Dear Ms. Kenney:

I am confused by your response.  You refer to the context of other purposes for the giving and yet the sentences in the piece that immediately precede and immediately follow the lines about the Charles Koch Foundation are specifically in reference to the climate science issue — never mind the headline and lede grafs of the piece which emphasize the same.  The piece clearly presents our donation in relation to the climate science issue.

Further you say, “If you are telling us that the Koch Foundation has decided to give nothing to Heartland this year, or to give less than $200,000, that is an interesting piece of information.”  But we stated our position explicitly in our letter to you (which reiterated a public statement we made on Wednesday) so our intentions are clear.

Finally, you say you regret that your reporters did not contact us to verify the information (the authenticity of which is now in serious doubt).  That’s good, I suppose, but our question to you was why that failed to happen?  We would appreciate it if you could explain this, particularly when other groups were contacted?

In the meantime, readers have been misled, and the misinformation that the Times has published about us is currently being cited by many other news outlets.  If you could let me know whether and how you intend to set the record straight and as quickly as possible, I would appreciate it.

Regards,

Tonya Mullins
Director of Communications
Charles Koch Foundation

______________________

From: Kenney, Nancy
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 3:34 PM
To: Mullins, Tonya
Subject: FW: Concerns with inaccuracy in article about Charles Koch Foundation

Dear Ms. Mullins:

Thank you for your note from Thursday.

Although you have accurately quoted the sentence from our story, you seem to be misreading what it conveys. We related the $25,000 gift without making any statement as to its purpose; it is clear from the overall context of the story that many gifts to Heartland were made for purposes other than climate advocacy.

We accurately reported that the Heartland documents demonstrated an expectation on the part of that organization that the Koch Foundation would give $200,000 this year. We did not say it had happened; merely that it was expected by Heartland.

If you are telling us that the Koch Foundation has decided to give nothing to Heartland this year, or to give less than $200,000, that is an interesting piece of additional information. If you can give us a more explicit statement about how much the Koch Foundation plans to contribute, we will promptly relay that information to our readers.

In any case, we would be happy to contact you the next time one of our articles concerns the Koch Foundation.  We regret that our reporters didn’t call you for this article.

Sincerely,

Nancy Kenney
Deputy environment editor
The New York Times

______________________

The following letter was sent to senior editors at the New York Times on February 16, 2012:

Despite the Times’ own explicit standards on sourcing, the Charles Koch Foundation received no opportunity to verify or react to the assertions made about us in a piece by Justin Gillis and Leslie Kaufman [Leak Offers Glimpse of Campaign Against Climate Science; Feb 15, 2012]. Your reporters called other companies to verify or comment. Why not us?

The piece reported, “documents say that the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation contributed $25,000 last year and was expected to contribute $200,000 this year.” That is not true. As stated in a public statement released yesterday, the $25,000 grant that the Charles Koch Foundation gave Heartland last year was specifically directed to a healthcare research program and has nothing whatever to do with the climate research program at issue. The statement also made clear that the Foundation has made no further commitments of funding to Heartland. Had anyone from the New York Times contacted the Charles Koch Foundation, these points could have been mentioned in the story, or perhaps, your paper would not have made the false statements in the first place.

In addition, as noted in your story, the Heartland Institute itself has issued a statement declaring that at least some of the cited documentation is fabricated. In light of that, it is disappointing that the Times failed to make any effort to verify the numbers in relation to outside parties like ours that were cited.

I would appreciate some explanation for why we were not contacted. I also would appreciate that the Times set the record straight with respect to the assertions about us.

Regards,
Tonya Mullins
Director of Communications
Charles Koch Foundation

“Our giving to the Heartland Institute has been repeatedly misrepresented in recent stories by the media as reaching into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. It’s unfortunate that those reporting on the matter did not seek the facts as they would have found the Charles Koch Foundation provided $25,000 to the Heartland Institute in 2011 for research in healthcare, not climate change, and this was the first and only donation the Foundation made to the institute in more than a decade. The Foundation has made no further commitments of funding to Heartland,” said Tonya Mullins, director of communications for the Foundation.

“My own philanthropic efforts were shaped in the early ’60s… by my passion to understand the principles underlying peace and prosperity. Because of that passion I read everything I could on the subject from every discipline and perspective. Along the way I encountered the writings of people like Von Mises, Hayek, Friedman, and so on. And they convinced me that societal well-being was only possible in a system of economic freedom, and as you know I’ve been a strong proponent of that view ever since.” – Charles Koch

View his remarks below.

