Full text of "Organizational aspects of philanthropy : San Francisco Bay Area, 1948-1988 : oral history transcript / 1990"

See other formats

Regional Oral History Office University of California

The Bancroft Library Berkeley, California

History of Bay Area Philanthropy Project

Leslie Luttgens

ORGANIZATIONAL ASPECTS OF PHILANTHROPY:
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA, 1948-1988

With an Introduction by
Philip R. Lee

Interviews Conducted by

Gabrielle Morris

in 1988

Since 1954 the Regional Oral History Office has been interviewing leading
participants in or well -placed witnesses to major events in the development of
Northern California, the West, and the Nation. Oral history is a modern research
technique involving an interviewee and an informed interviewer in spontaneous
conversation. The taped record is transcribed, lightly edited for continuity
and clarity, and reviewed by the interviewee. The resulting manuscript is typed
in final form, indexed, bound with photographs and illustrative materials, and
placed in The Bancroft Library at the University of California, Berkeley, and
other research collections for scholarly use. Because it is primary material,
oral history is not intended to present the final, verified, or complete
narrative of events. It is a spoken account, offered by the interviewee in
response to questioning, and as such it is reflective, partisan, deeply involved,
and irreplaceable.

************************************

All uses of this manuscript are covered by a legal agreement
between The Regents of the University of California and Leslie
Luttgens dated 15 October 1988. The manuscript is thereby made
available for research purposes. All literary rights in the
manuscript, including the right to publish, are reserved to The
Bancroft Library of the University of California, Berkeley. No part
of the manuscript may be quoted for publication without the written
permission of the Director of The Bancroft Library of the University
of California, Berkeley.

Requests for permission to quote for publication should be
addressed to the Regional Oral History Office, 486 Library,
University of California, Berkeley 94720, and should include
identification of the specific passages to be quoted, anticipated
use of the passages, and identification of the user. The legal
agreement with Leslie Luttgens requires that she be notified of the
request and allowed thirty days in which to respond.

It is recommended that this oral history be cited as follows:

Leslie Luttgens, "Organizational Aspects
of Philanthropy: San Francisco Bay Area,
1948-1988," an oral history conducted in
1988 by Gabrielle Morris, Regional Oral
History Office, The Bancroft Library,
University of California, Berkeley, 1990.

Copy no.

13
C
cti

M-l

M-l
O

"go

<D
bO
*J
+j cu

3 Q>

W W
0) 3

Cataloging Information

LUTTGENS, Leslie (b. 1922) Civic leader

Organizational Aspects of Philanthropy: San Francisco Bay Area. 1948-1988.
1990, xiii, 328 pp.

Discussion of internal structure, interpersonal relations, and social policy
concerns of Bay Area and national nonprofit organizations, as experienced by
board member and officer of Junior League, Stanford and Presbyterian
hospitals, San Francisco Public Library, United Way of the Bay Area and
predecessors, Rosenberg Foundation, Northern California Grantmakers, Council
on Foundations, President's (Reagan) Task Force on Private Sector Initiatives,
and other corporate, governmental, and community bodies.

Introduction by Philip R. Lee, M.D., Director, Institute for Health Policy
Studies, University of California, San Francisco.

Interviewed 1988 by Gabrielle Morris for the History of Bay Area Philanthropy
Series. The Regional Oral History Office, The Bancroft Library, University of
California, Berkeley.

TABLE OF CONTENTS --Leslie Luttgens

PREFACE i

INTRODUCTION by Philip R. Lee vii

INTERVIEW HISTORY x

BRIEF BIOGRAPHY xiii

I PERSONAL BACKGROUND 1

Family and Foster Parents 1

Stanford Student Body Vice President, 1942; Classmates 2

In the Business World 3

Marriage to Dr. William Luttgens; Volunteer Experiences 6
in Minnesota

II SAN FRANCISCO IN THE 1950s 10

Volunteer Bureau 10

Stanford Hospital Auxiliary 11

Initial Experience with the Junior League 12

Sorority Issue at Stanford 13

Parallel Community Activities; Red Cross Casework in 16

Tacoma

Expansion and Reorganization of Bay Area Leagues 18

Hospital Auxiliaries and Mergers 19

III JUNIOR LEAGUE LEADERSHIP, 1949-1958 22

Organization and Board Training 22

Project Funding; Youth for Service Film 24

Next to New Shop; Member Mobility 27
Membership Diversity

Fundraising and Allocation 29

Recruiting and Retaining Members 31

Giving to Cultural Organizations; 1980s Independent 32

Sector Project

League President, 1962-1963 33

IV STANFORD HOSPITAL AUXILIARY, 1959-1960 35

Chairman of Volunteers 35

Fundraising for the San Francisco Education Fund and 40
Other Organization

V FRIENDS OF THE SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY 43

Going on the Board 4-3

Book Sales 43

Library Use; 1988 Bond Issue 44

Poetry Contests 4-5

School and City Interface; Budget Problems 46

Constituencies for Public Institutions 48

Information vs. Culture 49

Adult Literacy Programs; Organization Building 50

Task Force Approach to Problem Solving 51

VI ADVICE AND TRAINING FOR NONPROFITS 53

Hotel Tax Allocation Committee; Board Diversity and 53

Continuity

Aside on KQED Nominating Committee 54

Recruiting Candidates from Corporations 55

Criteria for Hotel Tax Funding 56

San Francisco Day Treatment Center; Impact of State 59

Policies

California Children's Lobby; Need for Separate 61

Research Arm

Mills College Advisory Council; Making East Bay Contacts 64

Burke School Long Range Plan 66

Volunteer Training 68

Bank of America Community Leadership Course; Volunteer 69

Career Paths

Social Concerns and Cultural Boards 71

VII FROM UNITED COMMUNITY FUND TO UNITED WAY, 1958-1975 75

Social Planning Committee 75

Learning How the Community Functions 77

Five-County Fund Allocation 78

A Separate Bay Area Social Planning Council; Perception 80

Problems

Hospital Funding Issue, circa 1970 85

Fundraising; Women as Vice Chairs 87

United Bay Area Crusade; New Directions Study, 89

1968-1971; Concentrated Services Committee,

Third-World Groups

President, San Francisco Social Planning Council, 1969; 91

Juvenile Justice and Ethnic Studies

VIII ALLOCATIONS AND REPRESENTATION, 1968-1988 94

A Study Plan for New Directions 94

San Francisco Effort vis-a-vis Other Communities 95

Independent Sector Daring Goals Campaign 95

Innovations in Funding and Membership Policies, 1970-197° 98

Third-World Leaders and Staff 101

Bay Area Black United Fund 103

Committee for Responsive Philanthropy and the Rosenberg 104

Foundation

More on New Directions and Concentrated Services 105

Foundations--UBAC Emergency Fund Created, 1973 109

Public -Private Partnerships 110

IX PRESIDENT, UNITED BAY AREA CRUSADE, 1973-1974 112

Executive Searches 112

Laurence Boiling as President-Elect 115

Ceremonial Functions; Fundraising Fluctuations 116

Orientation; Adding Consumers to the Board 119

Donor Concerns; Social Activists 121

Women's Changing Role; Mayor's Fiscal Advisory Committee 123

United Crusade Board Teamwork; Developing Leadership 125

New Career Steps; End of Bay Area Social Planning Council; 129
Labor Unions

X SAN FRANCISCANS SEEKING CONSENSUS: GOALS FOR 2000 132

XI ROSENBERG FOUNDATION BOARD, 1969- 138

Joining the Board 138

Diversifying Directors 139

Grants Budgets 141

Early Board Meetings; Leadership Matters 142

Future Planning; Executive Search, 1973-1974 143

1969 Tax Reform Act; Supporting Improvements in 145

Philanthropy

Foundation Staff Brown-Bag Group; Corporate Grantmaking 146

Conflict of Interest Policy 148

Walter S. Johnson Foundation; Observations on a Family 150

Foundation in Transition

Selecting Trustees: Rosenberg and Johnson Foundations 153

Capital Questions at Rosenberg 156

Expenditure Responsibility 158

Public Policy Considerations 158

Relations with Applicants 160

Views on Site Visits 162

Board Collaboration and Continuity; Recent Additions 163

Peninsula Area Philanthropists 166

XII EVOLUTION OF ROSENBERG GRANT PROGRAMS 168

Kirke Wilson Becomes Executive Director 168

From Immigration to Families in Poverty 169

Central Valley Projects Revisited 169

Collaborative and Corporate Grantmaking 172

Visit to San Diego Immigration Facilities 172

Larger vs. Smaller Projects: Child Abuse Council 175

Venture

Discretionary Budget; Board Meeting Practices; Annual 177

Reports

More on Board and Grantee Diversity 178

XIII SPECIALIZED PHILANTHROPIC VENTURES 180

The Soviet Union Tests the Waters in the 1980s 180

Response to Government Spending Cuts: Proposition 13 181

(1978) and After

Origins of the Emergency Fund 184

Growth of Northern California Grantmakers 187

Resource Exchange: CEOs and Young Activists 191

San Francisco Study Center 194

XIV RESPONSE TO SAN FRANCISCO SCHOOL NEEDS, 1975-1985 195

Riles-Roth School Commission 195

Genesis of the San Francisco Education Fund, 1977 197

Fundraising Successes 199

Seeking Grant Balance: Evaluation and Brokering 202

XV BUSINESS INTEREST IN COMMUNITY PROJECTS 206

Committee for Economic Development School Support 206

Business Leaders Task Force: Job Compacts 207

Private Industry Council Concerns 210

Legislative Mandate for Student Volunteering 211

XVI COUNCIL ON FOUNDATIONS, 1976-1982 215

Organizational Challenges and Changes 215

Executive Committee Chair: Consolidation of President 218

and Executive

Neoconservative Views 222

Increasing Western Presence 223

Southern California Association for Philanthropy [SCAP] 224

XVII LEGAL AND MORAL MATTERS 226

Legislation and Regulatory Committees 226

Buck Trust Litigation, 1986 227

Principles, Practices, and Ethics Committees, Council 237

on Foundations and Northern California Grantmakers

Trustee Compensation Questions 238

XVIII PRESIDENT'S TASK FORCE ON PRIVATE SECTOR 243

INITIATIVES, 1982

Aspen Conference, 1981 243

White House Briefing 246

Public Relations Aspects 250

Final Report Problems; Enterprise Zones 251

Continuing Presidential Advisory Group 255

National Data Bank 257

XIX BUSINESS LEADERSHIP TASK FORCE 260

Bay Area Response to Government Spending Cutbacks 260

Public Policy Deputies Group; Regional Approach 262

Setting Priorities; Media Support 265

Catalyst for Health Care and Child Care 268

XX FURTHER THOUGHTS ON FAMILY FOUNDATIONS 271

XXI CORPORATE VIS-A-VIS NONPROFIT BOARDS
Changes in Corporate Giving Programs
Increased Social Responsibility
Asset Management

Foundation Staff -Trustee Relations
Foundation Finance Committees
Women's Roles
Further Thoughts on Trustee Compensation

XXII ROSENBERG FOUNDATION REACHES FIFTY, 1985
Recent Board Members

Venture Capital Investment; Jim Gaither
Celebration and Renewed Commitment

XXIII COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND PUBLIC INFORMATION
Future of Foundations Conference
San Franciscans Seeking Consensus
Press Coverage
Openness to Grantees
Broadening Decisionmaking
United Way Adjustments

XXIV FUTURE OF PHILANTHROPY

Major Changes in Recent Years
Encouraging Young Volunteers
Prof essionalizat ion
Women's Organizations

TAPE GUIDE

APPENDIX- -Supporting Documents in The Bancroft Library

INDEX

276
276
280
280
282
283
285
287

289
289
290
293

296
296
297
299
300
302
303

306
306
309
311
313

315
317
320

PREFACE

Northern California Grantmakers and the Regional Oral
History Office of The Bancroft Library at the University of
California at Berkeley are pleased to present this series of
oral histories documenting the growth and development of Bay
Area philanthropy during the last twenty- five years. It is
our hope that these memoirs will both preserve a record of the
experiences and philosophies of selected senior members of the
philanthropic community, and encourage greater understanding
and discussion of the traditions of charitable giving.

The starting point for this series was an earlier project
of the Regional Oral History Office, completed in 1976, which
documented Bay Area foundation history in the 1930s and 1940s,
and the evolution of issues and leadership in the 1950s and
1960s. The current series focusses on the significant changes
which have occurred since that time, including the tremendous
growth in corporate giving, changes in the role of the
government in supporting the arts and human services, and
increased collaboration among grantmakers.

Selection of prospective interviewees for the project
involved many hard choices among outstanding persons in Bay
Area philanthropy. The final selection was made by The
Bancroft Library and reflects the broad spectrum of
grantmaking organizations and styles in the Bay Area. The
guiding principal has been to preserve a record of the
thinking and experience of men and women who have made
significant contributions in shaping the philanthropic
response to the many changes which have occurred over the last
twenty- five years.

Overall guidance for the project has been provided by an
advisory committee composed of representatives from the
philanthropic community and the U.C. Berkeley faculty. The
advisory committee is particularly indebted to Florette White
Pomeroy and John R. May, whose enthusiasm, leadership and wise
counsel made the project possible. The committee is also
grateful to the twelve foundations and corporations which
generously contributed the necessary financial support to
conduct the project. Members of the advisory committee and
the contributors are listed on the following pages.

The director for the project is Gabrielle Morris, who
conducted the previous project on the history of Bay Area
foundations. The project is under the supervision of Willa
Baum, head of the Regional Oral History Office, which is an
administrative unit of The Bancroft Library.

For the advisory committee,

September 1990

San Francisco, California

Ruth Chance
Thomas Layton

iii

HISTORY OF BAY AREA PHILANTHROPY SERIES

Morris M. Doyle, The Spirit and Morale of Private Philanthropy:
Stanford University and the James Irvine Foundation. 1990

Herman E. Gallegos , Equity and Diversity: Hispanics in the
Nonprofit World. 1989.

Roger W. Heyns , Collected Thoughts on Grantmaking and the Hewlett
Foundation. 1989.

Sally Lilienthal, Funding Prevention of Nuclear War. 1989.

Leslie Luttgens , Organizational Aspects of Philanthropy: San
Francisco Bay Area. 1948-1988. 1990.

Robert Shetterly, East Bay Experiences in Corporate Social
Responsiblitv. 1991.

Mary C. Skaggs and Philip Jelley, Specialized Granting with
National and International Impact. 1989.

Rhoda H. and Richard M. Goldman, in process.
Edward Nathan, in process.
Charles Patterson, in process
Madeleine Haas Russell, in process.

Yori Wada, Working for Youth and Social Justice, at the YMCA.
University of California, and Stulsaft Foundation, in
process .

Phyllis Wattis, in process.
William Zellerbach, in process.

Bay Area Foundation History Series
June 1976

Volume I

Introduction to series

John Rickard May, Building a Community Foundation

Volume II

Ruth Chance, At the Heart of Grants for Youth

Volume III

Daniel J. Koshland, Responding to the Flow of New Ideas in the

Community
Philip S. Ehrlich, Sr., An Attorney's Twenty -Five Years of

Philanthropic Service
Josephine Whitney Duveneck, Working for a Real Democracy with

Children and Other Minority Groups
Marjorie Doran Elkus , Recollections of San Francisco Private

Agencies and Foundations. 1935-1950
Dorothy W. Erskine, Environmental Quality and Planning: Continuity

of Volunteer Leadership
Florence Richardson Wyckoff , A Volunteer Career, from the Arts and

Education to Public Health Issues
Emmett Gamaliel Solomon, A Corporate Citizen's Concern for the

Effectiveness of a Community Foundation
Bill Somerville, A Foundation Executive in Training. 1961-1974

Volume IV

Frank Sloss, Tradition and Change: Continuing Education of a

Foundation Board Member
Edmond S. Gillette, Jr., Smaller Foundation Trusteeship: Obligations

to Friendship and the Community
Charles Clock, A Sociologist Comments on Getting. Using, and Making

Grants

Jean Gerlinger Kuhn, Balance and Order in a Community Trust
William Matson Roth, The Tradition of Voluntary Solutions to Public

Problems
Richard Foster, Avoiding Institutional Entropy: A School

Superintendent's View

Orville Lusher, Growth of a Grassroots Youth Agency in the 1960s
Obie Benz and Peter Stern, A New Generation of Grant -Making Ideas

Volume V

Milton Salkind, New Vitality in the San Francisco Conservatory of

Music
E. P. (Red) Stephenson, Transition: White Man in a Black Town.

1950-1967
Caroline Moore Charles, Development and Dynamics of Volunteer

Organizations
Arabella Martinez, The Spanish- Speaking Unity Council. Inc.. and Bay

Area Foundations

Ira DeVoyd Hall, Jr., Community Resources: Turning Ideas into Action
Sam Yuen, Philosopher and Community Agency Administrator

For additional oral histories on philanthropy and nonprofit
organizations, consult the Regional Oral History Office.

HISTORY OF BAY AREA PHILANTHROPY
ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Ruth Chance, Co -Chair
Rosenberg Foundation (retired)

Thomas Lay ton, Co -Chair
Wallace Alexander Gerbode Foundation

Marcia Argyris
McKesson Foundation

Walter A. Haas, Jr.
Evelyn & Walter Haas Jr. Fund

Susan Little

San Francisco Foundation
(resigned 1988)

John R. May*
San Francisco Foundation (retired)

Florette W. Pomeroy*
Consultants in Philanthropy

Bruce Sievers
Walter & Elise Haas Fund

Caroline Tower
Northern California Grantraakers

U.C. BERKELEY FACULTY ADVISORS

Richard Abraras
Department of History

William R. Ellis, Jr.
School of Architecture

Paula Gillett

Graduate School of Education
(resigned 1989)

James D. Hart*
The Bancroft Library

Ralph Kramer
School of Social Welfare

^Deceased during the term of the project

The Regional Oral History Office would like to express its
thanks to the following organizations whose encouragement and support
have made possible the History of Bay Area Philanthropy Series.

Wallace Alexander Gerbode Foundation
Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr. Foundation
Miriam and Peter Haas Foundation
Walter and Elise Haas Foundation
William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
James Irvine Foundation
Walter S. Johnson Foundation
Northern California Grantmakers
David and Lucile Packard Foundation
San Francisco Foundation

L.J. Skaggs and Mary C. Skaggs Foundation
Wells Fargo Foundation

vii

INTRODUCTION by Philip R. Lee

Leslie Luttgens has played an enormously important role in
philanthropy in San Francisco in determining the shape, direction, and
priorities for philanthropy, particularly with respect to the role of
women and minorities. Leslie followed in the path of Caroline Charles,
the pioneer rebel who opened the door. Caroline Charles served on the
board of the Rosenberg Foundation for more than twenty years before she
was asked to be president. She also served on the Stanford board of
trustees. Although she never served on a corporate board, without her
path-breaking efforts women would have continued to be excluded from
major policy roles.

Leslie Luttgens consolidated the gains made by Caroline Charles and
extended them dramatically. She served in a number of capacities with
the Junior League and in other areas before moving up in the ranks in the
United Way to become that organization's first woman president. The
period of her presidency was a very unsettling time, with many changes on
the horizon. Women employees were beginning to seek equal pay for equal
work and, following the civil rights advances of the 1960s, many minority
organizations were exerting increased pressures for funding. In the face
of these changes and pressures, Leslie ably steered the United Way
organization forward.

• Leslie's many accomplishments also include being the first woman
appointed to the McKesson board and the second to the Pacific Telesis and
PG&E boards. In addition, she was elected president of the Rosenberg
Foundation trustees and chair of the Council on Foundations. Indeed, she
has become the institutional memory of the Rosenberg board, having served
now for twenty-one years.

