Douglass grads protest Rutgers plan to overhaul alumnae group

[Tango Two]

The alumnae of Rutgers University's women's college are fighting a university plan to strip their organization of its ability to raise money for Douglass Residential College.
In a letter to members, the leaders of the Associate Alumnae of Douglass College said they were informed by Rutgers officials that they have 30 days to agree to a series of changes to their organization.


Link--->http://www.nj.com/education/2015/04/douglass_college_alums_call_rutgers_plan_to_revamp.html

 

[Scarlet Pride]

You can't have dueling fundraísing operations at a university. The fact that it has gone on this long just shows no one had the stomache to do it. I suspect Barchi and the new foundation prez agree it's time to end this.

 

[Sir ScarletKnight]

You can't have dueling fundraísing operations at a university. The fact that it has gone on this long just shows no one had the stomache to do it. I suspect Barchi and the new foundation prez agree it's time to end this.

They raised 42 million...so take 42 million of the general fund that would go to Douglass and put it elsewhere. No reason to disrupt a successful organization, especially in a way that could anger donors. At least, from what I can tell.

 

[Scarlet Pride]

That isn't so simple. Douglass is part of Rutgers. It's not like they are a separate entity. You can't just take 42 million dollars away because you're just taking it away from your own institution. You're playing shell games just to appease an organization that clearly wants to act like Douglass is not Rutgers.

And 42 million sounds great but without knowing the facts the 42 could actually be less than what they could be raising from those same alumni. Perhaps Rutgers Foundation could have raised 65 million if they didn't have to dance around the AADC's operations.

It's crazy to think that we should be maintaining the a separate organization for this. What if RBS or Engineering decided they were going to create their own fundraising organization? Should Rutgers let every entity within Rutgers just do their own thing?

 

[retired711]

That isn't so simple. Douglass is part of Rutgers. It's not like they are a separate entity. You can't just take 42 million dollars away because you're just taking it away from your own institution. You're playing shell games just to appease an organization that clearly wants to act like Douglass is not Rutgers.

And 42 million sounds great but without knowing the facts the 42 could actually be less than what they could be raising from those same alumni. Perhaps Rutgers Foundation could have raised 65 million if they didn't have to dance around the AADC's operations.

It's crazy to think that we should be maintaining the a separate organization for this. What if RBS or Engineering decided they were going to create their own fundraising organization? Should Rutgers let every entity within Rutgers just do their own thing?

I think it's a little more complicated than that. The Douglass group seems to have been effective for a long time. I'd hesitate a little before declaring them personna non grata. But this is in part because I think Rutgers Foundation is not particularly wonderful.

 

[Scarlet Pride]

I'm not saying they haven't been effective but their effectiveness needs to be considered in the context of the entire university not just Douglass. And I'm not saying they have been a bad entity. It is just not a sustainable set up nor is it healthy long term for Rutgers.

Let the lead fundraisers become a part of the Rutgers Foundation if they are willing and able. Incorporate all the good of the AADC and eliminate the duplication of effort and mixed fundraising messages. Time to move on. Donors are free to support the Douglass programs they are supporting now.

 

[SanFranRutgers]

Sorry, I posted this on the Football board (because a number of comments blame athletics fundraising for the move) before I thought to check the Rutgers Issues board to see if it had been posted here.

camdenlawprof makes a couple of good points, but ones that I think can be successfully rebutted. Douglass alumnae have been successful in fundraising for themselves, but that speaks to a long-standing problem at Rutgers, and that is the affinity-based compartmentalization of Rutgers alumni. Crew. Swimming. Targum. Greek. Gay, Lesbian & Transgender. Intramurals. Whatever. It's a "secessionist" attitude that has dominated Rutgers since at least the mid-seventies, and its pervasiveness is one of the most significant symptoms of what's holding back Rutgers from achieving its broader goals in intercollegiate athletics and capital fundraising.

Donors would still be free to direct their gifts to Douglass College, but they might not be solicited as aggressively (and exclusively) on Douglass's behalf. I think it's a question of who gets "first bite of the apple," and the AADC wants to ensure that they get theirs before the University does, allowing their alumni to reply, "but I already gave to Douglass College."

CLP is also correct in stating that the Foundation hasn't exactly been Goldman Sachs when it comes to attracting capital, but I think we have to look at everything we're trying to do through the windshield rather than the rear view mirror.

 

[mal359]

The main issue is that the AADC donations fund a good majority of Douglass programs and scholarships.

