Robertsons say University deliberately conceals information

The University's recent $800,000 reimbursement to the Robertson Foundation prompted a spate of media coverage in papers statewide, with news releases from both sides. The reimbursement was for money the foundation paid for the Graduate Funding Agreement.

The University says the incident was an anomaly and was not worth generalizing into a pattern. But the Robertson family attorneys paint the exact opposite picture, that of a University for whom tight lips are the modus operandi.

"The only thing that's isolated about it is that it's one of the rare incidences where we can hold up a document [indicating intentional lack of disclosure]. It's just got more fingerprints on it, that's all," Robertson family attorney Frank Cialone said.

The reimbursement is neither the first of its kind nor the largest. The University gave the foundation $900,000 in addition to the money for the Graduate Funding Agreement (GFA) during the last fiscal year alone. These reimbursements were for reasons ranging from rent to faculty salaries and research.

It is not even the first time the University has paid the foundation back after examining claims specifically brought up by the plaintiffs during the lawsuit. But this is the first time, as far as anyone can remember, that the University has acknowledged any "improper disclosure" on its part.

In this specific case, the lack of disclosure goes back to an email sent in 2002 by then-University Vice President Tom Wright '62 to President Tilghman and other high-ranking administration officials. In it, Wright worries that news of the GFA would "upset" the family. The GFA was a short-lived program which provided funding to doctoral students in the economics, politics and sociology departments in return for their teaching in the Wilson School. Anne-Marie Slaughter '80 opted not to renew to program upon her 2002 appointment to serve as Wilson School dean.

"[Wright] made a decision that rather than have that discussion [over the purpose of Robertson Foundation], which was a discussion that was becoming the norm at these meetings, that this program ought to be folded into other funding and should be presented but not specified," University Vice President and Secretary Bob Durkee '69 said.

But Cialone said that more people were in on the decision, including Tilghman.

"[Wright] sent an email to Shirley Tilghman, and she made the decision. Tilghman said in deposition that she was ultimately responsible for this," he said.

Durkee said this was an unfair use of Tilghman's words.

"If you go back and look at that testimony, this is a fairly typical strategy on their part," he said.

"The question she's being asked is something like, 'But as president of the university ... aren't you ultimately responsible for what happens?' And her answer was, 'As president, I am ultimately responsible for what happens.' "

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

Tilghman also testified during her deposition that she didn't specifically recall receiving the email. Wright — now retired in Puerto Rico — said he doesn't remember sending it either.

"Whatever I wrote speaks for itself, but I don't have any separate recollection of it," he said.

The University has been embroiled in the high-profile dispute over the $800 million Robertson Foundation endowment since 2002. The Robertson family alleges mismanagement of the endowment, in addition to willful disregard for the intent of donor Charles Robertson '26, and it wants the University to return $207 million of the foundation's money that it has spent over the years. The University refutes any charges of mismanagement.

The Robertsons claims that it is the norm for the University to not be forthcoming about its use of the foundation's money. "We get a page when we ask how they spend $30 million dollars," Cialone said, referring to the approximate amount the foundation gives the Wilson School each year. As an example, Cialone pointed to the most recent foundation board meeting.

"We just asked them to tell us, 'Who are you supporting with foundation funds? What research institutions are you supporting with foundation money?' " Cialone said. "And they won't tell us, simply flat-out refused to tell us," he said.

"Plaintiffs came to the meeting with a series of litigation-driven resolutions, obviously for the purpose of 'creating' a record," University lead trial counsel Douglas Eakeley shot back in an email. "This [request] was one of them, and it was rejected as an inappropriate attempt to import litigation discovery tactics into the meeting."

Eakeley said the plaintiffs had not put forth more than two other instances of insufficient or improper disclosure; Cialone said he had a "very, very long" list of more instances.

> Related: The Daily Princetonian's coverage of the Robertson suit.