How has she accomplished so much? First of all, she has strong
interpersonal skills and an exceptional talent for bringing people
together with differing views and enabling them to reach consensus.
Also, she often has been a bridge between the old and the new, between
organizations within and outside the establishment. In addition, she has
a very good political sense of how far one can move an issue. Quietly,
without confrontation, persistent without being stubborn, always well
organized and thoroughly prepared, she has managed to change the way many
philanthropic organizations do business and to seed foundations with
minority members and leaders. During her term as chair of the Council on
Foundations, the first black person was selected as president. Also,
after she joined the Rosenberg board, they selected the first Hispanic to
serve on any major national board.

viii

It was clear when Leslie first joined the Lee family in 1939 after
the death of her mother and father that she was a winner. Leslie adapted
to a family of strong individuals and very strong opinions with
enthusiasm, warmth, understanding, and good humor. Her younger teenaged
brothers, including myself, immediately fell in love with her, and she
handled us with grace and lots of affection. She was a full participant
in the life of the family, including musical events organized by our
mother. Her voice was clear and on key—in sharp contrast to some of us.
As a student at Stanford she was popular among students and faculty, and
she was elected vice president of the student body. During her tenure,
sororities were abolished because they failed to respond to the needs of
the women students at Stanford. Leslie, herself a sorority member,
understood the needs of women who were not admitted to those elitist
institutions, and she provided the leadership that permitted a carefully
considered and sensitive decision to be made.

Leslie's sensitivity to others is, in part born out of her own
experience. Not only did she lose both of her parents as a teenager,
she also lost her first child during a life -threatening illness in
pregnancy. Leslie was introduced to Bill Luttgens by my brother Richard,
both of whom were residents at San Francisco General Hospital. They were
soon married and off to the Mayo Clinic where Bill took further advanced
training. After the loss of their first child, they returned to San
Francisco, where Bill went into practice and Leslie began community work
with the Junior League. She began to expand and strengthen the deep and
lasting friendships that she has had in San Francisco and Palo Alto.
After their daughter, Lise, was born in 1953, Leslie spent time raising
Lise and learning a great deal about her community through her
involvement in the Junior League.

Family ties were strengthened during this period as well, as she and
Bill made frequent weekend visits to the Lee family compound in the
foothills behind the Stanford campus. They stayed in what we called the
Bear Trap — a small, one-bedroom house with a kitchen— while Bill
developed the vineyard that my dad always bragged about as one of his
great accomplishments. The annual grape harvest festival was a focus of
family gatherings for more than thirty years.

Leslie's experience with tragedy returned when Bill developed
Parkinson's disease in the 1970s. Leslie was able to manage the
household, support Bill, maintain a close relationship with her daughter
Lise and the rest of the family, and continue her activities in the
community. She was able to do this because of her very strong people
orientation, her desire to serve the community, her extraordinary
organizational skills, and her ability to keep learning. She continues
to inform herself thoroughly by seeking out different views, listening to
people, and reading an enormous amount of background material before she
makes up her mind.

In John Gardner's book On Leadership , he describes many of the
qualities that Leslie possesses: vision, a sense of where we need to go
as a pluralistic society, great integrity, and values that are strongly
but not rigidly held. In addition, she can work across disciplines, is a
superb generalist, and has a very broad network that reaches across a
wide range of people and organizations in the community. These qualities
have made her one of the outstanding leaders in philanthropy in the Bay
area during the past twenty years.

Philip R. Lee, Director

Institute for Health Policy Studies

School of Medicine, UC San Francisco

April 1990
San Francisco

'New York: The Free Press, 1970.

INTERVIEW HI STORY- -Leslie Luttgens

Leslie Langnecker Luttgens was invited to record her oral history
for the Northern California Grantmakers History of Bay Area Philanthropy
Project because of her many years of experience as a trustee of the
Rosenberg Foundation, Northern California Grantmakers, and other
grantmaking organizations. She has also been director of several major
business corporations; as well as boardmember and officer of a remarkable
array of local, regional, and national social service and policy groups.
Her commentary provides a thoughtful, detailed view of key community
organizations, their leadership, and the issues they faced in the San
Francisco Bay Area from the late 1950s through the late 1980s.

The oral history is doubly interesting in that it carries forward
the available record of changing times and styles in the Bay Area's
charitable endeavors since the beginning of the century. Early in her
career, Mrs. Luttgens worked closely with Caroline Charles, a
distinguished civic leader from the 1940s through the 1970s. In an oral
history recorded in 1974 and 1978,* Mrs. Charles in turn gives credit
for her own introduction to community organization to Emma Moffat
McLaughlin, whose indefatigable interest in the affairs of the Telegraph
Hill Neighborhood Association, the Public Dance Hall Committee, and other
causes of the 1920s and 1930s is documented in A Life in Community
Service.**

Philanthropy in general has often been seen as a conventional,
rather stratified and reclusive activity with little attention paid to
the anxieties and aspirations of those receiving funding. From the
accounts of Mrs. Luttgens and others in this series, it is clear that
there is growing interest among givers in expanding the scope and
effectiveness of their activities, including ever more individual and
organizational input in making decisions on the use of available
charitable dollars.

*The Action and Passion of Our Times. Regional Oral History Office,
University of California, Berkeley, 1979.

**Emma Moffat McLaughlin, Regional Oral History Office, University
of California, Berkeley, 1970.

Mrs. Luttgens is a dainty, energetic person who has carried a
career-size load of civic activities since her student days at Stanford.
Her particular interests are interpersonal relations and internal
structure of nonprofits, complex topics on which she has worked hard and
patiently to achieve the consensus she sees as essential for progress on
tough issues .

In the volume, she describes her progress from the Junior League and
the parents' association of her daughter's school, on to the creation of
the Stanford Hospital Auxiliary and the San Francisco Education Fund,
among others. She then goes through the chairs in the long-running
evolution of the United Bay Area Crusade into the United Way of the Bay
Area, on to the board and eventual presidency of the Rosenberg
Foundation, and, concurrently, such august bodies as the Council on
Foundations, the President's Task Force on Private Sector Initiatives,
and the Business Leadership Task Force. Today she is an informal advisor
to many individuals and groups. She is one of the people consulted by
business, political, and civic leaders, as well as hopeful academic,
social agency and grassroots activists, before a new idea is floated into
public.

Through her discussion we learn, as she learned, how organizations
and the community function, and how their structures, hierarchy, and
missions are constantly overlapping and changing. Interestingly, all of
these are traditionally structured bodies and yet, Mrs. Luttgens reports,
they have all undergone significant changes in recent decades. She
herself has been in the forefront in encouraging diversity and innovation
in response to widespread social distress and vacillating public policy.
A traditional person by experience and inclination, she is also seen as a
pathbreaker; perhaps a pathbreaker because she so clearly embodies
traditional views of order and responsibility.

Eight interviews were conducted with Mrs. Luttgens from June to
October 1988. The sessions were tape-recorded in the bright, comfortable
upstairs sitting room of her Pacific Heights home, with a view of San
Francisco Bay in the background. She spoke easily with fluent recall of
complex past issues, occasionally referring to a pile of organizational
reports nearby for a name or date.

The tapes were transcribed and the transcript lightly edited in the
Regional Oral History Office. As editing progressed, the transcript was
sent to Mrs. Luttgens for review. As her busy schedule permitted, she
read over the manuscript carefully, deleting several repetitious passages
and checking various names and other details. She also supplied the
photographs which illustrate the volume and selected publications
relevant to organizations discussed, which are listed in the appendix and
deposited in The Bancroft Library as supporting documents to the oral
history.

xii

Special thanks are due to the following persons for their assistance
in planning and completing this oral history. Ruth Chance, for her
encyclopedic memory of the people and events of Bay Area philanthropy;
Kirke Wilson, for providing access to Rosenberg Foundation publications
and for his illuminating comments on the culture of foundations;
Professor Arlene Kaplan Daniels, for insights from her research on the
significance of women volunteers in community life; and Dr. Philip Lee,
for providing an introduction that gives insight into Leslie Luttgens's
early years and sets her accomplishments in the larger context of
contemporary social concerns.

Gabrielle Morris
Interviewer -Editor

September 1990

Regional Oral History Office

University of California, Berkeley

*Arlene Kaplan Daniels, Invisible Careers: Women Civic Leaders from
the Volunteer World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989.

Regional Oral History Office
Room 486 The Bancroft Library

xiii University of California

Berkeley, California 94720

BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
(Please write clearly. Use black ink.)

Your full name Lt^lce

Date of birth
Father's full name

Birthplace fgJi*

t A

gUy/uv

- '"Uvgjc

Occupatioru kci^^cuu^. l

Birthplace

Mother's full name -Jocu*-.

Occupation
Your spouse

gJuuu/

Your children

Birthplace

Where did you grow up?
Present community 5yx*»~ r A
Education
o

GL*J*

Occupation(s)

Areas of expertise flrx. pv\jc\cir

Other interests or activities

Organizations in which you are active

/V>^r^

-e..

I PERSONAL BACKGROUND

[Date of Interview: June 22, 1988]

Family and Foster Parents

Morris: Let's start with a little bit of your personal background and
early influences that may have contributed to your interest in
community service.

Luttgens: I was born in Palo Alto, California, in what is now the Bowling
Green but used to be the Palo Alto General Hospital. My father
was a physician at Stanford Medical School, commuting to San
Francisco where the medical school was. My mother died when I
was four.

We had, first of all, an aunt and her daughter who lived
with us as sort of a housekeeper, running the family, and then
younger housekeepers over time as my sister and I became older,
which I think was very wise, from my father's viewpoint, because
we needed someone who was more of a companion than a caretaker.
That sort of person was there.

My father died when I was fourteen and the estate was going
to be administered by the American Trust Company, the predecessor
of Wells Fargo. Dr. Russel Lee, who had founded the Palo Alto
Medical Clinic and had been taking care of my father and had been
a friend of the family, also my mother's doctor before she died,
said, "Why don't you appoint George Barnett," who had been my
father's best friend, "and me as your guardians," which my sister
and I did.

. .-

We lived with the Lees, which was a marvelous experience
because on the way to being two spoiled little girls we suddenly
were thrown in with a family of four rambunctous boys and a

## This symbol indicates the start of a new tape or tape segment.
For a guide to the tapes, see page 315.

Luttgens: little sister. The last Lee child was a little girl which was a
nice relationship.

We were treated just exactly like anybody else in the
family. We were scolded when we should be. we were told that
morning was not the time to sit around and dawdle but to get busy
and to get things accomplished. It was a very work-ethic
oriented atmosphere to be in which contributed to my later work-
oriented philosophy.

When I went to Stanford Russ began to play an even more
important role in my life. He had taken both my sister and me,
along with other children, from time to time around in his car
when he would make house calls. In between the house calls was a
wonderful time to hear stories, talk about a variety of things.
The dinner table was always very stimulating.

Morris: This was before he'd started the Palo Alto Clinic?

Luttgens: After.

Morris: And he was still making house calls?

Luttgens: Oh, yes. There were a lot of very exciting people around too at
the Lee household, which was quite different than what I had
experienced earlier where we led a very quiet life. My father
coming home from Stanford every day and not having that much of a
social life. So all of a sudden there was a lot more activity,
which was fun, and a lot more was being asked of me and my
sister, too.

Morris: Your sister's name is —

Luttgens: My sister died seven or eight years ago. Her name was Jane
Stratte. She had been married to a urologist. They were
divorced. Her youngest daughter and I are very close. She lives
down the Peninsula and I see a great deal of her and her family.

Stanford Student Body President, 1942; Classmates

Luttgens: When I went to Stanford Russ was always, again, very supportive
in what I did. When I thought about running for vice president
of the student body at Stanford he said, "Of course you can do
it. Do it." I did and I ran and was elected. It was a good
experience for me. I learned how organizations work, and don't
work sometimes.

Luttgens: It was wartime. I was class of '43 and war had broken out a year
before. Many of the men were going to war. and this was the first
time we were getting to do some community things as students. We
went out to the beet fields and cut beets because the people that
normally cut beets weren't around to do it. I must say some of
the men resisted, they wanted to stay in the ivory tower as long
as they could before they had to go off to war, which I
understand. But at the same time there was much more of a sense
of community at Stanford than there had been before.

Morris: This is because there were not enough people to harvest the
beets?

Luttgens: That's right.

Morris: Sugar beets?

Luttgens: Sugar beets.

Morris: In the Palo Alto area?

Luttgens: Yes. Out toward Half Moon Bay, in that area.

So there was a lot to be done, and somehow we were getting a
lot more involved in the local community.

Interestingly enough there were a lot of people. Ken
Cuthbertson, who was president of the student body, and his wife
Colleen who was vice president; he went on to be vice president
for development at Stanford — ended up being an executive with the
Irvine Foundation. He did a splendid job in both positions.

So those were friends that I knew for years and years.
Adeline Jessup, whose husband Bruce was president of the student
body two years ahead of me, was a later recipient, Dr. Bruce
Jessup, of several Rosenberg grants and was somebody who was
working with Florence Wyckoff down in the Valley, so there were a
lot of interwoven bits.

In the Business World

Luttgens: After graduation — I had been told by a vice president of Standard
Oil who was a friend of the father of one of my closest friends,
that if I wanted a job to come and see him. I had graduated in
political science and I thought I would like to go into personnel
work. So I went up to see Vice President Lindsay Hanna and was
told to go down to Room 100.

Luttgens: This was war time. The men. the boys had gone off to war. Young
women started doing those beginning jobs that men had been doing
as a result. I had four friends — the four of us had graduated at
the same time — we were all messengering, carrying mail within big
corporations as a way to learn about the corporation. One of
them was at Del Monte [Packing Company], one of them was at
Matson [Steamship Company].

I went down to Room 100 and I was assigned to mail delivery
within Standard Oil. I stood it for about three weeks and it was
just so unsatisfying that I went back down to them and I said,
"Don't you have any place that's in a smaller setting?" They
said, "You might try Arabian- American Oil [Company], which is
across the street.

I went over to Arabian-American Oil. Those were the days
when the pipeline was being built by Aramco. I started, not in
the mail room but in the files, and the files were a perfectly
fascinating place to be. This was my step to go into the
personnel department, you understand. I realized you couldn't
start out where you wanted to, even with my BA in political
science at Stanford. [laughs]

Morris: I'm interested in the link between studying political science and
working in Personnel.

Luttgens: It's just that I had always liked to work with people and I

majored in political science. There was a lot of emphasis on
community government that was part of political science. A lot
of it was developing communities.

I had started out wanting to be a sociologist, had gone to
my first class where the professor had said, "Towns grow up
around railroads and railroads connect the towns," and I thought,
"I've got to change my major," which I did.

In those days Stanford was a place where an undergraduate
could go and find himself or herself by being exposed to all
kinds of things. I don't think that's as true now, from what I've
seen of Stanford and some other universities. You either go with
something pretty clearly in mind that you want to go on into
graduate school for or you flounder a bit. You don't have that
really leisurely, wonderful feeling of being able to sample a lot
of things, which is what I was able to do. The liberal arts
experience.

Within the community side there were classes taught by a
Professor Edwin Cottrell, to do with community development and the
way communities grew and the ingredients that made for a
successful community and so forth, and that was the area that I
was particularly interested in. Although I also took courses in

Luttgens: Japanese history and the Far East and economics, and did have one
quarter at the business school, which I was able to do the summer
before I left Stanford.

Morris: And the Lees encouraged you to think in terms of going to work
rather than doing something like playing tennis.

Luttgens: Oh, yes. Absolutely. And most of the women were working at that
point. Although we thought we were going to work for a while and
then get married and live happily ever after, and not necessarily
have a career. There was very definitely a feeling that we
weren't just going to sit around.

One of the first volunteer jobs I did was one that Russ got
me involved in, and that was the Bundles for Britain. He was head
of an organization that was raising money for the British effort,
and I used to volunteer and staff it and sell pins and so forth,
Again, it was fine, it wasn't particularly stimulating but it was
putting in some time doing some things that were at least more
worthwhile than sitting around.

At Arabian- American it was really very exciting because, as
I say, the pipeline was being built, there was a lot of secret
and confidential correspondence that was coming in from Jedda.
The board met from time to time in San Francisco. Fred Davies
was the president of the board and was an interesting man. There
was an engineer named Donald Brown who lived down the Peninsula,
a geologist named James Terry Duce who was one of the leading
people who had found oil in Arabia. It was a very high level and
exciting endeavor to be involved in.

Files don't sound very interesting but they would say,
"We've got to have that piece of correspondence which only you
have seen, Leslie, because you were the only one that recieved it
and know where it is." So I felt important as well.

An opportunity opened up after a year and a half to go into
the personnel department and go to Arabia and I just wasn't sure
I wanted to go. It seemed awfully far away to me. The wives that
had been sent home during the war were now (when the war was
over) beginning to go back. I decided I didn't want to stay as
head of the files and there wasn't really any place else where I
could go within the corporation, so I started going to night school.

In those days it was secretarial work that would open the
door if you could do some typing, so I went to Ethel Davis1
Secretarial School, it was one of two good ones in San Francisco.
I got so I could type fairly well. My shorthand was never very
good — I didn't like it particularly. But I was asked if I would
like to go to the City of Paris to apply for an executive
secretary position. I went over.

Luttgens: The personnel director, a woman named Mrs. Mitchell, who had

trained in the Midwest at J. L. Hudson, predecessor of Dayton-
Hudson Company, looked at my resume and said. "You're much too
over- qualified to be a secretary, how would you like to be the
training director?" and I said, "I've never been a training
director." She said, "I will train you."

So I was sequestered for about seven weeks going out and
working in various departments of the store. I started
elevators, I sold ties in one of those islands in the mens1
department, I did almost everything one had to do around the
store, and of course had to fill out a lot of sales checks. Then,
at the end of the seven weeks, I was introduced to the company as
the training director.

I would spend three days a week doing the training — Monday,
Wednesday, Friday — and the salespeople who had come in would have
to take a day-long course and they were usually quite resentful,
because they were people who had worked in other department
stores. They'd say, "All I have to do is know how to fill out a
sales check-" If I could have them say to me at the end of the
day, "Thank you very much," I was touched and felt as if I had
done an effective job.

Morris: Sounds like Mrs. Mitchell made the job for you.

Marriage to Dr. William Luttgens ; Volunteer Experience in
Minnesota

Luttgens: She really did. It was a very small department. She was doing

the training herslf before I came. But she became ill. Bill and
I were married in August of '47 and she became ill in September.
We were going back to the Mayo Clinic where he had a fellowship
in the end of December, but from September until about three days
before we left I did all the hiring for the store because she was
ill. I would interview and hire people for Christmas, which at
that time was a big thing. I would say, "Come back tomorrow and
the training director will give you your training." I'd walk
into the other office and do the training. It was very hard
work, but at the same time it was fun and again a challenge.

We went off to Rochester, Minnesota. I had been doing
volunteer work all during this period. I had taken the Rec Cross
volunteer nurse's aide program my last quarter at Stanford -_nd I
continued to work as a volunteer at night, because there were so
many volunteer nurse's aides around that all the good slots were
assigned.

Luttgens: I ended up in the post-polio ward at Childrens1 Hospital. I

would take the cable car from my apartment on California Street
to the end of California Street. At that time the cable car went
almost all the way to Childrens1 Hospital. You had to walk a
block or two blocks, and I never worried about walking those two
blocks, which is an interesting comment on the times.

Gripmen, two of them in particular , knew me and they would
say, "Is the hospital pay ing you?" and I'd say, "No." They'd
say, "You ought to be paid," and I'd say, "No, this is my
volunteer activity." They'd say, "They ought to do something for
you," and I'd say, "I certainly wish they'd wash and iron my
uniform." [laughs] So that was always our joke.

Those two gripmen, Mr. Jergens and Mike, were just marvelous
and would sort of keep an eye on me. One night a sailor spoke to
me on the cable car and Mike said, "Listen, leave her alone,
she's going out to do some volunteer work." [laughs]

Morris: Oh, how sweet.

Luttgens: Actually it's a commentary on those days in San Francisco, where I
think there was very much a sense of people looking out for other
people, because I think we were not as heterogeneous in those days
as we are today. Anybody who was new to the scene stood out. I
really hadn't thought about that very much until I mentioned it
to you, but I think it may be a comment on the times.

Morris: If you were a familiar person people looked after you?

Luttgens: Yes. And we all knew one another taking the cable car down to

the financial district. I had to take a bus and transfer to come
home from secretarial school. I can remember the bus driver
saying, "Don't transfer at Sutter and Fillmore, come up another
way." There was a lot of looking out for people which may still
go on, I don't know because I'm not in the same position to see
it.

