April 21, 2009
Helmsley Trust Awards $136-Million in Its First Round of Grants
By Maria Di Mento
The trustees of the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust announced today that they are awarding a total of $136-million in the foundation’s first round of grants.
The announcement is significant not only because of the large amount but also because only $1-million is going to support dogs and other animals, which goes against Ms. Helmsley’s wishes that the bulk of her estate be directed to the care and welfare of dogs.
Of the 54 grants announced, one-year donations of $100,000 apiece are going to benefit nine canine groups and one group that benefits all animals.
In February a New York judge ruled that the trustees did not have to limit the distribution of their grants to charities focused on the care and welfare of dogs, a wish Ms. Helmsley, who died in 2007, stated in a mission statement she signed in 2004. In that document, Ms. Helmsley stated that she wanted the bulk of her estate —worth an estimated $5.2-billion—to go toward the care and welfare of dogs. When her estate is settled, the foundation she created is widely expected to become one of the biggest foundations in the United States.
That mission statement revoked a previous document she signed in 2003 that said she wanted her foundation not only to benefit dogs but also to support “medical and health-care services for indigent people with emphasis on providing care to children.”
But the judge, Troy K. Webber, found that the document that originally established the charitable trust does not require that the trustees refer to the mission statement, and that it grants them “sole discretion” to give money to any charity they choose.
Mr. Webber wrote in his decision that the trust document “makes clear that the trustees discretion to apply trust funds for charitable purposes is not limited by any mission statement.”
That ruling may have set a precedent for charitable bequests since it raised questions about how closely trustees of estates are legally bound to distribute donors’ bequests to the causes they designated. The bulk of the $136-million is going toward conservation, education, health and medical research, and human services. The three largest grants include $40-million to NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center for a center for digestive diseases; $25-million to Mount Sinai Medical Center for a center for electrophysiology; and $10-million to Mount Sinai School of Medicine for an inflammatory-bowel disease center. All three institutions are in New York.
Criticism From Animal Groups
The trustees’ decision to give only $1-million to animal groups in this first round of grants has caused dismay among some animal charity leaders. Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States called the amount “trifling” and said it was inconsistent with Ms. Helmsley’s stated charitable intentions.
“These resources could do tremendous good, as Mrs. Helmsley wanted, in promoting shelter adoption and spay-and-neuter programs, stopping puppy mills and dog fighting, and other programs to help dogs. We’ve been in touch with interested parties and hope for a constructive resolution,” said Mr. Pacelle in a written statement.
But the trustees see their decision differently.
“We are continuing the philanthropic legacy of Mr. and Ms. Helmsley. Throughout their lives, the Helmsleys were committed to helping others through the innovations of medical research, responding to those in need during critical times, and in other areas. We now have the privilege of continuing their good works by providing support where it will make a difference,” said the trustees in a news release.
The five trustees are John Codey, a former adviser to Ms. Helmsley; Sandor Frankel, her lawyer; David Panzirer and Walter Panzirer, two of Ms. Helmsley’s grandchildren; and Alvin Rosenthal, Ms. Helmsley’s brother.
Until today, all five have been silent for more than a year about their intentions for the foundation. Ms. Helmsley’s estate is still being settled, but given the financial crisis it could be worth much less than it was when she died. For example, her estate is still in the process of selling off some of her property including her Greenwich, Conn., mansion. The 40-acre property was originally listed at $125-million over a year ago but has since been cut by 40 percent. It is now listed at $75-million.
Comments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: Nike Foundation President Nominated to Head National-Service Agency
Next: President Signs National-Service Bill and Issues Call to Volunteer
Of the 9 groups involved with dogs, only the ASPCA actually helps dogs. All the rest use dogs to help people. While these groups may do very good work, couldn’t a bit more of the money being doled out have gone to directly benefit dogs? Out of $136 million, only .007 percent is going where Ms. Helmsley wanted it to go. What a sad betrayal of her expressed wishes. Let this be a warning to everyone – be very specific in your will and name those groups you want to receive your estate.
