My role in The Boston Foundation, 2019 R 1-20

Having practiced corporate and trusts law starting in 1964 through the late 1980s, with a brief interlude as law clerk to Chief Judge Bailey Aldrich on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston, I was eager to become involved in the broader society, and developed an interest in foundations.

I had served as estate planning attorney for two of the founders of EG&G, Inc., Kenneth Germeshausen and Harold "Doc" Egerton, and helped them develop and implement their philanthropic grantmaking. I became interested in the role of community foundations in America, and of the impressive history of The Boston Foundation. The board was comprised of those designated by the five Boston banks that managed the funds and were the formal trustees, and those appointed by 6 or 7 public officials, each of which appointed one member on a rotating schedule. I sought appointment from the Attorney General, James Shannon, who had been a partner in Hale and Dorr. I had supported his campaign for AG in 1986 and knew him very well having promoted the invitation by our law firm to make him a partner after he lost the Senate nomination to John Kerry in 1984. He appointed me to a five year term commencing in 1988, and served together with David Rockefeller, Jr., who became a friend.

Anna Faith Jones was then the executive director of the Boston Foundation, an elegant and forceful leader, who worked closely with Dwight Allison, the President, which was then an unpaid position similar to being Chairman of the Board. Dwight was also President of the Council on Foundation, and thus an important figure in American philanthropy. He was dedicated, as was Anna, to The Boston Foundation being as professional as possible, with the board setting policy and not interfering in its implementation and the selection of grantees.

After being on the board for a couple years, I raised the issue as to whether the foundation should undertake formal evaluation of grants. Anna smiled wryly, and commented that "we don't do much of it, because we have found that grants are often difficult to evaluate." She went on to explain how the staff remain in touch with grantees and continually seek to refine their grant making knowledge by what they learn of how grantees are doing, but that formal evaluations are of questionable value. She gave an example of the foundation having failed to renew a grant which sought to prepare high school students for college, following an evaluation that questioned its value. Several years later, a young man approached her at an event saying "Mrs. Jones, Mrs. Jones, I just had to come to tell you that my college experience went very well, and I graduated, and it never would have happened if l hadn't been the beneficiary of the program funded by The Boston Foundation."

Anna gently explained that sometimes evaluations are undertaken at a point in time when you cannot determine the value and long term impact of grants. An important lesson which I have sought to keep in mind throughout my career as the managing trustee of charitable foundations.

When my term expired and I was eligible for a second term, I was not reappointed by the new Attorney General, Scott Harshbarger, but was later appointed, at Anna's urging, by the five banks for a second term commencing in 1998. (See the story about Scott not appointing me in one of my political memoirs!)

The foundation had grown in size and professionalism in the intervening five years, and was the beneficiary of a new voice of activism in the person of Bob Glassman, President of Wainwright Bank, who working together with Jim Pitts, the Chief Financial Officer of the foundation, led the effort to make the foundation completely independent from the control of the bank trustees, all of which were then undergoing their own financial problems and mergers. The effort succeeded and the banks relinquished their appointing authority, but several of the public officials, including Harshbarger, would not give up theirs. As part of the change in governance, I succeeded in having the Executive Director, who was in fact the CEO, designated as President, and the lay board leader as Chairman of the Board, a change I have pushed at other non-profits as well.

Glassman and Pitts then led the effort to have a more robust investment policy, moving the funds out of the control of the banks which had served as trustees, and into a variety of asset managers emphasizing performance. Glassman, Pitts and I then took the lead to push activist proxy voting as a prelude to more socially responsible investing. This proved to be a more contentious issue, as more conservative attorneys and other members on the board thought it our responsibility to only emphasize performance, as if the two values were mutually exclusive. We succeeded in adopting the change, and soon The Boston Foundation was perceived to be the leader of community foundations in the country in the field of proxy voting and socially responsible investing and has continued to maintain that reputation and position.

During my second term, the foundation board also became more active, and I became chair of a new program committee, with the goal that the board should be more active in helping to develop the goals and strategy of the foundation. There is always tension between the powers of staff and a board in setting policy and determining implementation and choice of grantees. I worked closely with Deborah Jackson, then the Vice President for Program, who did an outstanding job, was a highly competent leader with terrific potential to someday serve as Anna’s successor as president.

Helen Spaulding had become Chairman of The Boston Foundation board, and soon started moving forcefully to encourage Anna's retirement, in order to shake up and move the foundation forward. I served as Chair of the Compensation Committee and handled much of the negotiation with Anna to determine if a retirement package could be worked out that would encourage her to retire. Jim Pitts represented her and the foundation's interests ably, and we worked out an amicable arrangement. Nevertheless, Anna would have preferred to remain as President, but understood that the board was seeking a more assertive new leader.

Helen then became Chair of the Search Committee, and both Bob Glassman and I were members of it. Everything was moving smoothly toward Deborah being chosen as the new President until Paul Grogan applied for the job, having resigned as Vice President for Public Affairs at Harvard University when Neil Rudenstein retired as President. Deborah emphasized a grassroots and community approach to community foundation grant making, while Paul expressed the goal for a strategy less responsive to community organizations and more firmly directed by foundation leadership. This was an extraordinarily difficult choice for both the committee and the board, as both, we were sure, would be outstanding as President. Paul was selected, and I negotiated, with Jim Pitts, his compensation arrangements with the foundation. Paul and I overlapped on the board for just a couple years, but he proved an extremely able, charismatic leader, who implemented many changes in seeking to have the foundation become a "player" in the Boston civic community, and succeeded. Now approaching twenty years as President, he has been very successful in making the foundation a leader in programs and activities which it initiates, and a more activist convener of programs and events.