Morris: How did you happen to pick up with CARE and the League of Women
Voters?

Luttgens: Same thing. Here I was a wife with a husband who was working
hard at the Mayo Clinic. We had thought that he could get
everything he wanted in one year because he had already started
working in Dr. Wilbur's office in San Francisco. He'd been night
superintendent at the county hospital, where he was in charge of
all the medical staff and was very experienced, but most of the
fellows were who came to the Mayo Clinic. They were looking for
the experience of working with Mayo physicians.

Luttgens: Bill thought he could get the experience in the hematology

department, which was what he was specializing in there. Their
system didn't allow for that. It was a three-year fellowship
and, by golly, you stayed for the three years. You spent the
first year being sort of cut down to size so you would learn. In
other words, you didn't come in feeling as if you knew every ing
and could just breeze into something. And the fellows used to
grouse about it. They would say. "Here I've been making
decisions and now I'm not allowed to. I have to bow to the
superior who's the one that says 'yes, go ahead,1 or 'no, don't.'
So they were working up patients and they were doing all kinds of
things that they had already done before, but that was the way the
Mayo Clinic went. I think it was good in the long run for their
medical experience, but they were impatient.

We were there for the full three years. I found that the
social life of the wives revolved around coffees in the morning,
where one talked about children if one had children, or other
people at the clinic. There was nothing at the Mayo Clinic at
that point except the clinic and the farming community. There
was no big IBM plant, there were no industrial parks, so that the
whole focus was on the medical community.

You saw mostly the people that were in your department, like
the internists or the surgeons, depending on where you were,
although we did have some friends that were cross-disciplined.
But I got to the point where I didn't want to hear all the gossip
about Dr. So-and-so.

My across- the- hall neighbor, who I saw last year — she and
her husband came to San Francisco from New Orleans where he's
with the Ochsner Clinic — was working in the library and she said,
"Why don't you come and do a part-time job at the library?" I
said, "Sounds fine, but I'm not a trained librarian." I did a
little bit of everything. I was on the front desk part of the
time and I was mending books part of the time in the back room,
doing things that other people didn't have time to do. They were
a nice group of people.

The most interesting thing was that I saw how the farming
community worked, because the farm wives would come in on
Saturdays when their husbands would drive them into town. They
would load up on food for the week and they would come to the
library. They would mostly take out Grace Livingston Hill. Do
you know Grace Livingston Hill? She was Kathleen Norris's
predecessor. There were maybe three shelves of Grace Livingston
Hill books. They would take the first five and then they'd bring
those back the next week and take the next five and so on. So I
really got a flavor of what that community was like.

Morris: Would she have been the Danielle Steel of that era?

Luttgens: Yes. absolutely.

I learned a lot too. It was an interesting period. I felt
like I was doing something that was more worthwhile than drinking
coffee.

The League of Women Voters came about the same way. The
head of Bill's department, Dr. Malcolm Har graves' wife, was
president of the League of Women Voters of Minnesota, and they had
entertained us. She said, "Why don't you get involved with the
League of Women Voters?" which I did. Pretty soon I had my own
group, which was made up of fellows' wives. We would meet at one
anothers' houses. That put me on the board of the Rochester
League of Women Voters.

We were looking at health-care issues because that's what a
lot of the husbands were interested in. We could look at things
we were interested in looking at. It also was an interaction
with the other people in Rochester, Minnesota.

Morris: Was it a Rochester league?

Luttgens: Yes, it was a Rochester league. And within the Rochester league
there were smaller groupings, one of which I chaired and which
put me on the board. I have belonged to the League of Women
Voters ever since, although I have not ever played a strong role
since. I joined here in San Francisco when I came back. I think
the League is indispensible as far as studying political issues.

The CARE thing came about because there was no CARE unit in
Rochester and Jane Wilmer, whose husband was Dr. Harry Wilmer,
the psychiatrist who wrote "Huber the Tuber" and some other
marvelous childrens1 books and was a grantee of the Rosenberg
Foundation at one point.

Jane thought it was something we needed to do — somebody had
approached her. So the two of us established a CARE unit and we
would staff booths downtown to collect for CARE and pass out
brochures.

II SAN FRANCISCO IN THE 1950S

Volunteer Bureau

Morris: Then you moved to —

Luttgens: Well, we came back to San Francisco. That was when I resumed the
work that I had been doing with the Volunteer Bureau, The
Volunteer Bureau then was at Galileo High School, and that was two
blocks away from where we were living on Culebra Terrace, on the
side of Russian Hill. I would walk over and work at least one
day a week, sometimes more often, as the volunteer interviewer.

It's an ideal way to re-enter an area. I learned quickly
about what the needs were, what agencies were asking for and what
people thought they wanted to do, which was interesting to me.
They'd come in and say, " I want to work in a mental health
agency," and during the interview you'd realize that wasn't where
they belonged at all, so you gently tried to guide them to
something else. They would go out and have an interview, you'd
follow up to see how the interview worked out, you'd follow up
again to see whether they were still there. It was very much an
in-depth kind of process.

Morris: How many people were there to be interviewed on a —

Luttgens: — given day? I can't give you a number, but we had lots of

people being interviewed. We'd schedule interviews ahead so that
you just weren't sitting there waiting for somebody to walk in
the door. But, again, it was a time of change because there were
a lot more men coming in, there were —

Morris: This is about '52?

Luttgens: Yes, I was back from Rochester, so it must have been '51 or '52.

Morris: Before your daughter was born?

Luttgens: Yes. As a matter of fact I think I was pregnant with Lise at the
time. The early 1950s, yes.

Morris: More men?

Luttgens: More men coming in — older men, retirees were begining to show up.
There was a whole group of people looking at volunteer activities
as a re-entry from mental illness. I remember Ed Nathan had a
project that placed people recovering from mental problems.
These were different kinds of people than the housewife who had
some free time. One of the things that I thought a lot about and
still would like to see changed, agencies continue to provide
services when it's convenient for them, they don't provide them
at a time when they're needed by the person to be served because
so many people now are working during the day. They need
services at night or at different times — family service, et
cetera. And at times when the available volunteers could work,
the good volunteers.

S tanf ord Hospital Auxiliary

Luttgens: When did we start the Stanford Hospital Auxiliary?

Morris: That was when Stanford moved down the Peninsula, wasn't it?

Luttgens: Yes. We started it before they moved.

We were at the Stanford Hospital in San Francisco. We were
the first hospital to have an evening program for professionals
who wanted to work at night — women who were working in the
daytime.

Morris: Did the Volunteer Bureau have places for all the people who
wanted to volunteer?

Luttgens: Yes. Mostly we could direct them around.

One of the things that's happening now, I've been advising a
fellow who is starting a group called Cal Serve, which is to
involve students in universities, both the UC system and the
state system, in giving community service. There was the
[Assemblyman John] Vasconcellos bill last year that would have
mandated service. Bob Choate got that requirement out of the
bill. He did this in San Diego and now it's gone statewide.
I've been putting him in touch with volunteer bureaus so he's
well on his way now. He has foundation grants and is building a
network.

Luttgens: One of the things that he's finding is that students want to work
to help the homeless, for example, or help with some of the
current problems where there isn't a very well organized service
group operating. So that's one of the challenges that is here
now, matching interest and needs through an intermediary, which
may be very much a grassroots organization that doesn't know how
to use volunteers.

Initial Work with the Junior League

Morris: It relates to the broader question that traditional agencies are
having trouble recruiting volunteers in the '80s. It may relate
to what you already mentioned about the time and the place.

Luttgens: Yes. It's a piece of it, I think.

All during this time I also was active with the Junior
League. I set up their first blood recruitment campaign, which
would have been war time — before we went back to Rochester. My
first committee chairmanship was circulating a film made on cere
bral palsy that the League made — an advocacy film. That was a
routine job but it was a way to get started. Then I did the blood
recruitment thing, which was really unusual because we went to
places like Mission Street and almost did a circus trying to get
people interested in giving blood. We did it for the blood bank.

Morris: This is during World War II?
Luttgens: Yes.
#1

Luttgens: We need to review because there was a progression from one thing
to another and, again, taking on a leadership role that I need to
track back on.

Morris: Did you join the Junior League shortly after college?

Luttgens: Yes, and I didn't even know I was being proposed. A classmate

asked me if I knew anything about it and I said I really didn't.
She told me something about the League's idea of volunteer
service. Then she asked me to lunch one day and I was so naive I
didn't realize I was being looked over by the admissions
committee and then was invited to join. I was working at
Arabian-American Oil and they gave me time off to take the
provisional course, which was very unusual. I didn't say
anything about what I was doing to the people I was working with,
I'd just go out to meetings once a week —

Sorority Issue at Stanford

Morris: Had you been a sorority member at Stanford?

Luttgens: Yes, that's a whole other story. I had been a sorority member, a
member of Alpha Phi. When I went to Stanford I didn't think I
was going to join a sorority — who needs it? Then one gets swept
up in the excitement of being a freshman and all of your friends
are going to rush parties, so I did that. There was only one
place I liked and that was the Alpha Phi house, so I joined the
Alpha Phis.

When I became vice president of the student body I had to
live outside the [sorority] house, which I did. I lived in one
the womens1 living groups and enjoyed the people I knew there
very much. I also lived in Lagunita one summer — I lived in the
small living group during the year — and realized these were
people I really didn't know. I would see them at class but I
didn't know them that well.

Stanford was not that big in those days. When I got ready
to leave, after the time I'd been living in the smaller living
group to go back to the sorority house, one of the women there
said to me, "I'm so sorry because we'll never see you again." I
said, "Don't be silly, of course you'll see me." She said, "I'll
see you walking down the quad, but that'll be it."

I realized the enormous gulf between sorority and non-
sorority women existed, so several of us, the good friend whose
father had suggested I go to Chevron, and I and two or three other
people, the head of all the sponsors of Roble Hall, the freshman
dormitory, got together and we said this really isn't right.
There ought to be more sororities or none at Stanford.

So we talked to some other people that we thought were
influential. Mary Yost was the dean of students at that point,
and she had never thought sororities were a good idea,
apparently. We called a meeting — the vice president of the
student body, the president of Panhellenic, the head of all the
sponsors — and we said we'd like to propose something to you, and
that is that there be more sororities formed or that there not be
any. We told Dean Mary about it the day before; we said, "We
don't want you to be surprised."

There was an uproar, a terrible uproar, because we'd called
the president of each house and asked them to come in and they
had come. They went back to their sorority houses and they told
the house members and they called their advisors (we all had
alumni advisors). Three of us belonged to the same house, we

Luttgens: were all Alpha Phis. We went back to the Alpha Phi house and I
said. "I've got my pin right here and am ready to turn it in."
[laughs] They didn't ask for my pin back.

• Our advisor, a woman from Palo Alto, was literally lying on
the floor kicking her feet. "They can't do thisl" she said.

There was a woman who was half Jewish who was brought into
the Alpha Phi house, she was a prominent San Francisco
physician's daughter, a perfectly beautiful young woman. They
were saying perhaps we shouldn't invite her because she's part
Jewish. Somebody else was turned down at another house because
she was Jewish. One family bought a house a grand piano so that
their daughter could be pledged. Another young woman tried to
drown herself in Lagunita Lake. The whole thing was ridiculous.

Our point was Stanford was selective enough to begin with;
to put this further selectivity on it just wasn't appropriate.
Everybody of course was having a fit, and Don Tressider was
leaving the next day. He was going by boat, he was leaving to go
to Europe as I recall, and he was staying at Mrs. Dennis' house —
Mrs. Dennis being Mary Jane Dennis* mother, Mary Jane being
president of the Theta house. I knew him through the Lees and he
called most young people "child." He was the president of
Stanford at that time.

Morris: This is while Tressider is president?

Luttgens: Yes, that's right. Wonderful man. I'm not sure if he was the
greatest university president, but he was a marvelous man.

I remember calling and asking Mrs. Dennis, who I'd met, if I
might talk with Dr. Tressider and she said. "I think he's gone to
bed." And I said, "You know, Mrs. Dennis, if he hasn't gone to
sleep, I do think it's important enough that he know about it.
She knew exactly what I was talking about, because Mary Jane had
already called her and she did get him, I must say. He came to
the phone and I told him what had happened and I said, "I just
want you to know because the press is apt to ask you some
questions." He said, "Well, child, did Dean Mary put you up to
this?" I said, "No, Dean Mary did not. It was our idea." So he
said. "All right. When I get back we'll discuss it at the board
of trustees."

So later the board of trustees had a meeting to which they
invited the spokesmen of three opposing views. Our views were —
more sororities or none. There was the sorority view — we want to
stay the way we are and not change. The last view was from the
women who didn't belong to sororities. The only manipulative
thing I did was, they were going to have us come first and I
said, "I think we should come last." I was politically astute

Luttgens: enough to realize it would mean a lot more. So that was the way
it went. It was a very effective presentation, Trustee Ira
Lillick had tears in his eyes when we were finished.

We didn't know what had happened for a year afterwards. I
went on and graduated and I went out for coffee at Arabian-
American Oil Company one morning and somebody had a newspaper
across from me and I saw "Sororities Abandoned at Stanford,"
They were put off limits.

Morris: What about the fraternities?

Luttgens: We never touched the fraternities. We figured we didn't know
enough about them. Fraternities continued but sororities were
not allowed. '

Morris: While this discussion was going on and then presented to the
board of trustees, nobody talked to any people in the
fraternities and they didn't have any interest?

Luttgens: No. we felt that wasn't our business. As a matter of fact I'm

not sure the boys cared that much, although they may have. Three
friends, Carl Livingston, Al Haas, and Boomer Eisenlauer (Boomer
I saw at our planning meeting for the 45th reunion) lived off
campus and they belonged to a Jewish eating club. So I'm sure
there must have been some feeling of discrimination.

My political science professor, Tom Barclay, who was a
bachelor and very stuffy (I liked him but he was pretty proper),
saw me a year later after the announcement had been made and he
said, "Look what you've done. You really ruined this. Here we
used to have these wonderful living groups." I said, "Dr.
Barclay, we never r id anything against shared living groups, we
just didn't want it 10 be only invitational living groups."

So the sororities were lost for a long time. They have now
come back at Stanford. In the interim students drew lots; in
other words if you wanted to stay in what used to be the Alpha
Phi house, you drew lots. Your first lot was hopefully your
first choice, but it might not be, it might be someplace else. I
don't know how satisfactory it was. There were also a lot of
coeducational living groups established after that time. I think
that's part of the change that was going on — that people were
looking for different arrangements and not being segregated.

Parallel League and Community Activities; Red Cross Casework in
Tacoma

Morris: — about being invited to be a member of the Junior League.

Luttgens: Actually the person who asked if I wanted to join had been a
member of my sorority class.

The Junior League did play an important role for me — we
should talk about that. I'll try to see what I can remember
about the various committee chairmanships that I did there,
because there was definitely a progression. I always worked on a
league committee and a community committee at the same time. In
other words, I was out in the community, I didn't just do League
things.

Morris: Right. Would they be related necessarily?

Luttgens: Not necessarily.

Morris: So you were back in San Francisco to stay by '57?

Luttgens: — by '51. Well, we thought we were going to stay in '51 and then
Bill was called into the doctors' draft in '53. In the meantime
Lise had been born — she was born in '53. We went up to Tacoma,
Washington. That was when I did the American Red Cross job.
They did have a Junior League chapter up there, and I had a
college friend who lived in Tacoma and she took me to one of the
meetings. I wasn't much interested in the meetings, although it
was nice to meet some people because I didn't know a lot of
people. But they did announce that they were looking for home
service volunteer caseworkers. I said, "I will do that if you
realize I'm only going to be here for two years," which was what
Bill's stint was going to be.

Morris: Was this a new project they were setting up?

Luttgens: It was doing casework for the Home Service Department for the Red
Cross. We were working with families who weren't getting their
checks or who were trying to get together with their husbands who
were overseas — you know, all those problems that somebody would
have as part of the army where there wasn't any social service
function to assist them. Wives by themselves in many cases,
husbands coming home — that sort of thing.

It was a good program. They trained us very well. The
ultimate authority was in the paid supervisor. I was out
visiting people in their homes one day a week really feeling as
if I were contributing something and learning quite a bit about
the needs of army families.

Morris: Did any of those women take that casework volunteer experience
and go to —

Luttgens: I don't know whether they did, It was sort of a blip in my life
that was an addition to my experience, but I don't know, I'd be
hard-put to tell you how I've used it specifically.

Morris: The interviewing experience, you were interviewing in two

different settings, and that's kind of a basic way of getting
information and evolving a hypothesis about what was going on.

You mentioned that Bill was in the doctors' draft, was that
Korea?

Luttgens: That was for Korea, yes. He went in as an officer, he went in as
a lieutenant and became a captain before he came out. He had a
bad leg, he'd had polio when he was young, so they hadn't taken
him the first time around in World War II. They said they can't
fuss around with that. With this they were taking people who
they hadn't taken before.

He tried to go to Stuttgart, we all wanted to go. But they
wouldn't take him because they said, "We can't evacuate you if
there's a problem over there."

So we ended up in Tacoma, Washington. He had said, "If you
can't send me to Stuttgart why don't you let me go to the San
Francisco Presidio?" We could see it from our window. But no,
no. Can't do that. So we ended up in Tacoma, Washington.

He was very vigorous. He was in charge of the officers'
ward and he was very vigorous about getting it cleaned up, get
them all cleaned out, work late to get them cleaned out, and the
next day it would be all filled up again. He finally caught on
that the harder he worked the more people they sent in, so he
started doing a sort of an eight-to-five.

He built a Heathkit radio and a lot of things like that.
For the first time he wasn't working eighteen hours a day.

And we had fun with Lise.

We lived in a house out in Lakeview with an enormous yard.
I had a sitter one day a week and would do my Red Cross work
then. It was a typical early family arrangement. We had
friends, we barbecued, we did all those things.

Morris: Knowing you weren't going to be there very long you didn't really
get involved in the community?

Luttgens: That's right. We had good friends in Seattle and we found
Seattle a lot more stimulating than Tacoma.

Expansion and Reorganization of Bay Area Leagues

Morris: Where did you meet Caroline Charles?

Luttgens: I met Caroline before Lise was born. I think it was after

Rochester because I remember her saying, "Isn't it too bad you
have to interrupt what you're doing here to go off to Tacoma?"
She was an advisor to the Junior League. They called on her for
all kinds of things and, as a matter of fact it was my idea to
make her an honorary member of the League because she had given
so much to the League, and of course both her daughters were
League members. She was very touched by that.

Gerry Morris Lindsay and I thought of that and she was the
first honorary member this Junior League had ever had. Later
they made Ruth Chance an honorary member, which was very nice.

Morris: Did they?

Luttgens: Yes, Ruth's an honorary member. That was quite a bit later.

The League was very insular then. That was one of those
periods where there was a lot of change going on. We had three
units: Palo Alto, San Mateo and Marin and they were all at
different levels of development. They had started because during
war time people didn't want to drive to San Francisco to do their
volunteer work or for their meetings, because gasoline was so
hard to get.

So they started providing services to the agencies in their
communities. They started having their own meetings, they
started raising their own money. And they were part of an
umbrella organization which was the Junior League of San
Francisco. The units were a unique San Francisco League
structure and other leagues across the country were beginning to
copy it, "Now isn't that smart of the San Francisco Junior
League? We can work where we are and we can still be part of the
big League."

It was fine for quite a while, and then Palo Alto was getting
bigger and bigger, the area was growing as far as community
services were concerned. They were doing some of their own money
raising. They really were ready to be kicked out of the nest and
be their own Palo Alto Junior League, but they didn't want to go.

Luttgens: For about three years, for one of which I was president, we went
through a very strong process of forcing them out and pulling the
other two closer together. So, again, it was a time of change.
The people over here being unhappy because they were being pulled
in tighter with less structure. They were not going to be as
independent.

Morris: Was Marin being pulled in tighter?

Luttgens: That's right, Marin was being pulled in tighter, San Mateo didn't
care so much, Palo Alto was being shoved out.

