University claims it underbilled Foundation

In the latest development in the back-and-forth legal battle between the University and the Robertson family, the University submitted two briefs to the New Jersey Superior Court yesterday, asserting that the Wilson School has effectively upheld the Robertson Foundation's mission and appropriately allocated its funds.

The University said that it has, in fact, "undercharged" the Foundation by $235 million since 1965, when the University decided to only charge the Foundation for expansion of the school's graduate program instead of the program's base cost. Princeton, however, is not seeking "restitution for these historic undercharges and over-credits," but only wants the judge to take them into account as part of the broader picture.

"What we're trying to do [with the brief] is to correct the record and put a number of the allegations of the Robertson family in context — to refute a number of them but at the same time talk about the number of ways the University has very effectively over the past years carried out the mission of the Foundation," Vice President and Secretary Bob Durkee '69 said.

"One of the things we've asked the court to look at is a number of decisions over the years that were advantageous [to the Foundation]," Durkee said. "If there were errors that were made [by the University], you need to weigh them against all these other decisions that were advantageous."

Bill Robertson '72, the lead family member in the suit and the son of original donors Charles '26 and Marie, criticized the claims in the briefs. "They seem to make outrageous statements and accusations to frankly confuse and complicate the situation in the eyes of the public and the alumni," Robertson said.

The University has been embroiled in the high-profile dispute with the Robertson family for over three and a half years. The suit has cost both sides in excess of $7 million and over 215,000 pages of documents have been filed by the University alone.

The Robertsons' heirs allege that the University has misused the Foundation's funds — which now total more than $650 million — by ignoring the donor's original intent, which they say was to support the Wilson School's graduate program and place its graduates in federal government jobs, especially those in foreign policy. The University denies any misuse and says it does a good job of placing graduates in the public sector.

The University's briefs aim to show that while University-designated trustees have striven to fulfill the Foundation's mission, the Robertson family trustees have been uncooperative, attempting to block multiple reform initiatives.

The brief specifically criticizes Bill Robertson for not cooperating with the University, and suggests that he should not serve on the Foundation's board. "By his actions and words, Mr. Robertson has demonstrated that he is no longer qualified to serve as a Trustee of the Robertson Foundation," it says.

The University's filing also claims that Robertson "at no point ... ever object[ed] to any of the financial statements or Dean's reports presented in the course of the Foundation's annual meetings" before 2002, the year the family filed suit.

Robertson, however, said that he had not been aware of the misallocation of funds until recent years. "I had been in the dark as to what we know now," he said. "Princeton has been keeping secrets from us. A main part of our allegation is that they've been covering up information for a long time."

The University's filing also praises the work of Wilson School Dean Anne-Marie Slaughter '80, who assumed her post in 2003, shortly after the suit was filed. Slaughter's "record of accomplishments has been nothing short of spectacular," the brief claims, adding that under her leadership, the Foundation's assets have grown and contributions to the Wilson School's graduate program have increased.

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

A statement from Slaughter is included in the brief, where she describes the school as an "energetic place, attracting superb students and recruiting top faculty members from all disciplines."

Durkee explained that the University and Robertson Foundation are currently in a period of time during which both sides have been submitting briefs.

In January, the University filed a motion asking for a summary judgment on three spending issues, which was soon followed by two motions submitted by the Robertson Foundation. Yesterday's brief was in response to the Foundation's previous motions. More motions from both sides are expected in the next two weeks, in anticipation of a March 27 deadline set by the court, Durkee said.

"The procedure is that both sides are submitting summary judgment motions to try to establish a stronger factual basis to the litigation, and then we each have to respond to the other," Robertson said. "It runs its course and at some point, the judge will decide on the respective motions to see which one has validity. We hope that that will happen in the spring or early summer."