http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/23/your-money/when-college-scholarship-programs-falter.html
I would like to read Alabama’s side of this.
To me, from the article, it sounds like the donor is trying to control how Alabama awards scholarships (to “First Scholars”) after the donor’s money to fund those scholarships has run out. What do the donation agreements (if any) say? That’s what I’d like to know.
I would like to read the original source material - the agreement(s) actually executed by the University of Alabama.
I agree. Doesn’t seem likely that any school would promise to fund something forever. I don’t see how that could even be enforceable. Forever? I doubt it. For the length the students in the originally funded program graduate? That seems more likely enforceable.
But, we probably won’t hear Bama’s side until this is either thrown out or goes to court.
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20160114/NEWS/160119840/1308/specialfeature31?p=2&tc=pg
Bama also didn’t provide data they were obligated to under the agreement
I can agree that Alabama should not be expected to fund the program on its own indefinitely, and that the school had a right to opt out. But if the school nevertheless agreed to continue the program past the expiration of the donor funds, that’s a different situation. Just a guess, but it sounds like the donor had an unrealistic expectations and that 'Bama was rather casual about its own commitment in the long term.
I have seen it happen myself where organizations take seed money from donors for a charitable or community-based project that is planned to become institutionalized. When the seed money runs out, the organization abruptly cancels the project.
Bama breached the agreement didn’t even supply the data it agreed to. If they were not committed to supporting First Gen students they should not have participated. Give back the money and move on. This looks bad for the school.
Really? No one will give it a second thought.
I don’t see any proof that either side did anything. Claims were made, but people can claim anything they want. We aren’t supposed to try people, or organizations, in the media. If a reporter definitively said Bama did anything, that was sloppy reporting. They allegedly ended a program prematurely and supposedly didn’t live up to the reporting called for by the contract, but unless the contract is released or a judge rules on the case, we have no way of knowing whether or not the allegations are true.
^^I agree, plus I used to do some work for a local non-profit. It is not difficult to encounter misunderstandings concerning donor intent and the scope of a particular project (not that our non-profit ever did, but we kept our eye on other non-profit happenings).
To me it’s unfair to infer anything UA did (or didn’t do) without their own admission or side of the story. It sounds like their initial pleadings focused on venue (read the story last night, but not looking at it right now). And that brings up another point - if you were going to give an entity a million+ dollars, why would there not be a venue clause in whatever your agreement was?
@SouthFloridaMom9 - as a lawyer, wouldn’t you agree that when a foundation funds a program at a university there would be stipulations?
I’m not licensed in Alabama or Texas. My only point is that I would want to see the agreement(s). My other point is that’s it not unheard of in the non-profit world for there to be discord between donors and beneficiaries of cash gifts.
I don’t think it’s fair to “try” UA in the press, in agreement with a post up-thread, especially when UA hasn’t really put out any substantive answer/response yet (at least none I’ve seen).
Actually there was a response from UA in the Times article:
I don’t think characterizing the articles as trying UA in the press just because they didn’t “put out any substantive answer/response yet”. That would make it easy for any organization/individual/government/whatever to avoid facing any kind of accusation–a simple “no comment.”
edited to add:
I hardly think that anyone with any criticism of UA whatsoever has “an agenda.”
I’m talking about the legal pleadings . . . as Bonnin seems to indicate, there is a discrepancy as to what was agreed. So it comes back to what was in the agreement(s) if any. People can misconstrue letters, e-mails, etc.
The fact that they are arguing over venue is interesting to me.
PS: I don’t really have a “dog” in the fight - I just know that these types of issues are not always clear cut.
I am wholly not surprised by Alabama’s motion regarding venue. If this goes to court (and I bet it doesn’t) they would far prefer to have it be in an Alabama courtroom. Wouldn’t you if you were their lawyer? After all, as the defendant you get to pick jury or bench trial. Unless you are worried about too many Auburn grads in the jury, I think being in Alabama would be a huge advantage to them. In from the other side, the plaintiff wants to stay out of an Alabama courtroom at all costs, I would think.
@fallenchemist - what do you feel will be the outcome of this case?
House guests arriving any moment . . . forgive typos. Can’t resist this thread LOL.
@fallenchemist - I mean that, if I gave someone over a million dollars and had specific conditions on the gift, I would have wanted the venue spelled out in advance in case there were any disputes down the road. Isn’t that contract drafting 101?
Just wondering what all is in the contract that gives rise to the breach of contract dispute.
I agree with that. Hard to say with such limited information, but it sounds like the quality of the contract agreements with all these schools left something to be desired. IMO, he would have been better off picking one school and creating a rock-solid understanding and contract, and perhaps it would have even been enough for endowed scholarships. Fewer kids would have benefited in the short run, but perhaps more would have over time.
I have no idea. I only meant I suspect they will come to a settlement. That happens far more often than actually going to court, and even more often than that before it goes to verdict.