Instead of having a board in Palo Alto, a board in San
Mateo, a board in Marin and a board in San Francisco and the
representatives of the other three sitting on the San Francisco
board and having to be responsible for them and having
allocations go out in unequal ways because the services were
different, we wanted to become one unified League — San Mateo, San
Francisco and Marin — and Palo Alto on its own. It was very
difficult to do but it worked, finally. Palo Alto, of course, is
just going great guns now. Some Palo Alto members chose to
remain members of the San Francisco Junior League, which they
were allowed to do. It wasn't the greatest idea, because they
then were alienated from their friends down there.

But again it was a time when there needed to be a lot of
fence mending and looking at new structures.

Hospital Auxiliaries and Mergers

Luttgens: That's how I met Caroline first of all, through her League

advisory capacity. She was very good, as you recall, at bringing
people along and exposing them to other things.

She got me involved in the Stanford Hospital Auxiliary,
which later became the Presbyterian Hospital Auxiliary. I ended
up on the board of Presbyterian Medical Center, and I went off
when the University of Pacific came in. That whole Pacific
Presbyterian story, the involvement and evolving of that, were
very interesting to me.

In many ways I've never served on a board that was as
frustrating, as that one when we were trying to merge the
Presbyterian Hospital with St. Joseph's, with Children's.
Caroline and I and Josephine Sullivan spent a summer meeting with
three members of the Children's board and with the Health
Facilities Planning group when Martin Paley was heading it,
trying to bring those hospitals together.

Luttgens: The doctors were the ones that refused to let that happen. They
wanted their whole spectrum of services at Presbyterian. They
didn't want to have to run down the street to Children's for
something or vice versa, even though there was a lot of overlap.
That has been tried three different times with Children's and PMC
[Pacific Presbyterian Medical Center] and it hasn't worked.

What I am interested in is what's happening now. Libby
Schilling, who is a very good friend of mine, is heading the whole
Children's Hospital holding company, which has merged with Alta
Bates and has various divisions for ambulatory care and hospital
care. She'd be an interesting person to talk to.

Morris: — the whole business of the hospital planning and cooperation.

Luttgens: Yes. I've come back into that a little bit now because I serve
on the UCSF [University of California, San Francisco (medical
school)] board of overseers. I've been there now for about four
years, five years — since Frank Sooy appointed me. I must be
getting close to the end of my term, although we didn't have
terms to begin with so I don't know when they've got me going
off.

First of all I'd seen it from the outside, from the
Presbyterian vantage. We used to call UCSF the Colossus on
Parnassus, which was Mark Berk's phrase — he was the Mt. Zion
administrator. Now to see what's going on, a merger between Mt.
Zion and UCSF — and the problems that they're having at UCSF as
far as expansion is concerned, with limitations on space, is
interesting to me.

Morris: What was Martin's role?

Luttgens: Martin was head of Health Facilities Planning. They would not

give approval for any new hospital facilities or outreach or bed
increase unless there was some consolidation. So they were very
interested in seeing that there would be a consolidation of
services, particularly because most of the hospital beds are on
the north side of town, as you know.

Louis Lundberg at B of A [Bank of America] had a committee
that was looking at hospital beds in San Francisco. This is
before I went off to Rochester. It was one of the first
committees I ever served on years ago. The situation is still
the same. We're still over-bedded. We still have the same
hospitals on this side of town and very few on the other side,
except St. Luke's and San Francisco General and Seton down the
Peninsula.

Luttgens

Morris:

Luttgens:

There was an article in the paper the other day about the new
head of St. Luke's, who says they are the only hospital which is
looking for Medi-Cal patients because they think they can make it
work and they are the only hospital on that side of town. They
would welcome them and they want them to come there.

The world would beat a path to their door,
fascinating?

Isn't that

Another thing I did along the way was I was on Mervyn
Silverman' s Health Advisory Committee, and we were talking about
that whole situation, what San Francisco General was going to do
when they had to take the people that aren't covered
appropriately by health insurance and will not be accepted by the
private hospitals.

III JUNIOR LEAGUE LEADERSHIP, 1949-1958
[Date of Interview: June 30, 1988] ##

Organization and Board Tr ai ning

Morris: I wondered what kind of orientation you received in those days in
the Junior League.

Luttgens: I think it's pretty much the same as it is now. It was a look at
county government, agencies. They were able to get wonderful
speakers, outstanding people who were involved in the community,
to talk. As I recall, my provisional course was one morning a
week. Now they give a lot of it in the evening because there are
so many professional members. I don't know that the mayor ever
spoke, but the head of the welfare department, Ron [aid] Born,
talked and the head of the health department, to give the new
members a sense of community needs and what was going on. They
had private agency people who were invited to talk about what
their agencies were doing in the areas of health and welfare and
education and so forth.

Morris: Just for the provisional members?

Luttgens: Just for the provisional members. As far as I know, it still
follows the same pattern, it's to acquaint them with the
community and the community's needs and give them a sense of the
players in the community. They were always able to get
outstanding speakers, which I think is quite a feather in their
cap.

I have been provisional course chairman and chairman of the
provisional s, which were two separate things. As I mentioned, I
chaired the league's cerebral palsy film and the blood
recruitment program and the provisional course. Then when I came
back from Tacoma I did project finding, which was searching out
projects; I was chairman of the admissions committee, I was
community vice chairman for two years, future planning committee
chairman, regional nominating committee, and of course went to

Morris :
Luttgens;

Luttgens: the conferences as a delegate — three regional, one annual

conference — before I became president. It was all designed to
give you a broad picture of the community and in-league training,
good organization, how to work with people.

The league was very much involved in the community. We used
to get lots of requests from community agencies for board
members, because the league members were well trained. That sort
of dropped off for a while.

Did that go through the board of directors?

No, it was done through the placement committee. Placement has
always been responsible for placing league members in league and
also outside the league, like a volunteer bureau. I think we
passed the community board member responsibility over to the
Volunteer Bureau for a while, I don't know whether it's in
existence now, or not.

Morris: What kinds of things did the Junior League members like to accept
in the way of community work or chores?

Luttgens: In most cases they were encouraged to work in an agency before

they were asked to go on a board so that they knew how the agency
operated, and simply didn't come in at the top. Children's
projects were always popular. They did not like very much
working with the elderly. It's interesting.

Although there was a project of community resources for the
elderly that was done one year. The historic sites project was
started while I was president and of course that ended up with
that wonderful book "Here Today" about early San Francisco homes
which is being updated again, as I understand it. League members
were out pounding the pavement looking for famous old houses and
interviewing people.

Morris: Who were the more experienced members that you found particularly
responsive to your interests?

Luttgens: There were a number of very experienced members who really served
as mentors for me. Glady[s] Moore was one of them, who served on
the Recreation and Park Commission eventually, Betty Dwyer was
another past president, Kay Rawlings was a dynamic president,
Skip [Aileen] Whitaker — Skip and Glady followed one another; I
can't remember which one came first. Of course Skip went on to
specialize in the health field, she's been chairman of the board
at Children's Hospital. Tally Kulchar, another one. I don't
believe Tally is still alive. Jo Sullivan, who is not Sullivan
any more, she was one of the very early presidents, whom I knew
later on the Presbyterian Medical Center board.

Luttgens: In my group I worked closely with Gerry Morris Lindsay, whom I had
known at Stanford. I was her community vice president for two
years. They used to do two-year terms. Then they got into one-
year terms. There are lots of ways to look at it. You can do a
lot in two years that you can't do in one, but the second year is
very repetitious, as with any job, and not as challenging.

Morris: Was part of it that women were after a while no longer willing to
put in a two-year commitment?

Luttgens: It's really more than a two-year commitment, if you assume that
you have chaired a number of committees and been an officer
before you become president, it's really a five, six, seven-year
commitment. So I think if you have two years it's a very long
time to be that involved. But we had a good time, besides feeling
as if we were doing something worth-while.

It got to be very big business with — I can't remember how
many members we had at that time, but managing that — interpersonal
relationships were always something that interested me very
much — how people work together.

Project Funding; Youth for Service Film

Morris: Were there any particular areas on the league board that you got
involved in in terms of interpersonal relations?

Luttgens: I think project finding was always something that I was
interested in, because it allowed me to use my community
experience and bring it into the league.

I remember one particular event in connection with project
finding. Youth for Service was just in its beginning years. The
Rosenberg Foundation had funded it. This was long before I knew
that I would be a trustee of the Rosenberg Foundation, It was
really a maverick organization because they were working with
youth gangs in the very early days.

Morris: Is this was when Orville Luster was —

Luttgens: — before Orville Luster. It vas Carl May. He was really the one
that started it. He was a contractor in southern California who
thought if there is good in everybody then there must be a way that
we can involve young people, who seem to be going down a destructive
path, in something that's constructive. He began to contact the
gangs, to get them out to work on projects that he was involved
in. He was doing it more as a social worker than as a contractor
at that point, but he was using his contracting experience.

Luttgens: These kids were mostly black, from disadvantaged homes. He had
to teach them readiness to work. In some cases he or one of his
other staff people would have to go over and get the young person
out of bed and get him to the job. because they just didn't wake
up to an alarm clock and turn up. Of course, they served them
lunch of some sort — brown bag or something of that sort. It was
hard work. In many ways it's like the San Francisco Conservation
Corps now. It worked out very successfully.

We'd got the idea from the project finding people that it
would be a good idea to make a film of this. So we got the
money, we hired the film person.

The president who preceeded me — two before me — was Jean
Livingston. Jean became concerned about Junior League members
working closely with gang kids from a safety standpoint, and
Caroline Charles was an advisor to the league.

I remember being very, very disappointed because the film
was in progress and the question was how was the league going to
interface during the making of the film, because it was always the
league premise that league members served either on the board
during a project or working on the project.

There was a lot of concern, husbands were concerned about
their wives working in this project.

Caroline assessed the situation very quickly and said, "We
have to separate it. You should go on with the grant but don't
put your name on it and don't work with it. Just make it a grant
and not a project." Frankly, I was very disappointed because it
seemed to me that it was possible to work this out. Looking back
on, it I'm sure Caroline was right — the time wasn't appropriate
for that to happen.

As a result this marvelous film, which was used all over the
country, did not have the league name on it. It was a
considerable amount of money, I've forgotten how much it was. So
I felt badly about that. I said to Orville Luster one time, who
succeeded Carl May, "Did you realize the league made that film
possible?" It was all done by the time he came in. He said,
"Yes, we knew." But they just never said anything about it.

Youth for Service went on to become a Ford Foundation
project after Rosenberg finished funding it and after the league
had made this film, and of course it has continued; I've
continued to hear about it over the years. When I was chairman
of the membership committee for United Way there was some
question about whether they were spending United Way money
appropriately, and as chairman of the membership committee I had

Luttgens: to meet with Percy Pinckney and Orville. What happened in that
meeting was fascinating to me because I learned for the first
time about the posturing that goes on between people.

They said they had a secondary project worked out which was
being funded by United Way at a particular house out in the
Mission District. A black doctor. Arthur Coleman, who was also
involved in United Way who said to me, "I think you should visit
that project and go at a time when they don't know you're coming
and see whether there really is anything going on. I don't
believe there's anything going on at that site."

So we went out. We had a little task force, a delegation,
that went out. We had agreed to meet them out there but we went
out an hour early and, sure enough, there was nothing going on,
When they arrived with the crew to make it look as if something
were happening, that is when I said, "We must have a meeting with
Orville Luster and Percy." And we did.

Percy was in charge of the project and there was a lot of
posturing that went on in that meeting. When we walked out I
looked at Orville, I was very puzzled, and he said, "I had to do
that." He couldn't lose face in front of the rest of his people
so he was really challenging us and we knew there wasn't anything
going on. It was a very interesting situation, I hadn't
realized about those inter-relationships within an organization
that made for — it wasn't improper, but for certainly some
interpretation about how funds were used.

Morris: The head of the organization is Orville who thought that he had
to back up his staff people —

Luttgens: That's right.

Morris: — even though he knew. Did you have a sense that he had known

before hand that something was not right with Pinckney's project?

Luttgens: I think he just hadn't been able to straighten it out himself

internally and was called on the carpet and had to take a stand.
That was my impression, And they did cut back on the funding as
a result —

Morris: — United Way did?

Luttgens: — and, as you know, Percy went on to be Governor [Edmund G., Jr.]
Brown's head of something or other at the state level.

Morris: He was Jerry Brown's coordinator of community relations, I
believe.

Luttgens: I think you're right.

Luttgens: It was very interesting because it was part of the upward
mobility which I applaud, but somehow you should do it
legitimately. [laughs]

Next-to-New Shop

Morris: Were there other projects that the league found that related to

growing — ?

Luttgens: The Next-to-New Shop was opened in 1949. That was an interesting
time when we were discussing whether the upper Fillmore was a
good place to have an office. We'd always had an office — first
of all in the Mark Hopkins hotel which they gave us for
practically nothing, as I recall, but it was good for them
because we were coming in, having lunch and so forth.

Morris: You did your parties there and things like that?

Luttgens: — and did our parties there. Then we were at the Miyako Hotel in
the Japanese Trade Center after that, and then finally bought that
whole building at the Next-to-New Shop, so that the offices are
now up above there.

The Next-to-New Shop itself was started in 1949 and it made
a profit of $1,200 in its first year and still is the league's
major source of income. All league members, except the
sustaining members unless they want to, have to put in a certain
number of hours per year at the Next-to-New Shop and also give a
certain amount of merchandise. I don't give much there any more,
but a lot of sustaining members still do give a great deal to
them.

Member Mobility

Luttgens: In 1950 the transfer chairman was created. We never had a

transfer chairman before, but mobility was becoming such a strong
element. Women were coming from other leagues in other parts of
the country and there had to be a way for them to be assimilated,
so they were given the provisional course, or at least a part of
it. They'd had a provisional course in their own league but they
had to take part of the provisional course here to qualify for
membership.

Morris: To become familiar with San Francisco?

Luttgens: That's right, on San Francisco.

Morris: Did many of those provisional members stay with it and become
board members and take leadership roles?

Luttgens: Always in an organization like that there are people who want to
be more involved, given their circumstances, depending on what
their childrens1 situation was, how much help they had, whether
they could give time. They all had to give a minimum of hours
but some opted to do more. Now they're taking in I don't know
how many welcome new actives. The issue of the magazine that I
just gave you will show you almost 100 members in the provisional
class. Whereas in our year, in 19A4 when I came into the league,
there were perhaps twenty-five members in the provisional course.

Morris: What does that mean in terms of admissions guidelines or
standards? Have they changed?

Luttgens: They've changed enormously and I must say for the better, because
the league is trying to diversify. There were no Jewish members
when I became a member, except for those who transferred in
because Portland, for example, had a number of Jewish members. I
can remember when one of the first Jewish members was proposed
and, of course, that's ridiculous to have that — same thing as
Stanford and sororities — it had that selectivity. Now they are
seeking other ethnic-background members.

Sharon Woo was the president here several years ago. When I
spoke to the Long Beach League about four years ago, it was the
meeting at which their provisional members became active. There
were perhaps eight black members in the group* Once that happens
and the transfer process takes place you begin to see mobility
and different kinds of people coming in. It's very interesting,
and healthy.

The last two years I've served on the AJL awards committee.
They have a $10,000 grant from BMW to give to the league in the
U.S. that has established an important project in the field that
the league picks that year. The first year was battered women, as
I recall, or women's shelters. Last year, it had to do with
child care.

It was very interesting when we got up to the time of making
the decision the first year. It was the first year that AJL had
done this, and they had a group of outsiders making this decision,
because I'd been away from the league for quite a while. Lloyd
Kaiser who was the head of Public Broadcasting in Pittsburgh,
Juliet Rowland who is black and has been a member of the AJL
board and is the president of the Pennsylvania United Way. Also
a foundation director I had known in another capacity, Thomas
Beech.

Luttgens: We got up to the decision and, of course, the administrator of

the Association of Junior Leagues was sitting in with us, as well
as the woman who was running the effort. There were about three
leagues that we thought were doing exemplary projects. When we
made our selection, they heaved a great sigh of relief, because
it was a league that was carrying forward the principles that AJL
had enunciated, which was to give full diversification to
membership.

One of the three had refused to do this, and I must say it
was one of the southern leagues. I said to them, "Next year
you'd better build that into your awards criteria so that it is
understood." Now they say, " — and the league that enunciates
fully the policies of the Association of Junior Leagues." Before
that they just had to hope that the decision would be made — it
would be very embarrassing for the league to give an award of
that sort to a league that wasn't in line with the policies.

Morris: In San Francisco did the arrival of transfers, first of Jewish

background and later of Asian and black background, did that make
it easier for the San Francisco League to recruit their own local
members from those backgrounds?

Luttgens: The decision was made before that happened, because we've always
been forward-looking, I believe, both in the league and in the
United Way and in other ways here on the West Coast. It just did
not seem appropriate to be excluding a particular group from
league membership when the purpose was to train young women for
community activities, to educate them and give them an
opportunity to move into leadership roles. The principle of
having members become sustaining at age forty is that you had the
training, now go forth and work in your community. I think
that's always been an important facet. But the decision
preceeded the transfer in, but the transfer in did help.

Fundraising and Allocation

Morris: What's the balance in the league in San Francisco between
fundraising activities and direct community service?

Luttgens: I can't really answer that. The fundraising has grown as the

activities have grown. The fundraising — the community account —
and the administrative account are two separate accounts and they
have always tried to balance one another. In other words, you
have to raise enough money so that the things that the league
adopts as projects can be funded.

Luttgens: I would say that the fundraising efforts have increased

enormously. Not only do they have the Next-to-New Shop but the
two cookbooks have been terribly successful. They now have an
endowment fund which they call the annual fund which they are
encouraging members to give to. I do have mixed feelings about
the fund because it seems to me that in many cases members would
prefer to give directly to an agency than to give to an
intermediary and then have the money allocated. When I had lunch
with the new AJL president in January, I raised this question, and
also the fact that AJL itself is doing fundraising; that, it
seems to me, is a conflict with the local league which is raising
money to fund local programs, if AJL is also seeking to raise
funds from the same sources. But, as she points out, they do
have consultants that have to be paid for and the consultants
serve the local leagues.

To take a piece off the top of each member's dues to support
AJL without additional funding is difficult. They are going to
corporations now to ask for money, and I think that puts the
corporations in a difficult position when they are being turned
to by community agencies as well. I have a problem with the
league, which has a privileged position, seeking funding from the
same people that community agencies are seeking money from.

Morris: There are two questions there. In many local organizations that
have a national affiliation, there seems to be a continual
tension about how much national or state wants and do we get back
in service or visibility, or whatever your criteria are, an
equivalent amount that we send forward.

Luttgens: That's particularly true of the philanthropic organizations like
the Council on Foundations, where a formula for dues provides the
funding for the national organization but a small community
starting out might get more consultant help than a big one, and so
forth. So it addresses exactly what you're talking about. If my
dues are $5,000 to the Council on Foundations, do I get back that
$5,000 in services locally?

The answer always that we gave at the Council on Foundations
was, "You're serving the whole field of philanthropy." That
doesn't sit too well in some places, but I do believe it's true.

Morris: That concern at the local level is addressed at the national
level, then?

Luttgens: I think it's a dilemma. Certainly Red Cross suffered for years

from the view that people here felt that so much of the money was
going to Red Cross nationally and wasn't coming back locally.
The whole earmarking, the whole donor option program at United
Way that really has come about because of the concerns that

Luttgens: people want to give directly to a service as opposed to a pool
which will be distributed at the intermediary's decision level.
It's a tricky business.

Recruiting and Retaining Members

Morris: Who did you either help to recruit, or who came along while you
were devoting a major effort to the Junior League that you
thought particularly promising?

Luttgens: We did propose members, certainly — young women who were in the
community who we felt should be members of the League. Same
thing when you are on the admissions committee — and I did chair
that — however committee members are not supposed to propose
anybody. There were a lot of stars, there's no question about
it — women who went on to play strong roles. Mary Gulp, who went
on to be the director of the San Francisco Volunteer Bureau;
Virginia Duncan, now a trustee of the Irvine Foundation; Cathy
Bellis, active in so many cultural organizations.

