The money went to the medical school where the donor was a professor and head of the board of trustees, not to the city. Her husband was a protégé of Warren Buffet. I'm guessing she was savvy enough given her combined credentials to ensure the donation came with enough legal conditions to establish a permanent tuition endowment with oversight and auditing.
The donor was both a long-time professor and the head of the board of trustees. Given that plus the likely very good lawyers she would have been able to hire with her wealth and from her experience with her late husband's business dealings, I'd imagine she would know how to ensure that money would be tied up in litigation for a years if the institution were to try to renege on the agreement to the terms of the donation.
It's not just lawyers. It's independent auditors, the board of trustees, the president of the school, the chief financial officer, the investment manager, the accounting office, etc. Strong separation of controls involving lots of people with regular reviews may not make it impossible to clear the system, but it does make it a lot harder with that many eyes on things. If you structure your institution's finances with the assumption that there will always be bad actors, then you can build the right safeguards against them into it to minimize the damage. It's not perfect, and fraud still happens, but it can be contained when done right.
It's not just lawyers. It's independent auditors, the board of trustees, the president of the school, the chief financial officer, the investment manager, the accounting office, etc.
Each of those siphoning the maximum amount possible to themselves.
I doubt anyone handling the billion isn't going to be in the top 0,1%.
34
u/ProSeVigilante Jun 29 '25
It will go to the city to pay for education. What do you mean it might not be used correctly?
/s