gains.The university also said that the judge ruled against the university on its legal motions but not on final verdicts. In other words, Princeton officials contend, just because the issues will be heard does not mean they will be resolved in the Robertsons’ favor. In addition to what the final decision could mean about the disposition of the money, there are implications for the nonprofit sector, especially involving control of donated funds. The Robertsons maintain that they should have complete control of the money in the foundation because it is a family foundation. They want to remove all of it from Princeton. “The challenge is, this is what the IRS refers to as a Type 1 supporting organization, and we believe there are about 40,000 of those around the country,” Durkee said.“And one of the key elements of a supporting organization is that it has to be controlled by the beneficiary, certainly not controlled by the donor or donor’s family,” he said. “What they are trying to do is turn that upside down, saying that it should not be allowed for the supported organization to control the money. Well, that’s a direct challenge to the tax code and it could have implications for other organizations. We don’t think the court is going to agree with them,” he said. Durkee said he has given panels or workshops explaining the case from a nonprofit viewpoint. He added that very often attendees will come forward saying Donor Intent, page 10 There are implications for the nonprofit sector ner of donor intent and they are trying to overturn the donor intent and the university is trying to adhere to donor intent.” The Robertson family maintains a Web site about the dispute, www.robertsonvprinceton.org. The university’s Web site contains a separate section about the case, www.princeton.edu/robertson/about The Center for Excellence in Higher Education (CEHE) also features the Robertson case among several other donor intent disputes involving colleges on its Web site, www.cehe.org Just as the two sides disagree completely about the true adherence to donor intent, so do they diverge on their assessments of rulings on each side’s legal motions issued by New Jersey Superior Court Judge Neil Shuster in October 2007, rulings that were issued after a year’s deliberation by the judge. Shuster is scheduled to hear the case in January 2009. The Robertsons claim victory on three main items: Shuster ruled against Princeton’s request for a summary judgment on an “offset” defense regarding offsetting payments; he ruled against Princeton’s request that a claim by the Robertsons for $70 million in overcharges be thrown out; and, he ruled against Princeton’s request to dismiss the family’s claim against the TM OCTOBER 1, 2008 THE NONPROFIT TIMES www.nptimes.com 9 http://www.robertsonvprinceton.org http://www.robertsonvprinceton.org http://www.princeton.edu/robertson/about http://www.cehe.org http://www.streamlinksoftware.com http://www.nptimes.com

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of The NonProfit Times - October 1, 2008

The NonProfit Times - October 1, 2008 Near Miss & Direct Hit Donor Intent The Focus Of Suit North Dakota AG Investigating The Grant Institute Contents Who...When...Where...How...What? Calendar Kumbaya Tying The Knot Filing Changes Philanthropy Caucus Big Bucks For Capital Campaigns 5 Things NOT To Do In A Capital Campaign Acquisition: Staying The Course ServiceNation Summit Fundraising Guide NPT Jobs Resource Directory

The NonProfit Times - October 1, 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.