Morris: Any who are still working in the same kinds of things you are?

Luttgens: A lot of the people who I worked with, not necessarily those who
I proposed, I still see on one project or another. There's a
whole network of women who had specialized in a particular
field. Patty Costello, for example, is a specialist in the
mental health field.

One of the projects that I did one year before I was
president, before I went off to Tacoma, was something called the
community services committee, which only lasted about two years.

Luttgens: That was really my brain child. It was a way of bringing back to
the league a lot of the expertise that some of these older
members — particularly the past presidents who were working in a
variety of fields — could return to the league, not on the basis
of a lot of work as far as they were concerned; but as they were
working in their particular fields, keeping in mind what the
trends were, what the needs were, and then reporting at the end
of the year to the entire league. Mary Keesling in art, Glady
Moore in the recreation area; Gerry Lindsay was in the music
area. We had one meeting at the beginning of the year explaining
the ground rules. These were all people who had either been
president or an officer of the league who were serving on boards
or commissions in various fields — health, education, art, and so
on. We asked them to keep in mind all year long what they

Luttgens: thought was important in the field, then we had a day-long report
meeting which was absolutely fascinating. It was like a post-
provisional course in many ways.

Morris: Was this for general membership?

Luttgens: We had a report meeting just for the committee, and it was so good
that we then did a general meeting for the membership. I thought
it was fascinating. Others also thought it was extremely useful.

One of the things we talked about, for example, was having a
cultural United Way, because all the arts organizations were
asking for funds with the same people. It never happened, of
course, but it was certainly something which we discussed and
threw out as an idea and is a recurring suggestion.

Morris: That would be in the late fifties?

Luttgens: No, it would have been about 1953, because I was pregnant with my
daughter as I recall; and I think Vivian Raven, now Vivian Cook,
was the president at the time.

Then I went off to Tacoma with my husband when he was called
in to the medical service there, and Sylvia Hunter chaired that
committee the next year. You can't do it every year. You really
need to do it every three or four years.

Morris: There aren't that many changes?

Luttgens: That's right, and it's not that interesting to do it every year.
If you could do it every few years and bring back what's
happening, it's a very quick look at the community and what's
going on for all of the membership, not just for the provisional
course.

Giving for Cultural Organizations; 1980s Independent Sector
Proj ect

Morris: It sounds like the kind of thing that the Council of Social
Planning was a good device — for being in touch with what was
going on in the community. It's interesting that there was a
thought that a cultural United Way might be a good thing. That
was way ahead of its time in terms of funding patterns.

Luttgens: Absolutely, and it still is in many ways. There's been an effort
to get the Independent Sector project called Give Five [percent
of individual income and five hours of volunteer time per week]

Luttgens: started here in the Bay Area. This is a project that is

nationwide, attempting to get people to give more of both time and
money.

When we had some meetings last year, the people from the
[San Francisco] Symphony [Association] were particularly upset
because they felt that it was going to take away from their very
carefully nurtured group of givers and give it somewhere else.
They could not believe the concept that it was going to increase
giving overall. It was in no way a United Way for cultural
organizations, it was simply an effort to increase both
volunteering and giving.

It is now being resurrected. The Give Five idea is doing
very well in places like Denver and Detroit. It has not been
established here.* Someone has now been hired with an Irvine
Foundation grant and there's going to be a meeting in mid-July to
talk about how it can get started, now that a professional has
been hired for California to try to expand the program statewide.

This article in the Wall Street Journal is talking about
increased giving, and it has increased some as far as business is
concerned. So it's happening, but this would be to give it more
of a prod. The national program is headed by Gene Dorsey, who
has been the head of the Gannett Foundation but I think is now a
vice president of Gannett, and he's lent a lot of stature to it.

It pointed up for me the real concern that the cultural
organizations have that they have worked so hard to cultivate
their givers that to put opera, symphony, museums together would
dilute what they're doing and allow people to give less instead
of more. There's some validity to that.

Morris: Interesting idea, yes.

League President. 1958-1960

Luttgens: Going back to the Junior League, do you recall that the

experience of being president produced any particular learning
experience or challenge that you hadn't encountered before?

* A six-county Bay Area program was started in October 1989, with
Neil Harlan.

Luttgens

Morris :
Luttgens;

Morris :

Luttgens

Morris:
Luttgens

Morris :

Luttgens

It was a difficult time because of the spinning off of Palo Alto
and the pulling in of Marin. so it took some skill at working with
that. The chairman of each of those leagues — it was like four
little leagues that had been put together with one umbrella, and
that's always difficult because people don't know how much decision-
making is allowed at the local level if you have a super umbrella.

Just as the Bay Area social planning committees had the same
sort of experience. They were made up of a planning committee in
each county, but with a five-county overlay. Just as United Way had
the same problem, and their jockeying for resources and so forth.

Were there things you were able to do to ease that —

A lot of it is skill in working with people and being able to be
pretty clear about what the guidelines are, of what's allowed and
what isn't, and very close communication, because you have to know
what's going on and at the same time allow enough authority so
that one doesn't feel as if it's purely a satellite organization
in the local areas. So that was a challenge. I would say that
there was a great deal of emphasis on dissolving that unit system.

Did this mean a lot of additional time talking with people in the
different local groups?

An enormous amount of time. I have a friend in Tacoma,
Washington, who's a member of the league whose son always talked
about them being the "meeting ladies," and that term has always
stuck in my mind because the "meeting ladies" were always
meeting, either on the telephone or in committee sessions.

— on

the questions about the reorganization of the local groups?

— and trying to troubleshoot as far as problems went, before they
got out of hand. I think a lot of it was being in touch with
people whose concerns bubbled up, to try to talk with them before
they became real problems. It seems like a small thing now, but I
think, as in anything where people's feelings are apt to be hurt,
a situation can get bigger and bigger because it's not attended to.

Were you already aware of the need for this kind of personal
attention?

It had been going on for three or four years. It really was the
culmination of quite a long period, and we were having discussions
with AJL, as well, about how to do this the best way. We were
trying to get Palo Alto through the process of becoming its own
league, which was also a ponderous process, as I recall. Most of
the attention was on that, but at the same time we were raising
money for community projects, we were looking at new projects — it
was an interesting time.

IV STANFORD HOSPITAL AUXILIARY, 1959-60

Chairman of Volunteers

Morris: Were you already deeply involved in Junior League matters when
you took on the Stanford Hospital Auxiliary?

Luttgens: Yes, I was involved in league matters, and that was very
intensive.

I worked with Caroline in 1964 on the California Association
for Health and Welfare when I was her assistant program chairman.
We founded the Stanford Hospital Auxiliary in 1959 and 1960,
because I was president in 1958 and two people had preceeded me.
I worked closely with Caroline on that. I was the first chairman
of volunteers.

Morris: That interested me. What was it like, going from being president
to being an administrator?

Luttgens: My term as president of the Junior League followed the

establishment of Stanford Hospital Auxiliary, so I really had been
the volunteer chairman before I became president of the league.
That was very much of a full time job. We went into the hospital
and tried out various volunteer jobs in various departments very
delicately, because the hospital people weren't sure they wanted
volunteers. It wasn't very long before they were all clamoring
for volunteers because they could see that they were of
assistance, they were well trained, and so on. So that was fun to
do and very successful!.

Morris: It was the nurses primarily who were reluctant?

Luttgens: — the nurses, the admissions desk — "you can't trust a volunteer
on the admissions desk, for heaven's sakes, that's much too
importantl" Some of the departments, the clinics — I think that

Luttgens

Morris :
Luttgens

Morris:

Luttgens:

Morris:
Luttgens:

Morris :
Luttgens:

Morris:

Luttgens:

Morris:

Luttgens

some of the employees felt their jobs were being threatened.
which was not true in those days. Since cutbacks have occurred
in recent years, that concern certainly could be justified.

You as chairman of volunteers tried out the various jobs?

Yes, just like back at the City of Paris when I was learning to
be the training director — you sell ties in an island, you go into
a department and you guinea-pig something out, you have somebody

with you and then that person carries it on.
effort in each one of those areas.

It's a training

Amazing. How did you manage a fulltime job as volunteer chair at
the hospital when you were doing the league —

I wasn't league president yet. I always juggled the two. I
always did something in the community and something for the
league, so that at the same time that I was taking on more
responsibility for the league, I was also doing an outside
com muni ty j ob.

Like two days a week on Junior League things and two and a half
days on the hospital?

Something like that, yes. It was pretty much five days a week.
I had a marvelous babysitter.

A live-in?

No, not a live-in person, so it was coming home and doing dinner
and that sort of thing.

— being here when your daughter got home from school —
Yes.

How did your husband feel about the volunteer program at the
hospital? Was this something he was particularly interested in?

He thought it was extremely useful, as a matter of fact, and he
could see the value of it — the warmth that volunteers brought to
a hospital setting. Just having somebody come in from the
community — from outside — made an enormous amount of difference
for the doctors who felt that they were abandoned when Stanford
moved down the Peninsula, to have volunteers who were coming in
from the community who cared. And they weren't all doctors'
wives. Caroline had designed that very carefully. They were all
kinds of people, and she very carefully picked people who would
bring various facets of the community in.

Luttgens: I learned a great deal from her during that process — about

selecting people, about building an organization, starting out
with about twelve of us in somebody's living room and having
those twelve decide to bring in other people. The whole planning
process of the auxiliary took at least six months before we even
set foot in the hospital. There was a by-laws committee to look
at the kinds of by-laws, there was a volunteer committee that I
chaired where we considered the possible places that one could
go. We ended up hiring staff before very long, but we had no
staff to begin with.

Morris: An in-hospital staff person?

Luttgens: That's right. Partly paid by the hospital and partly by us. I
think we paid the first.

Morris: "We" the volunteer association?

Luttgens: Yes.

Morris: Did it turn out to be a Junior League project at some point?

Luttgens: No, it was not a Junior League project ever, but there were some
Junior League members that were involved. It was a building
process of starting small and getting bigger and bigger,
enlisting the doctors as charter members, so that they all joined
as charter members. I can remember saying over and over again,
"This is not a women's auxiliary. This is an auxiliary to
Stanford Hospital because it has men members." Now there are a
lot of men volunteers too, I believe.

Morris: I was wondering if there were any men active in setting it up.

Luttgens: Yes, there were. Not in the beginning, not when we were

planning it, but very soon. Particularly, with a hospital
coordinator, men began to volunteer — retired people with
particular skills: bookkeeping and all sorts of skills that a
lot of women didn't have in those days.

Morris: Did the doctors participate in this preliminary planning process,
or did they just get a report from time to time?

Luttgens: They really did not. They got a report.

Some of the volunteers were doctors' wives.

It was one of the last hospitals to form an auxiliary, in
many ways. Children's Hospital had a very going auxiliary, St.
Joseph's followed us, and of course the Stanford Hospital
Auxiliary in Palo Alto followed us. I believe San Francisco
General was started by Caroline. She became quite an expert in

Luttgens: starting hospital auxiliaries, but we were in the ending group of
hospital auxiliaries. There were many that had already been
formed, and one of the things we looked at were those that were
in existence. What were the good things about them and what were
the things we didn't think would be desirable at Stanford.

Morris: What kind of things did you think worked less well?

Luttgens: Limiting it to doctors1 wives, we thought, was a big mistake, not
being broadly available to hospital functions throughout the
hospital. In other words, not just specializing in a gift shop or
something of that sort; although the gift shop came later, as did
fund-raising things; they came later as well.

Morris: That's become a fairly important subspecies of hospital
volunteer.

Luttgens: You mean the fund-raising part?
Morris: The gift shop.

Luttgens: Yes. Almost every hospital now has a gift shop and, of course,
it's a convenience for people visiting patients, to be able to
pick up some little thing in the gift shop to take in to the
patient, whether it's flowers or some cards, writing paper or
something of that sort. It also provides some of the little nice
necessities that normally aren't available in a hospital.

Morris: That's the wagon from the gift shop that goes around to the
patients rooms?

Luttgens: Yes. Then we did the televisions in the patients' rooms that

they could rent, took those around; the library cart which went
around with books for patients to read, and magazines. The gift
shop items were always a big thing.

But again that's something that's under fire; nonprofits
which have an activity which is a moneymaker for the nonprofit
but may be in competition with local merchants, as you may know.
The YMCAs are under fire because they run health activities, and
the fitness clubs feel they are not treated the same way because
the YMs have a tax deduction; they are subsidized, which the for-
profits don't have.

Morris: Was that a question that was raised —

Luttgens: — in those days no, it was not. It's only been raised the past

few years, and there may even be legislation that will limit those
portions of a nonprofit which are profitable, which would be very
hard on the nonprofit. I do have sympathy for the small
business people, but it may be that there's an accommodation that

Luttgens :
Morris:

Luttgens;
Morris :
Luttgens:
Morris :
Luttgens;

can be made that will make it less of a problem for the for-
profits, I don't know.

Has the opposite been suggested; for example, that somebody who's
in the business of running a gift shop might —

— franchise, be in a hospital?

— take over the hospital gift shop and —

— run it on a contract basis?

Yes.

— as a concession or something. I don't know, I haven't heard
about that. That would be interesting to investigate. I'm not
quite sure how one would work that, but there must be a way if it
seems desirable. You wouldn't have volunteers working there, I
don't believe.

Morris : It would be an interesting hybrid.

The other thing I wondered about was if you had any thoughts
as to what effect the presence of hospital volunteers might have
on general concern about health care.

Luttgens: In what way?

Morris: In the sense of whether having volunteers in the hospital led to
an increased awareness of the need for more outpatient services,
for example, or the hospital's problems of taking care of the
people who couldn't afford to pay the going rates, and that kind
of thing.

Luttgens: Very simplistically and not answering your question

appropriately, perhaps, there was always a concern about how the
money raised by the auxiliary would be used. Was it the
auxiliary's decision as to where that money would go, or was it
the hospital's decision? Was it simply raised, was it just a
check that was turned over to the hospital administrator, or did
those that raised the money have a decision about it? That was
one that simply had to be talked out. If a project were adopted
by the auxiliary and then money was raised for it, that was very
simple because it was clear-cat. If it was simply a benefit
without any particular focus as to the purpose of the benefit,
then there had to be a meeting with the administrator to discuss
various options. But again those accommodations can be worked
out. I remember going through a period of having volunteers say,
"We're going to raise this money but we think, perhaps, it ought
to go to this or that," and the hospital's saying, "That's not
our first priority."

Morris: So it was an exercise in priorities.
Luttgens: Yes.

Again, since you're working for the benefit of the hospital,
it seems to me if you make those decisions early on rather than
after the fact, it's simpler for everybody.

Morris: In this case it sounds like the decision didn't get made until it
had already caused some tension.

Luttgens: It was part of a learning process, I think. [laughs] We have to
have a benefit, and so we go ahead and have the benefit without
saying exactly what it's going to be used for except that it's
for the hospital.

Morris: Why did there have to be a benefit?

Luttgens: Part of it was not entirely monetary, but visibility in the
community.

Morris : Oh.

Fundraising for the San Francisco Education Fund and Other
Organizations

Luttgens: As with the San Francisco Education Fund, I can remember when

Bill Roth said to us there, "You've been in business for a year
and a half, it's time you had a benefit." Not only did it raise
some money — not very much the first year — but it did bring people
in to come to the benefit who, because they came, learned a
little bit about the organization.

Morris: Their initial impulse was to have fun doing something, and then
that was the carrot?

Luttgens: Yes.

Morris: What kind of benefits did —

Luttgens: — the auxiliary do? Now they have a big fashion show at the end
of summer, which I've never gone to because I don't like fashion
shows — but it makes a lot of money. I think Saks Fifth Avenue
does it with them.

But at that time we did all kinds of things. I think one of
our first things was a party — a dancing party — I don't remember
where it was. We did a cookbook and we had a launching of the

Luttgens: cookbook where we had a press party in somebody's home. I

remember Russ Lee had a wonderf ul dessert that you make with
liquid nitrogen — pouring liquid nitrogen into a bowl of heavy
cream with flavorings, rum and whatever you want, and it makes
ice cream.

Morris: That sounds sort of weird.

Luttgens: Well, we used to do it here because Bill learned how to do it. and
it was always a crowd-pleaser because this liquid nitrogen pours
down, it falls because it's heavy.

Morris: It sort of instantly chills the cream.

Luttgens: It freezes the ice cream. It was quite spectacular. Russ was

always trying to get Trader Vic's to do it. I was always afraid
it would freeze somebody's toes or something. Plus the fact that
liquid nitrogen is a very volatile material and has to be handled
very carefully. But that was quite successful — the cookbook.

Morris: Was that the beginning of the benefit cookbook era?

Luttgens: Yes, the hospital auxiliaries were putting out cookbooks.

Stanford put out a cookbook, I had one from about the same era —
Burke1 s School put out a cookbook. And some of those recepies
were terrible, looking back on them. Tuna fish with a can of
mushroom soup and potato chips crushed on top, that kind of
thing — just awful.

Morris: Does that take a separate group of people to put together a
cookbook?

Luttgens: Yes, those who were interested worked on the project. The Junior
League cookbooks have been terribly successful, and they worked
for a couple of years on their cookbooks. Then they have to
market them, and that's a whole new world for volunteers to learn
about. I think the leagues have gotten very professional. And
as always there is a bureaucracy that grows up around projects.
There are people who go through the country managing Junior
League follies, which was a big thing that they used to do.
There are people who you can hire to come in and tell you how to
do a cookbook. It's an interesting phenomenon,

Morris: That's a new thought for me. I was wondering if it was the other
kind of bureaucracy in which within an organization one group of
people develops a vested interest in something like a cookbook or
the annual dance or something like that.

Luttgens: I think that's true to a certain extent. The kinds of people

that are really interested in putting on a smashing fashion show
for the Junior League each year, who model in it, who put it on

Luttgens: administrativly. who love that sort of thing — it was never

anything that interested me at all. Just as in any volunteer
work — in that paper that Arlene Daniels and I wrote, you'll notice
there are those volunteers who are much more interested in the
glitzy cultural support kinds of events and those that are
interested in the health and welfare,* Mostly they don't cross
over. There are a few people who do cross over, but mostly not.

There are professional volunteer fundraisers. Charlotte
Mailliard [Swig] is the best example of that. She's just
spectacular.

Morris: Had she arrived on the San Francisco scene by your Junior League
days?

Luttgens: She was just coming, because I remember Caroline helped her a

great deal get started. Caroline knew her in those days, and used
to see her and got her involved in some things like the San
Francisco General Hospital Auxiliary, and so on. Everybody, of
course, wanted her on their board.

Morris: Did she come to town already —
Luttgens: She came from Texas.
Morris: — known for her skill in —

Luttgens: I forgot where she was working. She got involved with

[Congressman and Mayor] Jack Shelley's political campaign
somehow.

Morris: The Mailliards in general as a family have a long history of
being —

Luttgens: — community service-minded, absolutely.

Morris: A lot of people don't make the crossover between good works and
politics, but the Mailliards —

Luttgens: — did, yes. It's interesting, because I have never been involved
in politics and don't feel particularly guilty about it — I always
vote. But when people write me and ask me to support their
candidacy I usually would prefer not to have an out-front
position. I might do something privately, but it's just not my
cup of tea. It's a very important aspect, I think, but it's just
not what I enjoy doing.

*Board Membership and the Volunteer Career, Leslie Luttgens and
Arlene Kaplan Daniels, preliminary draft, November 2, 1976.

V FRIENDS OF THE SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY

Going on the Board, 1966

Morris: You did get involved in the Friends of the San Francisco Public
Library and going on its board. Is that a niayoral appointment?

Luttgens: No. The Library Commission is. of course, but the only two

honorables I have, one is the Private Industry Council (they have
a nominating committee and the mayor appoints to the Private
Industry Council) and the other was President Reagan's Task Force
on Private Sector Initiatives. Of course, he made the
appointments, but there was a considerable screening process for
that.

Morris: You mentioned that you had done some library work —
Luttgens: — in Rochester, yes.
Morris: — as a young woman.