 

[derleider]

Sorry, I posted this on the Football board (because a number of comments blame athletics fundraising for the move) before I thought to check the Rutgers Issues board to see if it had been posted here.

camdenlawprof makes a couple of good points, but ones that I think can be successfully rebutted. Douglass alumnae have been successful in fundraising for themselves, but that speaks to a long-standing problem at Rutgers, and that is the affinity-based compartmentalization of Rutgers alumni. Crew. Swimming. Targum. Greek. Gay, Lesbian & Transgender. Intramurals. Whatever. It's a "secessionist" attitude that has dominated Rutgers since at least the mid-seventies, and its pervasiveness is one of the most significant symptoms of what's holding back Rutgers from achieving its broader goals in intercollegiate athletics and capital fundraising.

Donors would still be free to direct their gifts to Douglass College, but they might not be solicited as aggressively (and exclusively) on Douglass's behalf. I think it's a question of who gets "first bite of the apple," and the AADC wants to ensure that they get theirs before the University does, allowing their alumni to reply, "but I already gave to Douglass College."

CLP is also correct in stating that the Foundation hasn't exactly been Goldman Sachs when it comes to attracting capital, but I think we have to look at everything we're trying to do through the windshield rather than the rear view mirror.

Is it really? Because in my opinion most people give to pet causes, not to big broad efforts. My wife would almost surely never just give to a generic Rutgers scholarship fund, but she does give to equine programs. But she only does that because she gets specific appeals from the equine center. I doubt equine science is a big priority for Rutgers, so by moving away from affinity based outreach, Rutgers would be losing money, not gaining it.

And in fact they know this. Which is why athletics fundraising is treated in many ways as completely distinct from academic fundraising.

 

[Scarlet Pride]

Targeted and affinity fundraising happen all the time at Rutgers and that wouldn't change with the elimination of the AADC. People that have been giving to Douglass programs are still going to be asked and targeted for Douglass programs.

But what has changed over the past 10+ years is a more orderly approach to this fundraising. This is what I think SanFran is alluding to. You used to have many unconnected organizations and units at Rutgers doing whatever they want. Those charged with direct fundraising (private giving - not govt grants) at Rutgers exist within and report up via the Foundation structure. That's true of athletics too. They are different but they are not completely distinct. They report to the Foundation and most are direct employees of the foundation.

Now everything exists within the Rutgers Foundation structure - except for the AADC. The AADC existence is a duplication of efforts and at odds with the standard fundraising structure in higher education.

 

[Upstream]

Der -- Certainly people give to pet projects. But that doesn't mean that every pet project needs to have an independent, isolated, fundraising unit. When I make donations to Rutgers Basketball, the check is made out to the Rutgers University Foundation. The structure that the AADC wants would be analogous to making the Court Club the fundraising organization for Rutgers Basketball. And while that might be fine, donating to just the Court Club limits the ability of the University to expand my donations. Having the Foundation as the central fundraising organization allows me to easily donate to Rutgers Basketball, plus football, plus the pep band, plus music programs at Mason Gross, and to consolidate the donations for recognition and perks.

 

[e5fdny]

1 point each to Scarlet Pride, SanFranRutgers and Upstream.

 

[retired711]

I really don't have a dog in this fight. But I don't think the Foundation does that good a job. Why give it a monopoly over fund-raising when it's not that great? I'll bet the Douglass association knows a lot more about communicating with Douglass grads than the bureaucrats at the Foundation. I have to tell you that Rutgers Law did a better job before the Foundation decreed that we could not use volunteer law school students and faculty to solicit from law school alumni, but instead had to use paid undergraduates who didn't know anything about legal education. I was recently called by a Berkeley law student, and was so impressed by her articulateness and poise that I contributed more than I otherwise would have.

Well, maybe I guess I *do* have a dog in this fight, although my understanding is that Douglass alumnae are often not easy to work with; they still resent the loss of Douglass College, although the College was pretty fictious by the end.

 

[Scarlet Pride]

Camden this isn't about student callers this is about frontline major gift fundraisers. This is about major giving. 20 years ago I would agree the foundation wasn't doing a great job (maybe even closer to 10) but today the foundation is a professional shop vastly improved and continuing to improve. They still have work to do but they are doing well. It is of course still part of a major state university so there is bureaucracy and politics but the foundation is filled with plenty of pros.

And the point is that the AADC focus is narrowed in on Douglass whereas the foundation looks to match the donor with the program/interest that is going to maximize their giving and university priorities. The AADC is inherently biased to steering donors to Douglass specific causes. Because they are not working on behalf of the entire university they would rather a donor give $5000 to AADC than $25,000 if it went elsewhere at the university. That is not good for the university .

