Helmsley Trust Episode Causes Reflection Over a Donor’s Intentions

To the Editor:

Vince Stehle makes a strong argument that Leona Helmsley’s money should have gone to the dogs (“Should Leona Helmsley’s Wish Come True?,” Opinion, June 18).

Although the first $136-million worth of grants from her bequest went to what he describes as “an impeccably vetted group of worthy charities,” her clearly stated wish that her foundation’s central mission should be to support the care of dogs was ignored, with only $1-million going to charities working in this area.

The fact that her wishes were so easily dismissed “might have a chilling effect on donors who are contemplating the creation of a foundation in perpetuity,” says Mr. Stehle. Honoring the donor’s wishes is central to the idea of philanthropy: that this is a voluntary donation of private funds for public benefit to a cause of the donor’s own choosing.

If the right of donors to choose is to be considered sacred, doesn’t this also have implications for another recent, and ongoing, controversy affecting American philanthropy: President Obama’s proposal to cap at 28 percent the charitable deduction that can be claimed for families earning over $250,000 or individuals earning over $200,000 in order to help pay for his plan to extend health care to all American citizens?

This proposal caused a concerted outcry from the philanthropy lobby in the United States. Yet surely money earmarked for health care for the hitherto marginalized must come higher up the list of public priorities than care for dogs, however inadequate this may be. If private philanthropy is one contributor to the public good, surely in some circumstances it should be acceptable that public money that might have gone to the charitable deduction should go to something like universal health care that must be an undisputed priority for all.

Caroline Hartnell
Editor
Alliance magazine
London

To the Editor:

Kudos to Vince Stehle for so deftly exposing the dangerous implications of the Helmsley Trust’s disregard of its donor’s wishes.

For those of us who head up or serve on boards of community foundations, especially “affinity” community foundations like mine, our only hope is that our legacy donors don’t connect the dots on this one.

When donors leave all or part of their estates to a foundation in the hopes that their money will be there in the future to help a particular type of cause, we need to be able to offer them more assurance that this will occur, not less.

Shame on the Helmsley Trust trustees and shame on the New York Surrogate’s Court for allowing the disregard of Ms. Helmsley’s guidance. I hope that boards of trustees everywhere will view the Helmsley case not as a green light to do as they please, but as a wake-up call to adhere more steadfastly than ever to donor wishes.

Suzanne D. Stofflet
President
Samara Foundation of Vermont
Burlington