Click for next page ( 9

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 8
History of the Markey Trust Lucille P. Markey executed her will creating the Lucille P. Markey Charitable Trust2 in 1975. Mrs. Markey's wealth, which later en- dowed the Trust, was derived from the family of her first husband, Warren Wright. In 1888 with an initial investment of $3,500 Warren's father William Wright founded the Calumet Baking Powder Company, which he built over the ensuing decades into the leading company in the industry. In the late 1920s Warren sold Calumet to Postum (later General Foods) for about $32 million. This fortune, along win Calumet Farm purchased by the elder Wright in 1924, was the foundation of the Wrights' wealth, the built of which passed to Warren. When Warren Wright died in 1950, his estate was valued at approximately $20 million, with about half in securities and a quarter in oil and gas interests, which would appreci- ate significantly in later years (Auerbach, 1994~. One of the valuable Wright-owned oil fields was the Waddell Ranch located outside Odessa, Texas. Under typical oil lease arrangements the lessor in this case Gulf Oil Company- paid all costs and received seven- eighths of the proceeds, while the property owner received one-eighth. In 1925 Gulf Oil leased the Waddell Ranch for 50 years, which was unusual because most oil leases are for perpetuity or as long as the land is produc- tive. The leases expired in 1975 following the oil embargo and consequent 2The Lucille P. Markey Charitable Trust is the institution's official name. In this report it will be referred to as "the Markey Trust" or "the Trust." 8

OCR for page 8
HISTORY OF THE MARKEY TRUST 9 rapid increase in oil prices. Through a series of court cases Gulf fought to have the leases extended at the old 1925 rate, but eventually Wright heirs and the other Waddell Ranch owners were victorious, and the income from the new leases, which were then part of Mrs. Markey's estate, in- creased dramatically. Before his death Warren Wright amply addressed the needs of his children through a trust arrangement. Mrs. Markey, sub- sequently married to Eugene Markey, decided that her estate would go either to charity or to taxes. She chose charities, but she was not interested in leaving her money to charity as broadly defined; she wanted some- thing whose effects would be immediate and specific (Auerbach, 1994~. Mrs. Markey's decision to leave her estate to medical research evolved slowly. Her illnesses and those of Gene Markey caused her to be inter- ested in research that could affect human health. Realizing that health research was a broad field, she asked Louis Hector, her attorney, to ex- plore whether something more specific could be identified to guide the work of the charity. To learn more about charitable activities Hector vis- ited the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which seeks to improve the health and health care of all Americans, and the Rockefeller University, which focuses on medical research. After hearing about the work of both institutions Mrs. Markey decided that the clinical aspects of health care were covered by other institutions, and that her estate should be dedi- cated to the promotion of biomedical research. Because of this decision the term "basic medical research" was inserted into her will. "It took her quite a while to wrap her mind around the idea of basic medical research," says Hector, "but once she did, that was it." The money, she decided, should go for square-one stuff, to solve the most elemental and perplexing puzzles (Fichtner, 1990~. Mrs. Markey began to respond to solicitations from a variety of local institutions. The following anecdote reveals how her giving began with the University of Kentucky: When Dr. Roach first approached Lucille Markey in the late 1970s for a contribution toward the construction of a cancer center on Me campus of the University of Kentucky, she said graciously, "Of course, Ben, we'll help. We'll give you $1,000." In response, Gene Markey chimed in, "Dear, he doesn't want a thousand dollars, he wants a million." The next morning Mrs. Markey called Dr. Roach and said, "We're going to give you one million in cash for your center" (Auerbach, 1994, pp. 9~96~. She subsequently gave a number of gifts totaling $5.25 million to the Ephraim McDowell Research Foundation to build a cancer center at the University of Kentucky. In the years 1984 and 1985 the Markey Trust gave nearly $8.1 million to the University of Kentucky to continue programs she initiated before her death (Lucille P. Markey Charitable Trust, 1996~.