 

[retired711]

My remark about the student callers was meant as just one aspect of the rigidity of the Foundation and its inability to appreciate the differing needs of different parts of the institution. One size does not fit all.

 

[Upstream]

My remark about the student callers was meant as just one aspect of the rigidity of the Foundation and its inability to appreciate the differing needs of different parts of the institution. One size does not fit all.

But the solution to that problem isn't to create multiple, competing fundraising organizations. The solution is to fix the Foundation so it isn't rigid and tries a one-size-fits-all approach. There is nothing inherent in the Foundation that prevents them from using law students to solicit law alumni.

 

[RUDouglass]

I think what a lot of people need to understand is that the money being donated to AADC would not just move to the Rutgers Foundation if this change is made. Most of the donors donate specifically to Douglass because they want to support Douglass, as a women's residential college, and the programs they founded and support.

For those who mentioned Barnard, it has a separate endowment and separate fundraising from Columbia. It is legally and financially separated from Columbia. They enjoy a mutually beneficial relationship, but maintain separate identities. I have students who have attended Barnard and they do not refer to themselves as Columbia students/alum. As a alum they donate to Barnard and deal with the Barnard fundraising organization. They have no interaction with Columbia as a alum unless they reach out to the other side.

And the point is that the AADC focus is narrowed in on Douglass whereas the foundation looks to match the donor with the program/interest that is going to maximize their giving and university priorities. The AADC is inherently biased to steering donors to Douglass specific causes. Because they are not working on behalf of the entire university they would rather a donor give $5000 to AADC than $25,000 if it went elsewhere at the university. That is not good for the university .

The AADC is focused on very specific projects for Douglass that do not (and would not) exist outside of Douglass. That's why donors write checks to them. The AADC is not biased to steering donors to Douglass-specific causes but instead they are the home for donors who are ONLY interested in donating to Douglass-specific causes. Most of the donors are heavily involved in the programs they support- externships, scholarships, grants, and much more.

Most of those major donors have many issues with the way the merger was handled and the way Rutgers deals with Douglass. I can tell you for a fact that the donor giving $5000 to the STEM program at Douglass would not give $25000 to another organization at Rutgers. Many of the donors also donate to athletics and band and the university as a whole. But if the AADC merges with the Rutgers Fund those major donors do not trust Rutgers to handle them correctly. Why would they when Rutgers has done little to support Douglass and has even tried to eliminate it in the last decade?

 

[cyrock3]

But the solution to that problem isn't to create multiple, competing fundraising organizations. The solution is to fix the Foundation so it isn't rigid and tries a one-size-fits-all approach. There is nothing inherent in the Foundation that prevents them from using law students to solicit law alumni.

That's the glaringly obvious solution.

Therefore, Rutgers will continue to use undergrads.

 

[Scarlet16E]

I think what a lot of people need to understand is that the money being donated to AADC would not just move to the Rutgers Foundation if this change is made. Most of the donors donate specifically to Douglass because they want to support Douglass, as a women's residential college, and the programs they founded and support.

What you don't seem to understand is that, like it or not, Douglass is, was, and will continue to be a unit within Rutgers University. It's fundraising should be done through the Rutgers Foundation like all other units. If AADC has done such a great job through the years, then why is the endowment so small? (This goes for RU Law as well, Camden)

The Foundation will establish funds for Douglass programs, and the bitter people in your example can easily direct their donations to these funds. Once a donation is directed to a fund it is illegal for Rutgers to use it for anything else. Some of the same people that work for AADC can continue to work for the foundation, and can continue to solicit you and other Douglass-minded people to donate to these funds.

Really you are just complaining because someone is moving the cheese, so to speak.

 

[NotInRHouse]

What is stopping RU from having Douglass alumnae be contacted by students currently part of the Douglass experience? Isn't that what they call it now? Is this not done now?

FWIW- I graduated from Rutgers College and to my knowledge it's usually a SAS student contacting me. Usually I just cut off their schpeel and tell them I'll make a donation but when I haven't they usually are a liberal arts major of some kind like I was.

 

[Tango Two]

Rutgers University has accused the alumnae association of its historic women's college of misdirecting donations, hiding financial records and lying to potential donors, according to newly-filed legal papers.


Link---> lhttp://www.nj.com/education/2015/04/rutgers_accuses_douglass_alumnae_association_of_hi.html#incart_river_mobile

 

[Scarlet Pride]

I think what a lot of people need to understand is that the money being donated to AADC would not just move to the Rutgers Foundation if this change is made. Most of the donors donate specifically to Douglass because they want to support Douglass, as a women's residential college, and the programs they founded and support.

