They were wonderful clients. The family agreed on virtually everything about their new foundation - when to spend the money; which organizations should benefit; who should decide; how long should the foundation last… Their lawyer was almost right when he said he didn't understand why they needed me.

The clinker came when we discussed how to make certain gifts. One second generation member wanted everything to be given anonymously; another could not imagine big enough neon signs. This unarticulated disagreement almost disrupted the foundation.

When I told this story recently, an audience member told me that a similar dispute had led to a six month disagreement with his wife. They had agreed on a major gift to a school. One agreed with the school that it should bear their name; the other did not want their name on any institution.

There are legitimate arguments on both sides: The "anonymity" advocates say: why self aggrandize? Why have future generations labeled as the "rich kids"? Why invite everyone to feel they can knock on your doors for similar large gifts?

The publicity proponents want to affirm a concept of philanthropic leadership. You believe in this cause and want others to follow. Everyone knows you are wealthy, you should show what leadership means. Shouldn't the family legacy include evidence of your altruism as well as your affluence?

There is no one right way. Each family and foundation must seek its own level, respond to its own culture, and give in a way which satisfies its own mission. As long as you know why you choose one or the other, each can be a valid and noble way to give.

Back to top