Mr. Koch was selected for his more than 40 years of investment in ideas, think tanks and academic research that seeks to understand the nature of human freedom and how that freedom leads to human flourishing and prosperity.

In conjunction with the award, Mr. Koch was profiled in the most recent issue of Philanthropy magazine.  Click here to read the article.

“MARTIN BASHIR: [The Charles Koch Foundation is] still supporting you, but were you asked to take a second look at the data and were they upset with it?

RICHARD MULLER: Not at all. From the beginning, they said they would like to see the science be made more transparent and done at the highest quality. One of the things we have done is taken our data and analysis and made them available online. Anyone can verify us. If they disagree, it’s easy for them to check. Business was very high. My sense is they really didn’t know what the answer would be. They felt, I think properly, there had been questions raised and we would do it and we have. They never once indicated to us what they hoped we would find.”

Source: MSNBC – Martin Bashir, November 1, 2011 3:11pm

“The Charles Koch Foundation has long supported, and will continue to support, sound, nonpartisan scientific research intended to benefit society by informing public policy and advancing an understanding of the costs and benefits of proposed solutions. Among the research the foundation recently supported is a project by Professor Richard A. Muller in partnership with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and several other foundations. That research is undergoing peer review now but has already received significant media interest. The research examined recent global surface temperature trends. It did not examine ocean temperature data or the cause of warming on our climate, as some have claimed,” said Tonya Mullins, director of communications for the foundation.

With classes just beginning at Florida State, I am interested to see the mood within the economics department after the dust has settled from the Koch donation. The decision of the FSU Faculty Senate Committee exonerated the FSU President and economics faculty from any allegations of permitting a private donor, the Koch Foundation, to oversee their decisions.

But little was said about the false allegations of the liberal internet media outlet, Progress Florida, who publically accused FSU of compromising the integrity of public education with little to no investigation. Progress Florida’s reckless allegation tarnished the reputation of one of the best economics departments in the country and all those who graduate from it.

As an economics major at FSU, I have worked hard to succeed in the stimulating and rigorous courses that Progress Florida so easily discredited. Now everything we have worked for has just become collateral damage in some upstart liberal media outlet’s rage against anything conservative.

In the words of President Eric Barron: “If we wish to ensure the future of public education and the future of this nation, it is extremely important that our discourse and debate be based on fact.” Undeniably, Florida State continues to have an impeccable economics department partially due to the charitable donations made by the Koch Foundation. Thank you, Koch, for investing in my future. I can only hope the criticisms and false accusations trumpeted by the liberal press will not discourage such generous donations in the future or damage the reputation of everything I have worked for in the past four years.

“We are pleased that this review of the facts by the faculty committee confirms what FSU administrators have said – that the agreement with the foundation protected academic integrity and added significant value to FSU.  We agree with the committee that the MOU has solid guiding principles, and we are open to modifying the agreement as long as it continues to ensure a strong commitment to academic freedom, faculty governance and donor intent.  We appreciate the opportunity to partner with FSU, and we look forward to helping this good work continue in the future,” said Ryan Stowers, director of higher education programs at the Charles Koch Foundation.

Bizarre: It’s the word that best describes the brouhaha over the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation’s controversial grant to Florida State University, where I’m an undergraduate majoring in economics.

This controversy seems even more bizarre if you lean toward a free-market school of thought, as I do. That’s the perspective from which I have viewed the publicity and unfair criticism that FSU and its Economics Department have endured in recent weeks.

In 2008, FSU signed a contract with the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation for an academic grant. In exchange for receiving $1.5 million for the department over a few years, FSU agreed to form a committee, comprised of two FSU economists and one economist representing the foundation, to interview applicants for teaching positions. Although none of the candidates ultimately hired came from the committee’s list of recommendations, some people have accused FSU of allowing a private group to influence hiring decisions.

Many critics don’t realize what one observer might call “undue corporate influence in education” is what I would call “a coveted academic opportunity.”

While most of the discussion I’ve seen concerns the Koch Foundation grant, some commentators also have cited donations from other sources, including the BB&T Program of Free Enterprise, as further evidence of FSU’s “guilt.” Having participated in the BB&T-funded course, I feel FSU was correct in accepting a donation to create this course, “Market Ethics: the Virtues, Vices, and Values of Capitalism.” The course is popular among undergraduates because of its discussion-oriented lectures and genuinely interesting subject matter.

Indeed, class discussions were so thought-provoking that by the end of the semester, guest observers started to show up to listen.

During the spring semester, I was selected for a scholarship program funded through a different grant. Each semester, about 10 students are chosen. They meet regularly to discuss economic research. Later in the semester, the economists who authored this research visit FSU and discuss their work.

