From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

Jennings Jr, Thomas
Coburn, David
Student demands regarding donor disclosure
Monday, November 10, 2014 8:12:00 AM
image001.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png

David,
 
Here are responses to the student demands for President Thrasher that you shared with me:
 
p. 2, # 4 – demands that FSU agree to “donor disclosure, review, and investigation.  It is not clear
what the group wants donors to disclose; however, requiring donors to disclose more than they
already do will likely result in fewer gifts and smaller gifts, and it will impose an additional
administrative hurdle for the university and DSOs to record, track, analyze, process and store this
data, which would require additional staff (and funding).  Likewise, the demands for “donor review
and investigation” are unclear, but would seem also to have a significant chilling effect on all
donors. 
 
p. 2, #5 – demands that FSU create policies that make all gifts and grants public.  Many donors
request anonymity, for a variety of very good reasons, and this is protected by state statute (Title
XLVIII, Chapter 1004.28) which states that “The identify of donors who desire to remain anonymous
shall be protected, and that anonymity shall be maintained in the auditor’s report.”   Gifts involving
proprietary information for research and product development are also protected by state
law….this is consistent with the Federal grants process for scientific research which often has
confidential (or at some institutions) classified information.  Therefore, the students demand would
require FSU to violate state and Federal law.  Donors who have given gifts to FSU in the past expect
a certain level of professionalism in handling their gifts and in their treatment as donors.  We must
maintain long term relationships with our donors so that they will be willing to donate again. 
Revealing every aspect of donor gift agreements, even for donors who have not requested
anonymity, might have a negative effect on FSU’s relationships with many of its donors, who don’t
want that kind of attention.
 
p.2, #6 – demands that FSU create a review process to ensure all existing and future donor contracts
are consistent  with AAUP and University policies on academic freedom.   The volume of this work is
significant, and cannot be left to volunteer faculty and students who have limited, if any, training in
donor relations, gift agreements, and the law surrounding gifts and contracts.   Additional staff
would be required to staff, train, and manage such a committee, which would suffer from frequent
turnover, especially among students.  The current review process for gift agreements includes
senior staff members from the FSU Foundation, the academic dean from the area receiving the
funds (who is also a faculty member), the Provost (also a faculty member), and the President.  For
gift agreements with unusual provisions, there is a review by the University’s general counsel and
occasionally by the FSU Foundation’s outside counsel.  The FSU Foundation also has an “exceptional
gifts committee” comprised of FSU Foundation board members and staff, to review other unusual
gifts (usually gifts-in-kind).  Research contracts are reviewed by the VP for Research and his staff of

 experienced attorneys and accountants.   So, the additional committee requested is both
burdensome and unnecessary.
 
Let me know if you need more information.
Best,
Tom
 
Tom Jennings, Ph.D.
Vice President for University Advancement
and President of the FSU Foundation
Florida State University
850-644-2999 (office)