OCR for page 8
0 BRIDGING THE BED-BENCH GAP After settling on a substantive focus for her trust Mrs. Markey deter- mined that she did not want to create a permanent foundation that might change or drift away from her own mission. Rather, she wanted to dis- perse her estate quickly so that the work of the Trust would not change over time, particularly as trustees changed. Louis I. Hector, who became chairman of the Trust, once told The Chronicle of Higher Education that when he and Mrs. Markey were working out the details of the Trust, the heiress told him, "I want the money out there doing a job, and I think what the trustees ought to do is spend it in a reasonable amount of time and then shut down" (Nicklin, 1997~. Mrs. Markey limited the term of the Trust to 15 years and the number of trustees to five. Her decision was based on four guiding principles (Dickason and Neuhauser, 2000, p. 2~. 1. She felt it was important to apply as much money as possible to achieving the Trust's purpose in as short a time as possible. 2. She wanted to know who would be involved in the management of the assets and distribution of her largess. She named five trustees, all of whom she knew well. Four of them were alive at her death and three continued to serve throughout the life of the Trust. 3. She wanted her money applied to grants, not to support a perma- nent bureaucracy. 4. She believed that the purpose and goals of any foundation could become obsolete over time; a time limit could help to prevent such obso- lescence. When Mrs. Markey died on July 24, 1982, the Lucille P. Markey Chari- table Trust was incorporated as a Florida nonprofit organization with 501(c)~3) status. The initial meeting of the Board of Trustees occurred in October 1983, and the Trust's Miami office opened on January 1, 1984. The trust completed all activities on June 15, 1997. Four trustees attended the initial 1983 meeting (Dickason and Neu- hauser, 2000~. 1. Laurette Heraty, who had served Mrs. Markey and her first hus- band, Warren Wright, in their Chicago office as a secretary since 1937. She retired from the board in 1989. 2. Louis Hector, who was Mrs. Markey's attorney and who drafted her will. He served as a trustee of the University of Miami, Rockefeller University, Lincoln Center, and is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. 3. William Sutter, an attorney and expert in oil- and gas-leasing

OCR for page 8
HISTORY OF THE MARKEY TRUST 11 issues, who worked for Mr. Wright and Mrs. Markey from his Chicago office in the law firm of Hopkins and Sutter. 4. Margaret Glass of Lexington, Kentucky, who had worked so closely with Mrs. Markey over the years that she was seen as an effective custo- dian and interpreter of her wishes. Two additional trustees were named during the life of the Trust. 1. George Shinn, a financial expert (elected to fill the position left vacant by the death in 1980 of Gene Markey) was president of Merrill Lynch & Co., chief executive officer of First Boston Corporation, and a member of the Board of Governors of the New York Stock Exchange; and 2. Robert Glaser, a physician with experience in both academic medi- cine and philanthropy (elected in 1989 following the retirement of Laurette Heraty), was director of medical sciences from 1984 until 1989. He was a past president of the Henry I. Kaiser Family Foundation and dean of the University of Colorado Medical School and Stanford University School of Medicine. The structure and the function of the Markey Trust were guided from its inception by Louis Hector's vision of supporting and encouraging basic medical research. This vision was consistent and unwavering throughout the duration of the trust, and it guided the selection of grant- ees, advisors, reviewers, and funding mechanisms. Dr. Glaser also played an important role in guiding the implementa- tion of the Markey Trust programs. In 1984 he was asked to become the director of medical sciences for the Trust. Some of his initial recommenda- tions included the idea of supporting basic (as opposed to targeted) re- search. "Medicine was going through an exciting period," Glaser recalled. "There were new fields like structural biology and developmental biol- ogy coming along and with substantial resources such as the Trust en- joyed, they could do a very important thing by offering support that was flexible to people and/or programs over a period of time" (R. Glaser, personal communication, 2002~. Dr. Glaser also recommended that the Trust provide enough support to bright young people to allow them to have protected time to establish their research careers. His expertise and vision were to become the major force in the foundation. The Trust began distributing funds in 1984 to institutions Mrs. Markey had supported during her lifetime. At the same time, the Trust began to plan a long-term strategy for its programs. In 1984 the Trust held a series of three "~ink tank" meetings with distinguished biomedical researchers in California, New York, and London. These sessions produced a number

OCR for page 8
2 BRIDGING THE BED-BENCH GAP of recommendations, the most important of which was the idea of long- term financial support for postdoctoral fellows and young faculty mem- bers. In 1984 the Trust announced the creation of the Markey Scholars Awards in Biomedical Sciences, which became the Trust's best-known program. The initial cohort of Markey Scholars was appointed in Febru- ary 1985. In the fall of 1985 the initial Research Program Grants were awarded. Later, in 1988, the Trust began making what would later be known as General Organizational Grants. Each of these award mecha- nisms will be discussed in greater detail later. In 1985 most Trust activity ceased because of complicated litigation involving the pricing of natural gas. The litigation involved the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the California Public Service Commis- sion, and a number of major oil and gas companies. The case was eventu- ally settled in the Texas courts. During the two years of court proceedings the Trust funded no new research grants and was able to continue fund- ing only the Markey Scholars program and a few small miscellaneous and related grants. During this hiatus the trustees continued to receive new grant proposals and were able to conduct selected site visits. The value of the Markey estate and trust grew substantially, benefiting from invest- ment income as well as the continued oil and gas income. In the fall of 1987 the litigation was resolved and the Trust resumed awarding Re- search Program Grants. During its 15-year lifeline the Markey Trust gave a total $507,151,000 to basic medical research and research training. Administrative costs amounted to $29,087,000 or approximately 5 percent of Me total Trust. Additional expenses included $10,529,000 for direct investment costs and mineral depletion costs. The total value of the Trust was $549,520,000, which included $149,565,000 in investment income (Dickason and Neu- hauser, 2000~.