— Maureen Koplow Apr 22, 12:11 PM #
Excellent choices and I am happy they have the sense to ignore HSUS and PETA who have more than enough money and don’t do shelter work and in fact kill more than they save. The organizations funded by Ms. Helmsley’s estate are proven and have a track record. I hope the trustees will do as much research on any organization that applies for funding as they did this first round. If the trustees really want to help animals and particularly dogs which are being hit hard by legislation across this country being pushed by HSUS they should donate to NAIA. Wayne Pacelle the director of HSUS clearly doesn’t understand the needs of all companion animals. His organization is pushing laws in several states that would condem a dog as vicious not based upon its actions or history but based upon its weight. Wayne’s law would have every dog 40lbs and over declared vicious. The dog could be behind its own fence and have never taken any aggressive action and just by being over 40lbs he would have it declared vicious. He says that responsible breeders are just knee jerk in their response to his push for laws like total mandatory spay and neuter with extremely high fees for keeping an intact dog. Could it be Wayne that these reactions are because the laws you push actually cause more deaths of companions animals. The statistics show it. You have slandered responsible breeders and you have made a mockery of the people who have done the work to care for all animals. Just what do you do with that big bank account? Why should you need any money! HSUS could easily fund every shelter in the country with their fat budget. Instead, by making up a name that implies a national standing, you have in essence taken the donations that should have gone to every local humane society or shelter. You attack the only people who do actually protect and care for companion animals. You attack the responsible breeders who pay for research to promote the health of these animals. You called them greedy breeders, knowing full well that they put their own money into their companions and will never recoup what they spend by placing a few puppies into inspected homes with spay and neuter contracts. It is very apparent that your agenda is the elmination of all companion animals through the extremely restrictive laws you push. Knee jerk reactions Wayne? Wasn’t it your John Goodwin who killed 127 dogs half of which were puppies because in his mind all dogs are vicious that will eventually weigh more than 40lbs. Now thats a knee jerk reaction.
— Dr. Rosset Apr 22, 01:10 PM #
This is absolutely despicable. The best part of it all is her lawyer who no doubt either drafted (or at least reviewed) the documents, knew of her actual donative intent to benefit dogs, and apparently felt no need to do his job and make the documents enforceable, and who now feels no need to protect his now-deceased client and instead is blatantly disregarding her wishes. As an attorney, I find this to be the most offensive part of the story. There are a lot of dogs out in the world being euthanized for no reason other than there being insufficient funds for their care. The need is extraordinary – this is not money that would have gone to waste.
— Magda Winters Apr 22, 01:31 PM #
So pleased to see that the animal rights organizations HSUS and PETA did not receive any money. The rescues involved in animal welfare are the needy group who are involved in animal welfare. I think it PETA and HSUS that were fighting for this money right after she died. Thank God the managers of her estates sees through animal rights. Now if our politicians would…..
— Pat J Apr 22, 01:38 PM #
I find this disbursement of funds not in accordance with the donors wishes. Agreed that the areas that received funds are all important, but there are distinguished charities directed towards animal health and welfare that are in dire need of these funds. perhaps future donors should consider disbursing their contributions before they die. That could be a lesson learned.
— Stephanie Apr 22, 02:32 PM #
Those who wish their estate to go to a specific cause or organization, should will it directly to those beneficiaries.
When one sets up a foundation, the trustees are empowered, as this ruling supports, to direct the funds as they see fit. The advantage of this system in the long run, is that needs change over time, and a foundation’s trustees are charged with monitoring and understanding those needs and making the best decisions that are able.
A good example of this is the AIDS pandemic. Were foundations bound to a strict interpretation of the original donor’s wishes, they would be powerless to respond to a disease that was unheard of at the time many foundations were established – yet touches many parts of society. The system that allows trustees to respond to current needs is wise.
— Tommer Apr 24, 11:57 PM #
I think the trustees of the Helmsley Trust are shameful. Leona wanted her money to go to canines and the trustees are not carrying out her wishes. The Judge who is allowing these actions should be impeached.
— Ann Alpert Apr 27, 12:34 AM #
The narrow view that this goes against the donor’s interests intrigues me, particularly when the Helmsely’s provided charity to human’s in life and the husband’s contribution to the estate were not inconsequential. Moreover her decision was
overturned by those closest to her whom she empowered and who knew her well. So maybe they took her personality into account in making the decision. It’s not too difficult to paint a picture of a spiteful old woman who felt mistreated by humans in life, deciding to stick it to them one last time in death by transferring the wealth she had amassed from people and giving it to dogs — maybe because she felt only dogs were loyal and obedient enough? Kudos goes to the judge, her lawyer, her brother and his grand children for deciding on a far less spiteful and farsighted approach to carry on the Helmsley Charitable legacy by giving to people and animals alike – especially in these difficult times. Ironically, It will no doubt help her own legacy while it carries on his.
— Jon Peizer May 1, 11:53 AM #