January 12, 2006 | Read Time: 2 minutes
Nearly 60 percent of Americans believe that a charity should return a donor’s money if the organization intentionally ignores what the donor wanted done with it.
Ninety-seven percent of Americans say that charities’ spending donations on unauthorized projects would be a “serious” matter, according to the survey, which was conducted by the Zogby International polling firm.
Nearly 80 percent said they would stop giving to a charity that accepts contributions for one purpose and uses the money for something else. And 72 percent said the managers of such an organization should be held legally or criminally liable.
Princeton Lawsuit
The poll was commissioned by donors who are themselves angry about a charity’s actions.
The family of the late Charles and Marie Robertson, who founded the Robertson Foundation in 1961 as a supporting organization for the benefit of Princeton University, sued the university three years ago, charging that the university is not spending money from the foundation — whose endowment has grown from the original donation of $35-million to more than $650-million — for the purpose the donors originally set out.
Whether Princeton, which appoints a majority of the Robertson Foundation’s trustees, has disregarded the Robertsons’ original intent in setting up the organization is the central dispute in the lawsuit.
The Robertson family says that Charles and Marie Robertson wanted their money to be used to prepare graduate students at the university’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs for government careers in diplomacy.
However, they say that very few of the school’s graduates have gone into government.
The family says that the Robertsons established the supporting organization, rather than giving the money directly to Princeton, because they were concerned that over time the donation might be used for unrelated purposes.
The lawsuit asks the court to remove the university from involvement in the operation of the foundation.
Princeton believes that the foundation’s charter puts “creating a graduate program where people may prepare for federal government careers at the forefront,” but it is not “exclusively” set up to achieve that goal, said Princeton’s lawyer in the case, Douglas S. Eakeley.
When the Robertsons established the foundation, the university argues, part of the reason that their donation was tax-deductible was that the gift would be under Princeton’s control, Mr. Eakeley added.
