Princeton files motion to dismiss Robertson suit

In their first public response to the Robertson family, Princeton, President Tilghman and the three other University-appointed members of the Robertson Foundation filed a motion yesterday to dismiss allegations of misusing Wilson School funds.

A tentative hearing is scheduled for Dec. 6, but Douglas Eakeley, the lawyer representing the defendants, said he was negotiating for more time because of the complexity of the case.

Robertson family members filed a complaint in July in New Jersey Superior Court, alleging that the University attempted to take control of the separate endowment, which was set up to support the Wilson School. The foundation was created in 1961 with a $35 million gift from Marie and Charles Robertson '26.

The endowment has grown to about $550 million and is directed by three family members and four University-appointed trustees. The family members want to reclaim their money and donate it to another public service school.

The complaint was spurred on when two longstanding volunteer members of the investment committee decided to retire and suggested the committee look to an outside management company, specifically Princeton Investment Company. Family members claimed that because PRINCO manages the University's $8 billion endowment, the two funds would be commingled.

Family members also alleged that the Wilson School had failed to place enough graduate students into the public sector, particularly in international relations. The University has stood by its record of placing between 37 percent and 55 percent in public service jobs.

In the response filed yesterday, the defendants listed several grounds on which the Robertson allegations should be dismissed.

First, they argue that the family members' claim was filed before they were able to answer a list of questions by William Robertson '72, the lead plaintiff, distributed at an April 16 board meeting, the first meeting at which Tilghman was present as president. The questions are largely the same issues raised by the plaintiffs petition, including specific practices of PRINCO money managers.

Robertson said during the meeting that "the genie is out of the bottle now, and after 41 years of sometimes difficult times in this relationship, my parents' intent has not been pursued adequately," according to the meeting minutes.

In an interview in September, Robertson said the University's actions were part of an attempt to "move the family foundation out of the door."

The defendants' response also levels a technical claim that not all of the plaintiffs should be able to sue in the name of the foundation. Only two of the five plaintiffs were members of the board when the complaint was filed.

Moreover, defendants maintain that even those two plaintiffs voted to support many of the projects that they claim are contrary to the mission of the foundation, such as Wallace Hall.

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

Neither side has made a formal attempt to mediate the dispute, which Eakeley called a "fundamental misunderstanding."

Tilghman and the University-appointed trustees of the foundation are individually named as defendants in the suit, and Eakeley said the University is largely a bystander.

"It would be nice to sit down and talk about it," he said. "There has been one board meeting since the complaint was filed and there was a consensus reached on a number of issues. That was progress."

Tilghman said it was "time to let the legal action run its course" and said she hopes that with a new Wilson School dean, there would be "an opportunity for an entirely new beginning to work with the Robertsons."