As someone who hopes to attend graduate school and eventually produce economic research, I looked forward to each visit and tried to learn from each economist’s approach. The opportunity to engage with economists in a small and informal setting was invaluable.

In addition to these two programs and a full array of courses, FSU’s Economics Department also offers its undergraduates a wide range of other kinds of activities, thereby setting it apart from the economics programs at other universities.

Some have called economics “the dismal science,” but my studies at FSU have been simultaneously enriching and — believe it or not — fun. Indeed, the experience caused me to fall in love with learning again.

Bottom line: FSU’s Economics Department is unique in several ways. Every day, I feel privileged to be learning from such knowledgeable professors while participating in enrichment programs made possible through various philanthropic grants.

Indeed, we FSU students derive great benefits from programs such as these. Moreover, most of us can’t understand what the fuss is all about. Meanwhile, we worry that our education is being politicized for partisan reasons. Few of us believe there is any reason for the sudden media coverage of the Koch grant other than the name of the donor.

Although I understand there can be legitimate concerns about the level of donor oversight in relation to any grant, those issues simply aren’t a problem in this situation. FSU’s Economics Department had a strong free-market presence before receiving the Koch donation, and it would have continued with or without that donation.

It is my fervent hope that fair-minded observers will put aside partisanship and allow FSU’s Economics Department to continue receiving funding that enriches and improves its students’ education.

Andrea Castillo is an undergraduate majoring in economics at Florida State University.

As state governments around the U.S. struggle with weak economies and structural budget crises, funding available to higher education is likely to continue to come under severe pressure. To meet this challenge, public universities across the nation will need to seek new sources of financial support to fill the gap.

Repeated budget cuts have been particularly hard on my alma mater, Florida State University, which this year alone faces another $19 million reduction in funding.

Given the severity of FSU’s cuts, I am concerned about the recent criticism the institution received for accepting a $1.5million grant from the Charles Koch Foundation to explore the nature of free societies. Critics have denounced the agreement as “damaging to academic freedom.” Others have accused FSU of “selling out” to corporate interests.

Nothing could be further from the truth. President Eric Barron deserves credit for defending the details of the grant agreement, which seeks to expand academic freedom, not restrict it. Academic freedom is an individual right, not a collective one. The agreement does not prevent anyone from researching, teaching, learning or expressing an opinion.

But as meetings of the Faculty Senate and Board of Trustees approach, what will FSU do next? The university’s decisions are being watched by many in the donor community, as its choices will have an important impact on willingness to provide financial support. Will the university create an environment hostile to private funding? Or will FSU foster an environment for collaborative partnerships capable of alleviating budget-cut woes?

I am grateful for the high-quality education I received while earning my doctorate with the respected faculty of the Economics Department. It helped prepare me for success as a university professor, the vice chairman of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors and a businessman.

I have been a long-time supporter of institutions of higher education, including FSU, and have worked in tandem with the Koch Foundation to support other university programs. As a donor, I consider many aspects when deciding which programs to support. It’s important for me to work with universities committed to making sure the resources provided positively shape the educational experiences of students. Just as scholarship donors enjoy hearing the success stories of recipients, program funders want to understand the direct impact we’re having on helping students achieve their individual educational goals.

It’s for this reason that operational grants are periodically evaluated. The evaluation mechanisms unfairly demonized as “strings” by critics of the Koch Foundation grant actually help both the university and the funder understand where the resources were used and if they were effective. Both parties can better evaluate whether the relationship was productive and the grant should be considered for renewal.

This accountability should be welcomed. Our government’s National Institutes of Health grants awarded to universities for the study of biotechnology and health-sciences research are often renewed annually. Yet no one decries the review process or accuses the government of academic interference when it directs money to be spent on specific research.

Similar productive partnerships exist between public universities and private funders. These partnerships form because universities and donors seek opportunities where their mutual interests meet; both organizations want to make sure the resources help individuals learn.

Consider, for example, a $300 million grant donated from the Walton Family Foundation to the University of Arkansas to establish an honors college and graduate school. It is one of the largest charitable donations ever made to an American public university, and you can rest assured the Waltons are closely involved in monitoring its success. Does their involvement mean the Razorbacks shouldn’t have accepted the funding? Or course not. It is simply the sign of a wise investor tracking the expenditure of his or her dollars.

The relationship between donors and universities is important to both parties. A mutual respect for academic integrity and donor intent is essential in building productive partnerships that advance academic learning. Many donors will be watching Florida State’s next moves. Should we be worried?

Manuel H. Johnson of Vero Beach, is president of Johnson Smick International, an investment and consulting firm.