Charities Must Meet Donors’ Terms

To the Editor:

I at first read with interest — and eventually with concern — Stephen Greene’s article “Federal Judge Orders Brooklyn Private School to Return $3-Million Gift” (April 9).

As assistant director of a small New England museum, with responsibility for institutional development, I am sensitive to the needs of non-profit institutions which rely on the generosity and good will of ordinary people. I am also the daughter-in-law of the late Lewis Kates, the attorney whose gift was ordered returned in the case described in Mr. Greene’s article.

I anticipated that the facts of the case would be fairly reported and that the impact of the judge’s decision would be examined. The simple facts are that the school in Brooklyn to which Mr. Kates made a substantial gift was not built in the time frame specified by the gift. When pressed, school officials maintained that several floors of a wing of the building constituted the school, and this portion alone was named in accordance with the gift.

Mr. Greene’s review of the facts reveals an evident sympathy for the school, and I agree that it is easy to feel badly for the students who await their building. I believe, however, that this reporter missed a valuable opportunity to bring home an important point to his readership: Non-profit organizations rely on the good will of donors who make gifts that may sometimes have limits attached to them, and the public interest is not well served when the terms of the charitable gift are not met.

If a donor makes a gift to my museum that is earmarked for a particular project, we have a responsibility to make certain that those conditions are met. If we do not, we violate a trust that harms our most valuable asset — our reputation within our community.

In his opinion, Judge Clarence C. Newcomer stated that Mr. Kates was denied the opportunity of seeing the intended result of his gift come to fruition in his lifetime. Mr. Kates made a large financial gift with the intent that a school be built that bore the names of his parents and father-in-law. Not only did officials of the school hide the truth about the unfinished state of the building, they were also prepared to claim that a plaque naming a small portion of the building met the terms of the gift. This violated the specific intent and spirit of the donation.

A decision in Chicago recently upheld the rights of the Museum of Contemporary Art to enforce payment of a sizable pledged gift. The case of Lewis Kates insures similar rights for donors: that is, that both individual donors and institutions assume legally enforceable obligations when they promise or accept a gift. I am convinced that the court did the right thing in this case and that non-profit institutions and the public have more to gain by seeing that gifts are used as directed.

Mary Jane Rein
Assistant Director
Worcester Historical Museum
Worcester, Mass.