For those who mentioned Barnard, it has a separate endowment and separate fundraising from Columbia. It is legally and financially separated from Columbia. They enjoy a mutually beneficial relationship, but maintain separate identities. I have students who have attended Barnard and they do not refer to themselves as Columbia students/alum. As a alum they donate to Barnard and deal with the Barnard fundraising organization. They have no interaction with Columbia as a alum unless they reach out to the other side.




The AADC is focused on very specific projects for Douglass that do not (and would not) exist outside of Douglass. That's why donors write checks to them. The AADC is not biased to steering donors to Douglass-specific causes but instead they are the home for donors who are ONLY interested in donating to Douglass-specific causes. Most of the donors are heavily involved in the programs they support- externships, scholarships, grants, and much more.

Most of those major donors have many issues with the way the merger was handled and the way Rutgers deals with Douglass. I can tell you for a fact that the donor giving $5000 to the STEM program at Douglass would not give $25000 to another organization at Rutgers. Many of the donors also donate to athletics and band and the university as a whole. But if the AADC merges with the Rutgers Fund those major donors do not trust Rutgers to handle them correctly. Why would they when Rutgers has done little to support Douglass and has even tried to eliminate it in the last decade?

I don't understand you say that the AADC is for donors who only want to support Douglass but then say they support other things at RU. You also say they don't trust the foundation to handle their money but yet they donate to the foundation for non Douglass things. I don't understand the contradictions.

And your comments further my belief that the AADC is divisive and working against the greater good of the university by spreading and or reinforcing a message that Rutgers doesn't care about Douglass programs.

And if the dean of Douglass is criticizing the AADC then exactly who are they serving? The school or themselves?

 

[TonyLieske]

I don't understand you say that the AADC is for donors who only want to support Douglass but then say they support other things at RU. You also say they don't trust the foundation to handle their money but yet they donate to the foundation for non Douglass things. I don't understand the contradictions.

And your comments further my belief that the AADC is divisive and working against the greater good of the university by spreading and or reinforcing a message that Rutgers doesn't care about Douglass programs.

And if the dean of Douglass is criticizing the AADC then exactly who are they serving? The school or themselves?

The comment from the Dean of Douglass College is pretty damning in itself, but the info from that article is extraordinary IMHO. After looking at the data, I cannot understand why any Douglass alum would want to donate to the AADC. One of the commenters in the article posted the AADC's Form 990 (to the IRS):

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2014/221/607/2014-221607270-0af619b1-9.pdf

In summary: Total new contributions in 2014: $1.676 million. Total Expenses (mostly salaries and benefits) in 2014: $1.557 million

The only real "gains" they had was the endowment income. And you don't need a whole separate organization to manage an endowment. Its insane.

The other crazy thing is, if you keep reading the comments, people are blaming Rutgers for how bad this situation is! IMHO, that, again, makes it even more important that Rutgers eliminate the AADC, because even apart from wasting donation money, their bad actions are causing public harm to the overall University.

 

[TonyLieske]

BTW, would love to hear RUDouglass' thoughts on this new information.

 

[motorb54]

How many employees?
Spending over 1.2 to raise less than 2.0 is ridiculous!

 

[RuRoman]

AADC has to go....the reason for its existence is mostly centered around perpetuating and underwriting the salaries of four or five individuals who are looking out for their benefit rather than RU and Douglass College. The expense/administrative cost to true donation ratio is overwhelming high, and this alone is reason enough to fold them. But the true reason as San Fran Upstream and others allude to is that this arrangement of having an independent group is actually inefficient and it is causing setbacks with both big and mid size donors. Donors are receiving pitches from two different groups which is causing confusion, and delays, and even in several case rejections. Because of this separation, synergies, tools and information are either wasted or poorly implemented. I heard estimates that we are losing millions in endowment in account of this split. The AADC served a purpose, and for the longest time was less of a mess that RU foundation-but now that RU has finally straightened and improve (and continue to do) its fund raising umbrella, it is time for consolidation.

As posted above, RU plans to basically integrate the current AADC into its current organization, but the modus operandi, to a large extent, of targeting Douglas Alumnae for the sake of Douglass Residential facilities will remain intact, but this time around under a more efficient and cost effective scheme.

Incidentally, as to the Barnard Columbia analogy, I think that Barnard is not the best analogy for as mentioned above technically speaking it is a separate institution. However, Barnard itself could be an example of the pitfalls of having separate fundraising efforts, its endowment has suffered in recent years, and some blame it on the fact that it is not coupled to Columbia's. So if anything this analogy give fodder to the notion of integration.