Book Sales

Luttgens: When I went on the board of the Friends of the Library, it must
have been 1965. The person who suggested I go on said, "They're
a creative, not very organized group with the most worthwhile
purpose" — I think that's still true. In my experience with the
library it's a very dedicated -group, very expert group in their
field, but organizationally not particularly knowledgeable.

Certainly that first book sale we held in 1965 was a real
example of no n- organization. The books were all scattered on
tables, there was no order to them at all.

Morris: This is surplus books from the library?

Luttgens: No. these were books people had donated, and there may have been
some surplus books. The library had first choice to look through
and see if there was something that was out of print that they
wanted in the collection so they would take them prior to the
sale. Also the volunteers became very possessive about the
books. They felt if they had seen something that they really
wanted, they would buy that first. I always had some problems
with that, because I was afraid all the good things would be gone
before the public was able to come in, and the purpose of giving
books was to sell to the public, not to the volunteers.

Some of us were able to at least organize the books so that
they were by field of interest or area, as opposed to just all
jumbled together, which would have taken people so long to look
through. Since I think they raised — I've forgotten how much they
raised this last year, but now it's their biggest money-raiser and
it goes on almost all year round. They're now selling
paperbacks, so that they have these mini-sales in between the big
book sale.

Morris: The first sale, do you remember did you get the kind of public
response that you had hoped for?

Luttgens: Absolutely. We were staggered.
Morris: Really?

Luttgens: Absolutely staggered. It was held at what is now the Lurie Room
at the San Francisco Public Library — the main library — and we
outgrew that in a year and had to go over to one of the wings of
the Civic Auditorium. It's grown year after year.

Morris: Was there a lot of publicity, or was it just something that
people really —

Luttgens: I think there was quite a bit of publicity about it, certainly in
the library; so people who were interested in books were already
there, and you know what a crossroads that is of people. People
were lined up waiting outside. It was just madness.

Library Use; 1968 Bond Issue

Morris: You weren't concerned at that point about use of the library?
The library has always had lots of people using it?

Luttgens: Always too many, even in those days. We were talking about the
fact that the clientele was outgrowing the ability to serve them.
It is not a well-designed facility, as we know. I think the

Luttgens: recent decision to go ahead with this bond issue is absolutely
right; it's difficult and it may be voted down, but there's
absolutely a need for it. I was fascinated that the bond
screening committee has recommended that they go ahead, even in
view of all of the budget cuts that have been going on, and the
deficit and so forth.

Morris: Are the branch libraries also heavily used, or are there different
patterns from the downtown library?

Luttgens: I think they are different from one library branch to another. I
have a friend who's on the Library Commission now and I heard
secondhand from somebody who's also a friend that the mayor [Art
Agnos] could not have picked a worse place to discuss library
cuts than the Noe Valley Library, because it is so treasured in
that area and it has such heavy traffic; so, of course, all those
patrons came. Now if he'd come to another library that isn't
used as much — actually my library, the Golden Gate Valley branch
down here on Green Street near Laguna, in the block that's
bordered by Laguna, is not as heavily used as some of the others.
But the Noe Valley branch apparently was on that list when a
study was made, as one that could be scrapped.

I do think it's going to be very difficult to get rid of
those branch libraries, because people who can't travel that
far — children are using them for afterschool work now — it's just
an important thing.

Poetry Contests

Morris: In addition to the book sale, didn't you also get involved in a
poetry contest?

Luttgens: Yes, we had poetry contests. Actually, when my daughter

participated it was for both public and private schools. We had
poets judging the poetry, and it was very successful. A lot of
children who hadn't thought about poetry as being something that
was important to do got involved.

It turned out to be a poetry festival after the first couple
of years, because the poets themselves felt that one couldn't
judge poetry, that it should be looked at a wonderful exercise
and something to do, but not that one is good and one is bad or
one is better than another. So it turned out to be simply a
poetry festival.

Morris: Would this have involved any of the Beat poets who were writing
in San Francisco in those days?

Luttgens: The judges were quite a collection of people. They were

recommended by the San Francisco State Poetry Center; that was
the link, so it had some authenticity. Mark Linenthal was then
head of that Poetry Center and he was involved.

Ann Perlman, who has published poetry, was one of the judges.

Morris: How did it come about? Was this somebody on the Friends who
loved poetry and wanted to start it?

Luttgens: I think it came from one of the librarians, probably the

children's librarian, who was very interested in what sort of
experiences children needed to have, that this would be a good
idea.

I discovered something through that library experience,
particularly in the children's area, which I had not realized
before, and that was that children's librarians view books for
children as being experiential, something that they need to love
to come to for learning, as far as enjoyment is concerned; as
opposed to schools which see books as tools for education. The
philosophies are quite different. This is one of the reasons
there are problems between the libraries in the schools and the
public libraries.

School and City Interface; Budget Problems

Luttgens: Later on, on the [State Superintendent of Public Instruction

Wilson] Riles School Commission, when we were looking at various
community facilities and how the schools could interface with the
community, one of our recommendations was that there be a joint
committee of public school librarians and city librarians, and
that they meet together and perhaps have some joint facilities in
some cases. It never happened. You can put all of this on
paper, but if the philosophies are different it just doesn't work.

What's happening because of the budget deficit is that kids
are using libraries, they don't find the school books that they
need there, and they aren't in the school libraries because the
school libraries have been cut back so. At least they're in a
library environment doing their homework.

Morris: — and finding things that the school librarians might be amazed
at. [laughs]

Luttgens: I shouldn't say they never went together. There used to be a
once-a-year meeting between some of the school librarians and
some of the city librarians around children's books, where they

Luttgens: would get together and talk about books that they each had

discovered as being of mutual interest. I think those were very
positive.

I attended one of those sessions. It was held out in one of
the libraries in the Richmond, and that is a very healthy thing.
They really did exchange ideas. I think it was because of that
that later on I thought that they could work together, but there
are some difficulties.

Morris: I wondered if your experience is that people who work with the

library tend to be a different kind of volunteer than the average
United Way type of volunteers?

Luttgens: They come because they're interested in the library to begin
with, so that's one difference. By and large there is some
cross-fertilization, certainly with the education community and
education volunteers, probably less with United Way volunteers.
But I'm seeing people turning up on the Friends of the Library
board now who I associated with through the San Francisco
Education Fund and some other areas. I would say that the
library volunteers and board tend to be more all-inclusive of
diversity.

The current chairman is David Coombs, and he's passionate
about the need for libraries, and very articulate. The other
evening, he told the [Board of Supervisors] Human Services
Committee that his feeling is that closing the library branches
means extinction for those libraries because those collections
will be scatterd, the buildings will be used for something else,
they'll never come back. So he feels that it's irrevocable to do
this.

He's passionate about this, whereas I would perhaps feel
that some of the libraries may have to be closed, just because of
the budget situation.

I think the closing of the business library is a very sad
occasion. Once before it was threatened to be closed, and we
rallied the corporate community and others around to keep it
open. They made quite clear that they would do it for a very
brief time. I don't think the Friends can go back to them again
because I don't think they feel it's that important to them. It
is used heavily.

Morris: It's always crowded.

Luttgens: — always crowded, it's used by a great variety of people, it's
not just business people.

Luttgens:

Morris :
Luttgens

The other thing that's been suggested in saving the library is
that those that use a particular library take out a membership in
it. but that is against the philosophy of free libraries that
Carnegie started years ago.

Andrew Carnegie would have a conniption, yes.

So that doesn1 t seem to be a solution for libraries.

Constituencies for Public Instruction

Morris: There were several points you made in your talk to the trustees
that I thought were interesting.* If they still seem valid to
you, you might like to —

Luttgens: Oh, yes, I think they are valid. We're talking less about the
particular project than some of the ingredients.

One of the things I said in that talk was that this was one
of the first "Friends of" organizations. Now there are Friends
of the Symphony, Friends of Hospice, Friends of Enterprise,
Friends of the Park and Recreation Department. It was a way of
building a membership around a public institution which wasn't
done before the Friends of the Library, which was one of the
earliest ones. What it did was to build loyalty of members who
were there when a crisis came and advocacy was needed. They were
people who already were working there who were committed to the
importance of the institution.

Morris: Was that the idea of the organizers?

Luttgens: Yes, to build a constituency. I just had the letter for my dues
for this year for the Friends of the Library, and it is a very
strong letter about never before has it been so important to
continue your membership sort of thing. They are making a very
strong appeal this year.

Nonprof its can't lobby, so that when we went to speak before
the board of supervisors we went not to lobby but to speak to our
commitment to the importance of the institution and to, in many
ways, try to educate the board of supervisors about the kinds of
things the library did.

*See appendix for Mrs. Luttgens1 notes for Friends of the
Library, 25th annual meeting, 1986.

Morris :
Luttgens

That's advocacy?

That is advocacy. It was very carefully orchestrated. I can
remember one of the members of the board of supervisors saying to
me, "When I look down and see that body of Friends of the Library
I know we're in for some real discussion." The participants were
carefully selected as to variety of people, so that it wasn't
just a claque from one part of the city coming in to speak for
something; and that still goes on.

There is a separate organization, separate from the Friends
of the Library, but there certainly is a relation to it because
they are in good communication, called Keep Libraries Alive, that
was started in the early budget cut-back days, and it is a
lobbying organization. »

—in 1978, 1979?

I'm not sure what year it was organized,
right now.

It is going full tilt

Information vs. Culture

Morris:
Luttgens

Luttgens: The other thing the libraries had trouble with is that it's
linked with cultural organizations. Libraries consider
themselves an information organization where you can get, by
picking up the telephone and calling the main library,
information about all kinds of things that you and I might be
discussing.

The great trivia questions of after dinner conversation.

Yes. And I've done that, not frequently because I think it's an
imposition on their time; but I can remember on a couple of
occasions when there was a big argument about when something
happened or how it happened, calling the reference librarian who
was there to tell you what it was.

Besides that, it's also educational. You think of the
number of people who go to educate themselves, older people who
have graduated from school but who need to find out how to do
something, or just an educational question about a foreign
country. So it's both educational and informational and
cultural. But the cultural — they always get lumped with the
cultural organizations, which is —

Morris: Where do you see them fitting more appropriately?

Luttgens: I think both informational— particularly in today's information
age — which is so important. I also think educational because as
a free library it's there for those people who can't afford to go
take a course somewhere but can educate themselves. So it's a
self-help kind of role.

I think cultural is third and not as important as the first
two. But it's viewed as a frill, which is why it's easy to cut.

Adult Literacy Programs; Organization Building

Luttgens:

Morris :
Luttgens:

Morris :

Luttgens

Morris:
Luttgens

Look at what they're doing to Project Read, which my friend Babs
[Olive, Mrs. John] Gamble has developed now. The project is
almost four or five years old. They are using volunteers to work
with illiterates.

— adults?

— adults — and doing a super job.
the country.

That's a trend that's sweeping

A few years ago when I was on the Gulf and Western [Company]
Major Awards Committee, they selected for one year the subject of
literacy. We had projects nominated from all over the country
that were trying to solve illiteracy and, wow, it was why aren't
we more literate because of all these organizations, all these
nonprofits that are working to do something about it? I really
can not understand* We simply are not reaching the people who
need it most, or maybe the volume is too great. I don't think
anybody realized we had so many illiterates in the country.

Do things like this call-in information service and the adult
literacy program come from professional librarians, or did they
come from the combination of having Friends of Public Libraries
that are aware of maybe different kinds of needs than a
traditional librarian would have?

I don't know how Project Read started. It is not run by
professionals, it is run by volunteers who have become
professionals.

They have extensive training, from what I understand.

That's correct. They do have. My friend Babs Gamble is not a
professional, but she is a volunteer who is so highly skilled
that she was able to organize this. They originally had grants
from the national and state library associations. Now she's out
money-raising, so one of the things that she and I have been

Luttgens: talking about is organization — she had had an advisory committee
which has never had fundraising in their scope. Now they need to
move to a different kind of board.

Babs is a very experienced volunteer — she's been president
of Enterprise, she was the second president of the Stanford
Hospital Auxiliary. She was one of the people who early on was
involved there; she and her husband were in medical school
together. She's a very good friend, and she has not hesitated to
ask me for advice on where to go. She's learned her way around
the foundation network and now uses that. She knows how to build
a board of directors, but she wanted somebody again to meet with
several of the board members to talk about how to build the
organization. So that's what they're in the process of doing.

For something that you would hope would go away because it
would have served its function, they're finding that it's just
the tip of the iceberg; that there is so much need. And
apparently it's not difficult to recruit volunteers, which is
fascinating.

One of the things that Babs has been doing is meeting with
the other regional directors of the literacy program locally, so
that they now have one telephone number that directs people to
the appropriate system. I think the systems are different, I
think they've grown a bit differently. I'm hoping it's not going
to be a bureaucracy but that there is some sense of working
together and communicating for informational reasons.

Task Force Approach to Problem Solving

Morris: You made an absolutely marvelous comment there. Have you ever
encountered a problem that you worked on that has gone away,
that's been solved and you heaved a big sigh of relief, "That's
dealt with, we don't have to worry about that any more?"

Luttgens: There are some things that have gone away for other reasons, not
because the problem has gone away. [laughs]

I'm a firm believer in task forces. If you complete the
task or if it can be done some place else — in other words if you
have created enough interest that somebody else that's already
there in the field can pick up on, you can then self-destruct.

That has to do with the Business Leadership Task Force.
It's an outgrowth of the President's Task Force on Private Sector
Initiatives. It has pretty much sunsetted. When we talk about

Luttgens: it I can show you how the issues we looked at were picked up by
somebody else, and some of them are now being dealt with
elsewhere. *

I don't enjoy staying with something just to keep it
running. I like to break new ground if possible, bring some
people together who hadn't been together before and then see if
we can move in strongly with support for an organization that's
already in the field, and try to strengthen that organization, if
we can.

Morris: Was there any suggestion that you yourself might go on the
Library Commission board?

Luttgens: A librarian did ask me if there was any way that I would be

considered and I said, "No." I don't have a lot of patience with
public meetings. I've had enough experience with them, and
although I applaud people who want to do that sort of thing, I
think I'm at a stage in my life where I become impatient with the
length of time that it takes to work in the public arena. I saw
it with the school board on the rounds for our Riles School
Commission, where there were Nazis lined up one night at the
school board meeting, in the back of the room with their arms
folded and glaring. Every constituent group would come in with a
different appeal and no way to resolve it. I'd rather work
behind the scenes and try to do what I could to make something
happen, as opposed to being out front.

*See chapters XVIII and XIX.

VI ADVICE AND TRAINING FOR NONPROFITS

Hotel Tax Allocation Committee; Board Diversity and Continuity

Morris:

Luttgens

The need for private and nonprofit organizations to present their
views to public bodies sounds like that takes a lot of skill, and
preparation too.

It does. There's an effort going on right now which is a whole
other subject that's related to the [San Francisco] Hotel Tax
Advisory Committee, that I don't believe we've talked about. I
established the first Hotel Tax Advisory Committee for [Chief
Administrative Officer] Roger Boas. We put some organization and
some foundation practices into the allocation of those monies,
which hadn't been there before, It used to be just passed out by
Tom Mellon. He didn't do a bad job, but Roger wanted something
that was more organized.

This year a study was done by a consultant who had been a
moneyraiser for gay and lesbian and minority organizations. His
facts are apparently quite correct.* I'm suggesting that he may
have had a bias in what he was looking for. What he has found
out is that there are virtually no minority members of the boards
of seven major cultural organizations, except the Exploratorium,
which I believe has some representation. The Museum of Modern Art
has absolutely none.

He also studied the staff patterns he found, which are
equally bad. His report picked up on this, and Supervisor [Richard]
Hongisto wants to introduce legislation that before hotel tax
monies or any public monies can go to any nonprofits they must
be non-discriminatory. The fact that there is not representation
of ethnic groups on those boards to him is discriminatory. As a
result of that I went to a meeting with the current members of
the Hotel Tax Advisory Committee in Rudy Nothenberg's office.
Rudy just told us about this, he didn't ask us for suggestions.

* See San Francisco Chronicle, June 2, 1988, Section A, page 1, for
coverage of "changes of eliticism and underrepresentation of minoritie
in city's cultural organizations," and follow-up stories on August 9 a:

Aside on KQED Nominating Committee

Luttgens: I told him about a process that I had been through the last two

years at KQED, where I was the non-board member on the nominating
committee, and we interviewed candidates for board positions at
KQED seeking to diversify by geography, by race, by gender,
particularly, (because there needed to be representation from the
gay community which is criticizing KQED) by skills, making clear
to them during interviews that we might not be suggesting their
names this year, but we wanted to build a pool of names that KQED
could draw upon in the future.

Tony Tiano was always present during those so that he could

ask —

Morris: He's a member of KQED?

Luttgens: He's the executive, the president of KQED. He was always

present. The chair of the KQED nominating committee, 'Zanne
Clark — it was her idea to do this. She is a recruiter for a real
estate firm, and she did a superb job. She led the interview, but
the rest of us all asked questions* We also asked the people we
were interviewing what they wanted to know about KQED, what they
thought about it. It was a very good process, I think.

I said in this meeting in Rudy's office, "Some of the other
nonprofits could do the same thing." I've never seen it done
before, but it was done very successfully at KQED. We reached a
whole group of people that we never would have reached otherwise.
The way we found them was by reading the newspaper, particularly
the business section, to see what names were emerging; by asking
for suggestions from KQED board members, from the members of the
nominating committee, from people we've interviewed. I don't
know how many people we interviewed over a two-year period.

Morris: In other words you were calling cold— names that had been
suggested from various sources?

Luttgens: We tried to find a link — somebody who knew them, and in most

cases we were able to do that. As a result they ended up with a
superb board list last year. I'm no longer on the nominating
commit tiee. 'Zanne was very good; she said, "You said you'd do
it for a year, you were good enough to stay for two, I'm not
going to ask you to do it again." She's no longer chairman of
the nominating committee. They've got enough names to last them
for quite a while, but also there are a lot of board vacancies
this year. They've got to look for balance on that board. They
also have to look for training for leadership, because they have
to look two years down the road to see who's going to be the
chairman.

Luttgens: That was one of the things we were begining to do. After they'd
been on the board (everybody else on the nominating committee was
a member of the board, except for me) they were able to see how
people performed on the board and see who might be a candidate
for leadership. They were sure they had enough people on the
board to provide leadership for the next three or four years; so
they had some experience. I thought this a superb effort.

Recruiting from Corporations

Luttgens: I was thinking about it after our meeting with Rudy, and I

suggested to Charlene Harvey, who chairs the Hotel Tax Advisory
Committee, that we contact some of the corporations. I had
already contacted two who were uninvolved and asked, in one case,
the executive vice president for human resourses; in the other,
the corporate vice president for communications whether they
thought it was a good idea if they were to make suggestions and
if they could interest some of their employees with minority
backgrounds to serve on some of these organizations.

Morris:

In both cases they thought it would be good for the
corporation, that it would be good for the community, and
certainly good for the employee to have that experience.

It's tricky; there are several things involved. One is that
the mindset, particularly on the cultural organizations, has been
getting as much money as possible so that the people who serve on
those boards have to be givers themselves, as well as links to
those who can give. That's one problem which might occur with an
employee who perhaps wouldn't see that as his or her role.

Was this Pacific Telesis —

Luttgens: One was Telesis, the other was with McKesson.

Another thing is that a lot of those corporations don't have
people in the higher echelons with minority backgrounds, so that
they would have to be reaching down.

The mayor is already doing that. Somebody at Telesis who
was appointed to a commission was not well-known in the company,
so it isn't as if the company had the opportunity to recommend.

Morris: In looking for people of minority backgrounds, were there any

contacts with groups like the Bay Area Black United Fund or the
Black Physicians' Association?

Luttgens: First I'll finish the rest of the story.

Having discussed this with Charlene, and particularly the
delicacy of a minority employee being spoken to by somebody in
the corporation and then not have the nonprofit invite to
membership. That is a very difficult area when expectations
are raised that are not carried out.

