Nov. 5, 2002 | U. files motion to dismiss lawsuit

In their first public response to the Robertson family, Princeton, President Tilghman and the three other University-appointed members of the Robertson Foundation’s board of trustees filed a motion yesterday to dismiss the complaint alleging that the University has misused Robertson Foundation funds.

A tentative hearing is scheduled for Dec. 6, but Douglas Eakeley, the lawyer representing the University, said he is negotiating with Robertson family lawyers about the timing of the next court date.

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’s graduate program. 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 are seeking to take control of the funds in the endowment and donate them to another institution to support public service.

The complaint was spurred on when two longstanding volunteer members of the foundation’s investment committee retired and suggested the committee look to an outside management company, specifically the Princeton University Investment Company (PRINCO). 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 in the public sector, particularly in international relations. The University defended its record of placing graduates in public service jobs, citing a success rate of between 37 percent and 55 percent.

In the motion filed yesterday, the defendants listed several grounds on which the Robertsons’ complaint should be dismissed.

First, they argue that the Robertsons’ complaint 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 questions are largely the same as issues raised in the plaintiffs’ complaint, 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’ motion 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, the 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 the construction of 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.”

“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 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.

Tilghman said it was “time to let the legal action run its course.”

— This article has been modified from the form in which it was originally published.