 

[derleider]

I really don't have a dog in this fight. But I don't think the Foundation does that good a job. Why give it a monopoly over fund-raising when it's not that great? I'll bet the Douglass association knows a lot more about communicating with Douglass grads than the bureaucrats at the Foundation. I have to tell you that Rutgers Law did a better job before the Foundation decreed that we could not use volunteer law school students and faculty to solicit from law school alumni, but instead had to use paid undergraduates who didn't know anything about legal education. I was recently called by a Berkeley law student, and was so impressed by her articulateness and poise that I contributed more than I otherwise would have.

Well, maybe I guess I *do* have a dog in this fight, although my understanding is that Douglass alumnae are often not easy to work with; they still resent the loss of Douglass College, although the College was pretty fictious by the end.

It was certainly not fictitious, any more than Cook or Livingston were. The issue in fact is that they were NOT fictitious. They had lower standards and graduation requirements (for DC and LC, I think Cook had harder graduation reqs), while taking SOME of the same classes with the same professors.

 

[e5fdny]

It was certainly not fictitious, any more than Cook or Livingston were. The issue in fact is that they were NOT fictitious. They had lower standards and graduation requirements (for DC and LC, I think Cook had harder graduation reqs), while taking SOME of the same classes with the same professors.

For some majors that was true.

 

[RuRoman]

For some majors that was true.

Der, a couple of corrections:
Graduation requirements are not set by the school (even back then), it was and still is set by the faculty alone. RU has to approve them but it remains faculty based (and subject of course to national standards and requirements).

Admissions was a bit trickier but you are right. Livingston, as a school, had lower admissions standards ( for a while), and it was perceived as its mission to accept students that otherwise would not be accepted at RC. However, this endeavor backfired. Now there is only one single standard with the exception of Univ College (if it even exists) and grad programs which set their own admission criteria (by faculty).

Incidentally, I think it would be a good theme and thread to discuss whether the admission of otherwise non-qualifiers (without consideration for gender or ethnicity) should remain a criteria and a factor for admission. I am referring to kids coming from poor HS, former veterans, and other unique cases. I really do not care about how hard is to graduate from RU- I care more about what sort of graduates we are making.

 

[RuRoman]

Incidentally, a judge denied a motion for a preliminary injunction against RU....RU is moving to take over the fund.

 

[RUJohnny99]

I had sympathy for the AADC until I read that Form 990. The Foundation should send an email to every donor to them, attach the 990, apologize for the the AADC's high expense ratio & their false assumptions that there is $42 mm available, and explain why central organization leads to more money for Douglass programs. This could be a huge opportunity for the Foundation to reach out to these donors who have been misled by thinking their money was going to something besides lining the pockets of the AADC leaders.

 

[retired711]

My understanding is that the Douglass group has won this battle. The foundation will provide "support."

 

[Scarlet Pride]

My understanding is that the Douglass group has won this battle. The foundation will provide "support."

What exactly does this mean? And where did you hear/read this?

 

[retired711]

What exactly does this mean? And where did you hear/read this?

My source is someone involved in university fund-raising. What it means is that the Douglass group will keep being the primary unit responsible for raising money at Douglass.

 

[Scarlet Pride]

If true, I'd have to see details on the relationship before I make a judgement even though my first instinct says bad idea. Perhaps there are plans to phase the organization out, control their outreach, or they have a direct report structure to the Foundation. Lots of possibilities on what "support" could mean. If they can get to the root of the problem with this relationship than I guess it's ok. If they basically just become a unit of the foundation (practically speaking) and donor relationships become more University managed then it could work for the time being. But if they don't address the major issues then bad idea and they should have just ripped off the band-aid, take a little immediate pain, and moved on.

 

[RuRoman]

My source is someone involved in university fund-raising. What it means is that the Douglass group will keep being the primary unit responsible for raising money at Douglass.

Camden Law, your source is partially right. RU will absorb most of the Douglass personnel but top officials are gone. But all current procedures, actions, and sources will be diverted to RU under the full control of RU.

Scarlet Pride, in addition to high end and possibly off acceptable parameters salaries, the other problem with expenses was operational cost associated with events and travel. All of this is gone now that RU is taking over....as I said, you like you expected by means of your post, hardly anything will remain behind once RU takes over with the exception of data, and some value add know how.

 

[Scarlet Pride]

This sounds much better. This is good for Rutgers and for the Douglass residential programs. Another feather in the cap of Barchi.

 

[srru86]

Star Ledger
Last women's college in N.J. going co-ed