I had that experience with somebody that I suggested, who
was outstanding, from one of the corporations where I'm involved.
The nominating committee did not invite him to membership. I
heard later that they said. "We don't know him." This was
somebody who was outstanding, who was high up in the corporation,
would have had support from the corporation.

Another thing that one of these men said to me: if somebody
goes on the board, of course, the corporation will support the
organization, so we have to be careful about how much we can
undertake.

The end of the story is that I talked to Charlene about it,
and her mind had been going the same way. She had a grant from
the Irvine Foundation for the Management Center here in San
Francisco. The Management Center has hired somebody who will be
going not only to the corporations but also to the kinds of
organizations you're talking about, so that they also can suggest
potential board candidates.

I think the tricky part is once they have a pool of names
how they match and place; and the responsibility of the
organization that is bringing this person on the board to support
him or her and not have it be just one minority person, and how
they're going to deal with some of the things that may be
different from the way they have treated some of the procedures
it has had before. The board itself needs some education on how
it welcomes and supports a more diverse membership. It seems to
me that if the seven major organizations in the cultural field
would set some affirmative-action goals and then work toward them
that this could be very helpful.

Criteria for Hotel Tax Funding

Luttgens: The way that Hongisto saw it was that the

Human Rights Commission would monitor this. The Human Rights
Commission doesn't have enough staff to do it, so that somebody
would have to be paid for by the Hotel Tax Fund to go over to

Luttgens: Human Rights and do that; plus the fact that the second part of
what he was interested in was that all providers to those
cultural organizations should also be non-discriminatory.

The burdensome, cumbersomeness of that is just impossible.
You couldn't do business with me if I did business with South
Africa or if I had in any way discriminated with anybody. Morally,
that is correct, politically it's fraught with difficulties.

I was hopeful that the first piece, the establishment of
affirmative-action goals and working toward them with a very
simple way of checking on that each year, would head that problem
off. But we are in an era where, because of the way the city is
developing, this is not going to go away and it's going to
become a political issue.

Morris: What did you recommend in the way of foundation procedures that
might be used by the Hotel Tax Fund in allocating funds?

Luttgens: We set up criteria for what we were going to fund. The Gay Free
dom Day Parade, for instance, came to our committee for funding.

This is a recommending committee,
the CAO makes the decision.

It recommends to the CAO,

It seemed to us the best way to get to that was to establish
criteria for different categories. What are the criteria under
which we fund all parades? If they fit the criteria, then they
ought to be funded. That was what happened, because they did fit
the criteria.

Part of the criteria from the Hotel Tax Fund which people
have lost sight of — they see it only as a discretionary fund. It
was established to tax the receipts that any hotel or rooming
house, anybody who rents a room, on the basis of it benefiting the
city through tourists coming into the city. That was the basis
on which it was given for the opera, the symphony, the things
that people come to the city to do. We broadened that because we
actually studied how many people were coming into the city to go
to some of the smaller things that were going on.

Morris: How did you get the data for that kind of analysis?

Luttgens: We asked the agencies to keep- track. We also had some data,
wasn't as complete as it might have been.

We also established the Ethnic Dance Festival, which had
never been done before. That was Ed Nathan's idea. It was just
a tiny, tiny thing the first year, and put on in one of the
schools. Look at where it is now, it's really exciting to see it
going to the Kennedy Center in Washington.

Luttgens: On the basis of people's attendance at events, some of the people
who attend don't spend the night — they come from outside San
Francisco — but they spend money.

Morris: They eat dinner and they certainly park —

Luttgens: That's right.

Morris: — and they buy a ticket.

Luttgens: — and they buy tickets. I think that was the way we got at that
to try to get a sense of how many people. We worked with the
Convention and Visitors' Bureau to get a sense, too. We might
even have had a questionaire that they distributed.

Morris: The Berkeley Repertory Theater does quite an elaborate mapping of
its subscription customers and I was suprised, looking at that a
couple of years ago, at how wide an area they draw from. They
draw from Davis and Stockton and Palo Alto, and this is a 300 seat
theater in a relatively small town. I wondered if some of the
cultural organizations in San Francisco do that careful analysis.

Luttgens: I'm sure they do. For example, the Symphony would have a

computerized record of where their subscribers are from, all
those buses that bring in people in to concerts. The museums
would know about their membership; they wouldn't know about
attendance at special exhibitions.

That was the reason it was set up. The CAO has to go to the
supervisors each year for the specific amount. But part of it
off the top is still going to pay for bonds at Candlestick Park,
part is going to the Convention and Visitors' Bureau. Each year
that this happens the supervisors view this fund as discretionary
money, but it isn't really discretionary money.

I think that the hotel people would be up in arms — they're
not happy about having the hotel tax increased; it's been
increased several times recently and the mayor is asking that it
be increased again — if it were to go to the police, which they
were asking yesterday: wouldn't it be a lot better to have this
money go to keep policemen on the street. That was not the
purpose that it was originally set up for.

It's always iffy, but I do think this is a wise move to try
to bring more qualified minority members into contact with
cultural organizations and others. It'll be a pool that won't
just be used for cultural organizations.

Morris: In terms of the changing ideas on affirmative action, it sounds
like a really interesting plan.

San Francisco Day Treatment Center; Impact of State Policies

Morris: Going back to some of the other things you were doing in your
early days. I don't know how you managed to keep parallel
activities going in so many directions. Could you talk a little
bit about the San Francisco Day Treatment Center and how that
tied in with state programs, and what you were doing there?

Luttgens: The reason I was there was that one of the projects we were

looking at in the [United Crusade] Social Planning Committee, at
the end of that period, was a day treatment center for mental
patients where they could come in by the day and go to their
homes at night.

Morris: — instead of hospital ization?

Luttgens: That's right. There were three cities in California where pilot
programs were started. One was in San Diego, one in Los Angeles
and one in San Francisco. The San Francisco one was set up
across the street from the Presbyterian Hospital. Because of my
involvement in the Social Planning Committee I was asked if I
would serve on the advisory committee to the day treatment center
as it was being established, in 1962.

Morris: — and your experience with Presbyterian and its predecessors.
Luttgens: Yes.

Mental health had never been my particular interest but I
was interested to see whether this would work from the community
standpoint.

I can see, I was on that for six years and I was the last
member. Everybody else had gone off. I remember having a one on
one meeting with the director [laughs] —

Morris: You mean everybody else had retired or their period ended?

Luttgens: That's right. John May was a member because he'd been chair of

the Social Planning Committee when I was on it. Most of the rest
of the people were media people: Phil Lasky, who then was head of
KPIX.

It was a good center, there was no question about it. but
what was happening was that Governor [Ronald] Reagan was
beginning to cut back in the mental health area and instead of
seeing that this was a value as a local development, they were
taking people out of the hospitals up at Napa and turning them
loose in the community saying, "Well, there'll be community
facilities," but there weren't any community facilities. It was
at a time when people who were mentally imbalanced were beginning
to be out on the streets* and of course that's gone on and on. It
was an interesting time to be involved.

I have forgotten the name of the doctor who was the
director, but he stayed with it almost to the end. He finally
bailed out, got another job down south, and he was replaced by
somebody who wasn't terribly competent. He was a psychiatrist
without much administrative skill. The first fellow had
administrative skill besides being a psychiatrist.

What we were really doing was coming together about every
two or three months to hear about what was going on, the status
of the center. We were really advisory and that was all. I
think it was one of my earliest experiences with advisory
committees. The word has always meant to me, "We just want you
here A) for window dressing, B) for somebody who is interested in
the subject and likes to give advice, but we may or may not take
it."

I have sort of reservations about advisory committees now.
Their advantage is to the individual, as long as he or she has his
or her eyes open as to what it's going to mean.

Morris: Does this also imply that in time of stress the advisory
committee takes some of the heat?

Luttgens: Yes, we did do that. The media people were marvelous about

getting information on television or in newspapers about what was
happening on mental illness.

Morris: More media people then is customary on a board of directors?
Luttgens: Yes.

Luttgens: I don't think that Russ Coughlin was on it, but it was a group of
people like that, some of whom were much more conservative than
others but most of them caring about mental illness.

The other thing about an advisory committee is people don't
feel the commitment to the organization when it's advisory, which
was one reason they started dropping off. It looked like it
wasn't going anywhere, so it just kind of faded away and the
project faded away. There was no more money, there was no place
to go for it. That was what the lobbying was about, trying to
keep the money flowing. It had proved itself to be a very useful
thing. Now day treatment centers for adults and the elderly are
going great guns.

It was perhaps the two things: the cutback as part of the
Reagan state administration was one thing, and gradually it was
dismantled.

California Children's Lobby; Need for Separate Research Arm

Morris: We have time for a couple more, one of which is the California
Children's Lobby?

Luttgens: Yes. That one is still going.

Morris: Is that related to the committee that Ruth Chance was on for

years, the Governor's Advisory Committee on Children and Youth?

Luttgens: No. Patty Costello was involved in it, Betsy Haas Eisenhardt
before she was married was involved in it. She was a young
attorney just back from Washington, and cared about children's
causes. Buzz Pauley, a big politician from southern California,
was the first chair because he loved that sort of thing. It was
a statewide committee. We used to meet in airports. It
literally was a lobby for children who have no voice in the
legislature, for legislation that affects them at the state
level.

They also had some media people on the board. They had a
wonderful woman named Elizabeth Berger, who still is the
executive. Liz is in Sacramento, she's a very competent
lobbyist. She saw the need for this. I don't think she's the
one that started it, but she's still working with it.

Ruth Chance and I talked about it and Ruth said, "You really
should have a research arm that is separate so that foundations
can give money to it, because any money that goes for the
children's lobby is not deductible."

Luttgens: I remember going around raising money. I remember going to see

Dan Koshland. It was very early in Patty Costello's money raising
days and she went with me to see Dan Koshland to get some
experience. Now she's a super fundraiser and she loves it. I've
always hated it. I remember going in to see him, that wonderful
man who I'd known through some Levi Strauss [Company]
connections, and Patty saying to me afterwards, "He was going to
give. It just was a question of how much when you talked to him,
how much he responded to what you had to say." I've forgotten
what he gave us but he was quite generous. It seemed generous at
the time, $5,000 or something. We had a very small budget.

We told him about what we hoped to do. He believed in the
principle, and we said, "Any gift you give will not be tax
deductible because it is a lobbying organization." That was
all right, he sent us some money.

That was what we were having to do — go around and ask people
for money.

It was a very disorganized group. We made contact with a
lot of very good academics who were working on studies of what
children's needs were and what needed to be done. It has a very
dedicated group of volunteers, many still involved.

I didn't stay with it because I found it was too hard to fly
to Los Angeles for a meeting. Mary Ripley, my old friend from
southern California, was very involved in it.

Morris: Did it have a specific focus or is it sort of broad — ?

Luttgens: It was following legislation that was in the process of being

drafted and sending out a bulletin statewide to members — they now
had members, they now had chapters — to lobby for or against, to
reach their particular assemblyman or senator to lobby for or
against a piece of legislation. They've been very successfull.
they've stopped some bad legislation, they've supported some good
legislation — haven't won everything. I remember those bulletins.
I finally said to Liz, "Liz, please don't send me any more of
those bulletins." I didn't have time to read it all when I was
no longer part of the organization.

We did start the Children's Research Institute, and I was
the first secretary. Three of us from the California Children's
Lobby board were the three board members of the California
Research Institute, which apparently at that time was supposed to
be okay. You could wear a different hat over here and get money
for a nonprofit kind of organization and still be on the board
over there for a non-deductible lobbying organization. But I got
off the Research Institute as quickly as I could, as soon as they

Luttgens: built something there where I wasn't needed, because I felt it

should have a much bigger separation, that they should be totally
separate.

Jeanette Dunckel is now head of the Children's Research
Institute. They are raising money from foundations, they are
doing studies which are very useful. I know Ed Nathan sees Liz
Berger all the time in Sacramento. I haven't seen Liz since I
went off — I was there five years, till 1975.

Morris: You saw your function as primarily —

Luttgens: — organizational —

Morris: — organizational and fundraising?

Luttgens: I didn't want to do the fundraising but that seemed to go with

the territory. Chiefly organizational and that was the basis on
which they invited me to come on.

Morris: Did you feel as if 'you made some progress?
Luttgens: Oh. yes. I think we did a good job in organization.

Again there were a lot of different personalities. Some of
the people from southern California had quite a different view on
how they should proceed. They had a judge who was chairman of
the lobby for a while — I believe it was Judge Higgenbotham.

Morris: — from Los Angeles?

Luttgens: I think he was from Los Angeles.

Buzz Pauley was the first chairman. His father was Ed
Fauley, the oil man from southern California. Buzz ran for
assembly once and didn't ever make it but he was really bitten by
the political bug and he cared about children. He was not
particularly experienced as far as administration was concerned
but certainly well-meaning and did a good job of building a
constituency.

Everybody came with different skills, and I learned a lot
about children's issues at the meetings: Professor [Robert]
Mnookin from Stanford, who was an expert in the child welfare
field, met with us; Arlen Gregorio, who then became a state
senator from San Mateo (before he was a senator he was an
assemblyman) got involved with the Children's Lobby, a man who
was passionate about what he was doing. It was a very eclectic
group of people who got involved.

Luttgens: It got to be too much for me to try and traipse around the
state, meeting in airports for a day.

Morris: So you were there in its early organizational phase?
Luttgens: Yes.

Mills College Associate Council; Making East Bay Contacts

Morris: Was the Mills College Associate Council a different kind of an

organization?

Luttgens: Yes, and you've touched on something interesting. These things

that I was doing simultaneously required various levels and kinds
of activity, which made them possible to juggle and to manage.
Some met infrequently and required very little in the way of
effort to participate in. Others were very intense. When the
intense one dropped down there1 d always be another intense one
coming along. But they varied as time went on,

Mills College Associate Council I got involved in because
Rob Wert was the president of Mills College and Rob and his wife
had been classmates of mine at Stanford. It's made up of women
who did not go to Mills College. They also have a Mills Alumni
Association.

Morris: Was there the same kind of rivalry between Stanford women and
Mills as there is between Stanford and Cal?

Luttgens: First, when I was at Stanford there were never enough women on
the Stanford campus in those days, and Mills was a women's
college only with no men, so it was perfectly understandable if a
Stanford man wanted to invite a Mills woman out. I don't think
it ever bothered me particularly.

The Associate Council was made up of women who did not
attend Mills — many of them women from Berkeley whom I had not
known before that. That was one of the fringe benefits of being
involved in the Mills College Associate Council. That whole East
Bay group of women who had been working for the YWCA at Berkeley
and for various other activities in the East Bay who I, for some
reason, had never had an opportunity to meet.

Many of them were older than I. Ella Hagar for one, Betty
Helmholz, Joan Lane's mother, Krafty Fletcher; they were all
women who were interested in Mills College. Some of them had
gone to eastern colleges, and there was no way they could
participate in their own universities' academic activities there.

Luttgens: Joan Lane, for example, came on because she had been very
involved in Smith College, on the board recently at Smith
College. But because Mills was here, she got involved (and
because her mother was a member as well).

It was a very easy thing to be involved in. Three meetings
a year, always informational about Mills, always very pleasant, a
joy to go on that campus. I did the same sorts of things I do
anywhere. I participated, and they asked me to be president and I
said, "Fine, " and it was no problem.

They had a terrible time finding somebody to follow me,
because these women didn't want to play a leadership role. They
wanted to pay their dues each year, with some additional for a
scholarship, which was one of the aims of the group. They wanted
to be informed about Mills, but they were not people who wanted
to play a leadership role. Finally we got ahold of Joan Lane,
who was a new member. We were increasing membership, because the
more members we had, the more money we'd get for scholarships and
the more people knew about Mills.

Morris: It was primarily an outreach kind of thing for Mills?
Luttgens: Yes.

Actually a woman who was president long after I was, Jane
Drexler, died within the last two years and left $100,000 to
Mills. And, of course, they immediately got out a letter to all
of the members of the Mills Associate Council saying Jane Drexler
has set such a wonderful example.

Joan Lane called me, and I knew Joan to be a competent
person. She said, "They've asked me to be chair. I just want to
find out if there are any problems." I said, "Joan, it is no
problem at all as far as you're concerned — the meetings that you
have to run, you don't have to be running over there all the time
to keep in touch unless you want to, and it's perfectly possible
if you do want to, to do that." So she became chairman, It was
an easy job and a very pleasant association. I very seldom get
over there now, but am still a member.

We did at that time advise Rob Wert that women were going to
need quite different skill-building. They started a department
of administrative and legal processes which became one of the
most popular majors at Mills. It was started with a grant from
Carnegie, I believe, or one of the eastern foundations. It came
about because several of us from the Mills Associate Council met
with Rob, who asked us if we would have lunch and talk about what
we saw, as women in the corporate world, was needed for different
kinds of training. This does not replace business school or

65a

Luttgens: legal training, but is a precedent to that. It's a mix of
history, economics, mathematics and accounting procedures,
became enormously popular.

I don't know what's happened to it recently. They set up an
advisory committee to that, which I served on, and that was fun
because they had some people from the business world. One of the
things they were trying to do was to establish internships in
various corporate settings for students to try out career choices
first hand.

Morris: Just one course or a series of courses that you —
Luttgens: It was a whole major, with a series of courses.

It became so popular that they built it into the regular
curriculum, as it is funded now without a lot of outside help,
although part of the reason for the advisory committee and the
visibility was they also were looking for some corporate funding
for Mills. That was a nice association.

Finally there didn't seem to be much purpose for the ALP
(Administrative & Legal Process) Advisory Committee, I didn't
feel. They did a little survey and asked everybody. Attendance
was dropping off and so forth. There really didn't seem to be
much reason to have that appendage continue.

[Interview 3: July 11, 1988 ]##

Luttgens: I'm going back now to pick up things you asked me earlier. You
mentioned the Stanford Presbyterian Hospital Auxiliary and one
of the points you questioned was the conversion to Presbyterian.
I wanted to comment that after Stanford Medical School had moved
down the Peninsula and the whole institution up here was really
floundering as to what it should do, the Presbyterian church- -
that was the regional organization- -came in and said that they
would like to be attached to the hospital. Ray Hanson was
extremely active and was the person who did most of the legal
work on the change .

The idea was that the Presbyterian churches would support
the hospital. Quite frankly they never did do very much. The
name was extremely helpful to provide a base but it was not what
everybody had hoped as far as money flowing in and that sort of
thing. So that was a bit of a disappointment.

Burke School Long Range Plan

Luttgens: You mentioned the parallel activities, and we did talk about the
Volunteer Bureau and the San Francisco Day Treatment Center and
so forth. There was also the Burke 's school long range planning
committee .

Morris:
Luttgens

I was on the [Katherine Delmar] Burke School board and was
actually vice chairman of the board and it became clear that the
school needed to change directions somewhat. We spent about
three years studying how the school should change. Miss Barbara
Burke had told us, "If you become coeducational, don't call it
'Barbara Burke 's Coeducational School.'" The point was if it
should be some sort of coeducational institution, it should be
big enough so they could offer a variety of courses. That was
how that worked out.

Had your daughter gone to Burke 's school?

She had gone to Burke 's and that's how I became involved with
the board. I was head of the mother's committee at one point.
Though it was never really my cup of tea, it seemed to be
something I could be helpful on.

We had a headmaster, Nickels Huston, who I liked very much.
He and his wife lived a block away, they were from Denver. I

thought he was doing a very interesting job when he was fired.
I remember it distinctly because he and his wife were coming for
dinner and he called and said, "I don't think under the
circumstances we should come for dinner," and they left San
Francisco almost immediately.

I think it was because the school was going through such a
transition they were not ready for the kinds of things that he
was suggesting that they do. Then they sought a new headmaster
and that was when the board appointed David Fleishhacker , who
has been there ever since.

It was a difficult period for the school. Having been
critical about the board and the fact that they had fired the
former headmaster, I was then asked to come on the board. I
thought, "Well, I guess I have to. If I've been critical I need
to get in and find out what's going on."

So I did join the board and was there for the maximum term
which was about six years. Dr. John Piel was the chairman of
the board and he was very supportive of what we were doing on
the long range planning committee. We ended up with a much
strengthened board and a new headmaster (David Fleishhacker) .
We helped get University High started and stood out of the way
while they raised money and then, of course, we had to raise our
own money. It was a very challenging period of change for the
school .

