In 2023, following passage of the Donor Intent Protection Act in Kansas, Philanthropy
Roundtable launched a monthly series on donor intent developments and controversies
nationwide to better inform you about this important topic. The Donor Intent Protection
Act has now passed in Kentucky, Georgia and Montana, and efforts on behalf of this
legislation will continue in additional states in 2026.
We encourage donors to contact us with any questions about our featured items and
consult additional resources on donor intent at the Roundtable’s Donor Intent Hub.
We also welcome any news about donor intent we may have missed.
This month’s Donor Intent Watch focuses first on a donor intent dispute at the
Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation in Arkansas. The second piece discusses a lawsuit
filed by the Campbell Soup heirs regarding the dispersal of endowment funds from
a college which closed.
We continue to acknowledge the success of the Daniels Fund of Denver, Colorado,
which at the end of 2025 completed its 25th year of grantmaking to Colorado, New
Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. We applaud its ongoing commitment to the
philanthropic intent of its late donor, Bill Daniels, and encourage others to consider
its example by visiting https://danielsfund.org/about/about-bill-daniels/.
A Legal Battle for Control in Arkansas
The Chronicle of Philanthropy recently ran an article regarding a dispute among the
trustees of the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation in Little Rock, Arkansas. Founded
by Winthrop Rockefeller in 1956 as the Rockwin Fund, that fund’s assets along with
other grants from his trust formed the financial basis for the current foundation
following his death in 1973.
The Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation has never been a family foundation, though
in practice, a Rockefeller family has maintained a seat on the board throughout its
history. The board’s current family member is Lisenne Rockefeller, the founder’s
daughter-in-law. She is one of the four trustees who brought suit in Pulaski County
Circuit Court against six new board members and Sherece West-Scantlebury, the
foundation’s immediate past president.
The suit involves both an alleged conflict of interest and the claim that the newly
adopted practice of trust-based philanthropy violates donor intent. The fact that
the search committee which selected the new CEO included several leaders of
grantee organizations seems a legitimate cause for concern. Up to now, however,
The Chronicle of Philanthropy reported, “A request by those who brought the suit
to block the installation of the new board members and their pick for president,
Cory Anderson, has been denied twice, but the case has not been tried on its
merits.”
The protesting trustees are also critical of the adoption of trust-based philanthropy
as the foundation’s grantmaking practice. Its website explains the commitment to
“Change Who’s In the Conversation.” The first step is “Build community-driven
models that reflect the voices and perspectives of residents.” The second is “Expand
leadership and bring more diverse voices into public policy conversations and
decision-making.”
When I’ve written about trust-based philanthropy in the past, I’ve agreed
foundations should certainly develop respectful relationships with grantees and
should also “consult representatives of communities/populations you seek to
assist.” But I was also clear that “foundation boards have legal and fiduciary
responsibilities that cannot – and should not – be fully shared with others.”
Finally, the dissenters claim the new leadership is digressing from Winthrop
Rockefeller’s donor intent – “pursuing economic, educational, social, ethnic, and
racial equity for all Arkansans.” They are dismayed by the decision to pare down its
described focus to investing “in bold ideas and community leadership that expand
opportunity and build power for ALICE (asset-limited, income constrained, and
employed) families across Arkansas.”
We will be following this lawsuit as it progresses through the court system.
Campbell Soup Heirs Battle a Cy Pres Decision
When Philadelphia’s University of the Arts closed abruptly in June 2024,
administrators explained their decision by citing increased costs combined with
declining enrollment and declining operating revenue. Among the university’s
remaining assets was a $63 million endowment which included donor-restricted
funds, many of which were intended to provide student scholarships which could
no longer be awarded.
Over 700 University of the Arts students took advantage of “teach-out” agreements
that allowed them to enroll at other institutions. Nearly half enrolled at Temple
University, but the rest chose 11 other universities and colleges. The University of
the Arts then petitioned Philadelphia’s Orphans Court for a cy pres ruling to
disperse its endowment proportionately among these 12 universities “with the
stated restriction that such monies shall first be used to provide scholarships to any
University of the Arts students who are in attendance at the Teach-Out Partner and
thereafter to further the mission of human creativity and art education in the areas
of the visual and performing arts.”
The Orphans Court ruled favorably on the petition in September 2024, awarding
funds as the University of the Arts requested. The amounts ranged from 44.34% of
the endowment for Temple University to 1.10% for The New School. But neither the
story nor its legal repercussions ended there. As Elizabeth Rembert reported in the
Wealth Advisor on March 10, the family of the late Dorrance “Dodo” Hamilton has
filed a countersuit to have the $37 million she donated to the endowment be
returned to the Hamilton Family Charitable Trust.
Dodo Hamilton, Rembert notes, was the granddaughter of Campbell Soup’s
founder and a generous donor to many of Philadelphia’s cultural institutions. Her
family is arguing she preferred to give to private institutions and favored the
University of the Arts because of its narrow mission. To give her donations to state-funded colleges or to schools with much broader missions would “do violence to
and ignore Mrs. Hamilton’s charitable intention and her donative intent.”
In the wake of the countersuit, the University of the Arts has reconsidered its
original position and is now, according to Rembert, “suggesting that the court
individually review the more than 200 restricted funds within the endowment and
distribute the cash to the school that’s the best match.” And this suggestion is, in
turn, causing arguments regarding “worthiness” among the schools which accepted
UArts transfers.
We’ll be watching to see what the Orphans Court ultimately decides.