Morris: That must be difficult.

Luttgens : It's a hard thing to do because we had a great many people who
couldn't see the big picture of what was needed in San
Francisco .

John Piel had a wonderful vision. He used to say, "I have
this opium dream where there will be small elementary schools
that will come together in a larger middle school and be
coeducational and a larger high school that will be
coeducational, or perhaps more than one."

Just today I had lunch with Ray Cortines and a couple of
other people — the [San Francisco] superintendent of schools- -
and I said to him, "What is your highest priority right now?"
He is very interested in having a long range plan for the
current school system. But he also believes in the integration
of all of the school systems from an standpoint of collaborating
in activities- - for example, community service- -for all students
and mix them up — private, parochial, public schools — so that

they learn about other people. I applaud that. I think he's
got a big picture of what would be good for San Francisco.

Morris: Is this John Piel the pediatrician?
Luttgens : Yes.

John was a very good chairman. We opened up a lot of the
process. We had workshops, again the same thing that we did
with the Hotel Tax Advisory Committee, and other activities; we
had a day when parents came and we talked about the school. We
heard from a psychiatrist and some other people about what young
people were really interested in. There was a lot of feedback
between parents and participants. The school hadn't done that
for a long time. They had had mother's meetings where you were
put in a little pigeonhole, but there wasn't an all-school
discussion. And students were present, talking about how they
felt for the first time, and a lot of father participation. It
was a good process.

Volunteer Training

Luttgens: Every once and a while I would be asked to talk on a special
subject that for one reason or another was outside the usual
stock of things that I did.

There was one talk that I came across that I gave to the
Junior League Placement Committee. They wanted me to talk about
interviewing, so I researched how to interview.

Morris: Good, good. I would like some tips. [laughs]
Luttgens: No, you don't need that.

I had fun doing it. I'm going to refer to this pile of
articles I collected, not because it's anything terribly
unusual- -but some of the things were that an interview is
basically a communication system. We talk about subjects, the
encoding devices, transmission, systems , attitude. Remember,
these are for young women who are interviewing other young women
for placement in the community and so they'd want to know how to
interview their peers. "No longer the shrewd detective,
forthright honesty and frankness build a better relationship."

"Interviewing skill rests substantially on developing
skills in human relations," so there you are. Time to think at

the end of each interview about what was successful. There was
something in a book or an article by Stephen Richardson called
"Interviewing Forms and Functions," in which he talks about
guggles. "Guggles and interruptions are discovered on tapes,
usually 'ah' singly or doubly or triply voiced by the
interviewer indicating he wishes to say something." Richardson
describes this as a guggle. It has the purpose of shortening a
response, perhaps necessary when the interview strays from the
matter at hand, usually unconsciously voiced- -"Ah, ah," that
sort of thing.

Morris: [laughs]

Luttgens : Then there is a nice little piece about choosing a vocation,
"Giving advice is like kissing, it costs nothing, and it's a
pleasant thing to do- -there is some relevance to counseling.
Everyone feels qualified to practice kissing and most everybody
does it at some time. Objections to kissing are usually not
clearly stated but are not entirely intangible. Kissing itself
is apt to be so satisfying that there's little tendency to
evaluate it otherwise." Anyway, there's a lot of discussion
about the lead placement interview. "New ways for volunteering
call for use of skills as well as energy, complement rather than
supplement," which was a theme of mine that I felt strongly
about. Volunteers should not be looked at supplementing
something but complementing- -adding to.

There was another special thing I did once on networks for
Alumnae Resources about how networks are formed- -delicate as a
spider web but strong as the Bell System. "Remember that there
are two parts to a network. You aren't just getting something
from somebody but you are there to be of assistance." Every
time I had to do one of those talks I thought it was kind of
fun.

Bank of America Community Leadership Course; Volunteer Career
Paths

Morris: And you were thinking about and speaking about the network idea
how far back?

Luttgens: Must have been late seventies, I would say.

Here's something from 1972, that we did for the Bank of
America community leadership course. I spoke about various new
groups like corporate volunteers developing.

Morris:

Luttgens :

The Volunteer Bureau contracted — were paid, I believe,
through a contribution to the Volunteer Bureau of San Francisco-
-to put on a leadership training course for raid- management
people at the Bank of America. They were set up in the
afternoon, four to six p.m. on four different weeks.

I went to the first session because I wanted to find out
what it was like and it was dull as dishwater. The people that
were there were almost all white males, only two women. There
were about twenty- five of them. They had volunteered to take
this leadership training. The idea was that the Volunteer Bureau
would then place them in a board position or somewhere in the
community.

John May was the last part of the program and I said to him
at the break, "John, if you don't do something to jazz this up
nobody's going to come back next week when I talk." So John
threw away his notes and talked informally about his role in the
San Francisco Foundation, and there was a lot more interest.

I was supposed to talk about democratic principles and I
had heard a very funny joke, I thought, from a woman who was the
head of the Health and Welfare [Agency] for the state of
California. I figured if she could give this joke that I could
use it. So I used the joke and then I referred to it through
the talk, and I think I got more of a response. I started out
by saying, "How many of you already serve as volunteers," and
there were a number of hands that went up. "And how many of you
now serve on a board or a policy-making body?" The point I was
trying to make is that you volunteer if you work in your church
to help others. There are lots of ways of volunteering which
don't mean going to a volunteer bureau and getting a job. I
found out that almost all of them were involved in something of
that sort already, and they needed to look at an expanded scope.
Then I went on and talked specifically about volunteer
activities. This course was a rather sterile function I
thought. It could have been vastly improved.

Did it come out of the Bank of America Foundation?

No. Bill Bessey, who has just finished his term as chairman of
Friends of the Library and had- left the bank some time ago, was
a community relations person; it was not the foundation. Bill
thought it would be a good idea to have some of the management
people be exposed to some volunteering. It seemed like a great
idea, but it just didn't quite jell in my mind. I had the
feeling that the people who had volunteered did so because it
would look nice on their records that they had volunteered--

Morris: --because the front office had said this was a good thing to do?
Luttgens: Yes.

One of the women who was there that day I followed with
great interest. She moved on up in the bank then left. I
believe she's now down at Stanford in the business school in
some sort of administrative function. So she left the
corporation and got involved in academia, which was great.

Anyway, we talked about how you choose your volunteer
responsibility and all that sort of thing.

Morris: Do you think that many people give that some thought- -how an
individual decides on what volunteer activity to pursue?

Luttgens: Yes, I do think so because I have had people, women,

particularly in corporations, who have asked me to suggest some
areas where they could volunteer. I've met with them and talked
with them about what they're interested in and then suggested a
couple of places and made the phone call to somebody to say this
is somebody who could bring something to you.

One woman, in particular, worked for one of the Blues,
either Blue Shield or Blue Cross, and was asked to go on two
health organizations' boards at the same time, both fairly high-
powered. She was trying to decide which one to go on and I,
after talking with her a bit, found that she really was looking
for some visibility and exposure as far as her abilities were
concerned in relation to her professional job. So I finally
recommended to her that one would probably have the kinds of
people she seemed to want to know better and demonstrate her
skills. I don't know which one she took, but it was sort of a
reverse situation. Most volunteers try to demonstrate skills to
get a paid job; here was somebody in an executive, paid job who
was fairly high up who was looking for visibility through
volunteer experience.

Social Concerns and Cultural Boards

Morris: That's interesting. I was thinking about it also in the really
large choices between volunteering in the health, education, and
welfare activities and the cultural organizations.

Luttgens : Well, of course we did talk about that a lot in the paper that

Arlene Daniels and I wrote. I think knowing what it is you want
to do is terribly important. That's why volunteering, I've said
over and over again, offers you the chance to sample a variety
of things. You don't have to get so deeply involved but you can
sense the ambience of the kinds of activities that go on.

If you want to be involved with social things and with the
moneyraising part and the parties then you probably want to go
the cultural route. If you want to be involved more seriously
in issues that have to do with health, education, and welfare
you go another route. If you're interested in the political
scene, which is very fast-moving and very much an advocacy role,
you need to recognize those qualities in yourself. It is not
often that you move from one to the other. You usually develop
an ability and a track record in one area which doesn't always
transpose to another area.

Morris: You classify political activity as a form of volunteer activity?

Luttgens: Oh, sure. To support candidates, to work on environmental

issues- - that' s pretty political, neighborhood issues- -that sort
of thing. I consider that political. I don't mean just
electing officials, but certainly that's included.

Morris: Does that have any implications for how people give their money
or differences in the way you raise money?

Luttgens: It has in the past. The people who serve on the major cultural
boards are expected to give- -they are large-donor boards in most
cases. I think that's changing as they realize that they also
need to reach out into some of the areas where people may not be
capable of giving such large funds but can bring a whole
constituency with them. I think that's changing.

The same's true of the early welfare boards too. You look
back on what Mrs. [Nion] Tucker, recently deceased, did, the
kinds of things she started. Just bringing that social prestige
and the people that wanted to be with her who were her friends.
Caroline [Charles] did, of course, a great deal of that. She
was such a respected person that she could bring all kinds of
people along with her.

Morris :

Luttgens :

A lot of the stuff that's been written about citizen boards
is very old. This was 1970, by Harleigh Trecker. He wrote a
number of things that were very good. It's only recently that
people like Brian O'Connell, who has done a board book for IS
[Independent Sector], and others are now beginning to write
books about boards and about volunteering activities. But
there wasn't a lot written.

When I started to research some of this I had to go way
back to hunt around for things. Trecker had one rather
interesting comment I thought, "Conflict among individuals is
like any form of energy: locked in it builds up pressure for the
eventual blow-up. Permitted to escape bit by bit and dissipate
itself with hasty expedience, it becomes useless; handled with
respect and a point to purpose it's a force which can move the
earth." That's a marvelous concept, I thought.

Here's the one that I know you have. It's the one I did at
the Berkeley YWCA in 1977 when you were on that board.

Actually I'm not sure that has survived,
lot of change.

That Y has undergone a

I'll leave it with you then. I thought if you looked through
these- -I don't have copies of them and you don't want all of
them but I thought a couple of them would give you some ideas .

This was one I did in 1973 when I spoke to the Berkeley
Soroptimist Club. The title was "Human Care Services: Who's
Responsible For What?" Again, I did a lot of research and they
were a little bored with some of the background, but I thought
it wouldn't hurt them to know about what happened in the
colonial period and the federal period and all that sort of
thing, that the first community chest was established in Denver
in 1887. Then really tracing what was happening, with the
government taking on the really massive problems which the
nonprofits couldn't handle; although the non-profits, the family
services agencies, for example, were the first that really
started out supporting people, giving money here and there to
keep them employed. This tied in to what we were doing at UBAC
[United Bay Area Crusade] , because we were celebrating the 50th
anniversary year in the fall of 1972 and summer of 1973. Then

The Citizen Board at Work. Association Press, New York. Also,
Harleigh Trecker, Building the Board. National Publicity Council for Health
and Welfare Services, New York, 1954.

The Board Member's Book. The Foundation Center, New York, 1985.

talking about what was happening in the expansion of community
chests .

Mrs. Luttgens presents tribute to Peter
Arnstein on his presidency of United Community
Fund of San Francisco, 1964-1965.

VII FROM UNITED COMMUNITY FUND TO UNITED WAY, 1958-1975

Social Planning Committee

Luttgens: Did you ever have a copy of the report a committee that I served
on with Caroline put out, that was looking at who should be
funding what? It was set up as ad hoc committee of the Social
Planning Committee of the [San Francisco] United Community Fund,
which was asked to formulate an approach to the study of public
and voluntary welfare services. The conclusion of that
committee was that

the enormous expansion of welfare services in the
U.S., which took place most dramatically in the 30s
has resulted in drastic changes. . .Now public welfare
administers programs which account for by far the
major portion of the welfare dollar. This has
necessitated continuous and careful review of the
role of public and voluntary agencies in each
community. .. in light of the local community's needs
and finances, and with regard for the welfare of
those served.

There is no pat solution. "Necessary information" should be
provided "to make these all important decisions as they arise."

That report which I pulled out was called a white paper.
It started because Msgr. [James] Flynn, who was on the Social
Planning Committee said, "Should we be funding child care when
there is available government money?" It was a very
comprehensive committee. I learned a lot from Caroline's

*" Essential Background Information for Social Planning and Budgeting
in the United Community Fund of San Francisco," February 1961. Copy in
supporting documents accompanying this volume in The Bancroft Library.

Morris:

Luttgens

chairmanship, of course. The committee was authorized in 1958.
The report was finished in 1961. There was one person from
[the] Health Council [of UCF] and one from Family and Children's
Council, and one from Group Work and Recreation Council, so each
of us was developing the background in chronological order of
what had happened in each of those areas in San Francisco. I
thought it was a very useful report.

Members were Lexie Cotton, very involved in mental health,
Leslie Ganyard, Leslie Luttgens , Mrs. Keene 0. Haldeman, and Bob
Sinton. Bob is still alive. Frank Moncrief was the research
director, and Caroline was chairman. We went through the
historical sketch and ended up with no clear-cut breakdown of
responsibility between public and private. The thing I came out
of it realizing was that the voluntary agencies have to be
flexible because they must be able to look ahead and see where
the next issues need to be addressed, at the same time
continuing to support those that are not adequately done or are
misdirected as far as government is concerned. It's an
opportunity for the private sector to leverage some of the
public money available.

At that point, was there a concern about the amount of money
that was being raised by UCF and whether it should be allocated
differently?

Yes, that was the point of Msgr. Flynn's question when some
child care agencies wanted to be supported by the UC Fund and
had been supported by the UCF fund. He represented Catholic
Social Services; his question was: Should we stop private
funding now that there's government money for child care?
That's what kicked the whole thing off.

Luttgens: I know today we are supposed to talk about social planning and
UBAC. I think I mentioned when we first got together that the
way I got involved originally was as the Junior League
representative to the Group Work and Recreation Council- -there
were two of us from the League . I moved up through those chairs
to go on the Social Planning Committee of the United Community
Fund.

Eva Hance was the staff person for social planning at that
point. Ray Baarts was the head of the United Community Fund I
believe --the executive director.

Eva was very good, I think. My impression was that she was
very good. She wasn't a vigorous leader but that was kind of

the role of social planning at that point. They were really
quite organized. Each year they looked at and established
priorities for what the community needed, passed that on to
United Way, or United Community Fund at that point, and then UCF
was encouraged to fund some of those agencies. In other words,
those were to be the priority services.

That wasn't done any more once social planning was
eliminated when we were absorbed into the five county
organization. There wasn't the vehicle to move from the three
structural groups to bring in the problems and the needs and
have them filter up through the Social Planning Committee and
then on to the United Way, to allocations.

Learning How the Community Functions

Morris: When you were invited to become part of the Group Work and

Recreation Council and then onto the Social Planning Committee,

did you see that as a promotion or a step upward in how the

community operated or recognition of your own experience?

Luttgens : Oh, yes, I think so, because I was moving up the career ladder

within United Crusade and then was present at the merging of the
five [county organizations into one Bay Area-wide body] . I was
doing that but I was also doing other things. I was also
working at the Presbyterian Hospital, with the auxiliary, and I
had jobs in the Junior League in a variety of committee
chairmanships .

Morris: The combination and balance of the different organizations you
were working with — did you see that as all part of a career?

Luttgens: I really didn't. I just was enjoying what I was doing, I was

learning things. Now as I look back on it, it was a developing
career but I didn't think of it as that at that time. There was
always something else that was challenging and interesting to do
when I finished one thing. Usually it was a step up or it was a
new area to learn about. I've told you I'm a generalist, I'm
not a specialist; so I didn't feel as if I had to look at each
step of a particular activity as moving up in a particular
field. But overall I was learning organization, interpersonal
skills, how to work with boards and groups, how to draw agendas,
all that sort of thing- -the sorts of things we write about in
the paper.

Morris: And how San Francisco functioned as a community?

Luttgens: That's right, how a city functions. It's always important to

know who's doing what and make your own judgment, and from that
you draw your own network, the people that you can rely on to
ask for advice or assistance and those that turn to you. You
don't always do everything they ask you to do but, by and large,
I learned so much from a great many people that I've always
tried to give back to those who ask me for assistance.

Morris: Was Leslie Ganyard on the committee that Caroline chaired?

Luttgens : Yes .

Morris: Was it a team kind of a thing?

Luttgens: Yes. Some of those people were professionals. Lexie Cotton was
a professional in the mental health field. Caroline, of course,
was a volunteer and Rev. James Flynn, he wasn't a monsignor yet,
was the professional person for Catholic Social Services.
Leslie was the Rosenberg Foundation director; I was a volunteer.
Mrs. Haldeman was a volunteer, she was head of the Group Work
Council. Bob Sinton was a volunteer. So it was half and half,
that's seven people, which is a good-sized committee because you
can give assignments.

Morris: Was that your first exposure to the Rosenberg Foundation?

Luttgens: No, I already knew about the Rosenberg Foundation because of the
project I told you about the other day that the Junior League
did when we were interested in doing something with Youth for
Service, Rosenberg had already been funding that project.

Leslie lived around the corner on Divisadero Street and
down a few blocks. After she retired she used to walk by from
time to time with her dog and would come in and talk. We'd talk
about Youth for Service or some of the other things that she was
very interested in still. She had very bad arthritis, but she
kept very interested in what was going on and the various
agencies.

Five-County Fund Allocation: 1965 Citizens' Survey Committee

Morris: Before the five-county merger itself, there was an effort at

area- wide advance giving. Would that have been something that

you got involved in? In other words, sort of preliminary stages
to the merger.

Luttgens : Yes. In 1965, Austin Morris was vice president of the United
Community Fund of San Francisco. I was the secretary. Peter
Arnstein was president, that's when we folded out [social
planning] . But this is the appraisal of Federated Financing and
Community Planning for Health and Welfare in The Bay Area--

Morris: That's an impressive file.

Luttgens: "--final reports of the Citizen's Survey Committee and the

report to the board of directors in June of 1965 recommended
that the board should take positive action to support the three
major recommendations of the report. One, the formation of a
bay-wide planning organization; two, budgeting by UBAC on a Bay
Area basis; and three, the strengthening of UBAC and the merger
of the county united funds into the UBAC corporate structure."

All of the recommendations were listed. There was a lot of
back and forth, there was a lot of give and take. The San
Francisco Fund was the most highly organized and therefore it
gave up its three councils so that each county had a similar
structure. It shoved the social planning function into the Bay
Area-wide area. One of the recommendations was that there be
uniform inclusion or exclusion throughout the Bay Area of the
same service agency. In other words, if an agency were present
in one county it should be present in all. Of course, they
weren't all present in all counties.

Morris: Can you recall an example? I think about the Girl Scouts and
Boy Scouts which are in every Bay Area county.

Luttgens: --and American Red Cross, Family Service Agency comes to mind.
I believe there was a Family Service Agency in each county.
Three agencies were concerned, the San Francisco Heart
Association, the San Francisco Association for Mental Health,
and the United Cerebral Palsy Association of San Francisco.
It's my recollection that there were not local groups, they were
all San Francisco-based and funded.

Morris: The San Francisco groups of these three agencies that had a
presence that reached out to the other four counties?

Luttgens: That was the idea, that services one county had, all counties
should have. The United Community Fund of San Francisco had
more reserves than the rest so the question was: What do you do
for the donors that have left money to San Francisco? There
were a lot of things that had to be ironed out. It was not an
easy time at all.

Morris: What kinds of other differences were there that you became

concerned about with the other counties? In other words, what
did Alameda or Contra Costa County have as either their unique
strengths or--

Luttgens: I don't recall specifically, but San Mateo was also always sort
of the recalcitrant member. They wanted to go it on their own.
One thing I'm picking up here, the hospitals were part of the
San Francisco scene but I gather were not in the other counties

It was at that time that San Francisco hospitals were
dropped out of the fund because they couldn't separate the
hospital budgets carefully enough to see where the United
Community Fund monies were going. It was going into one fund
which was the hospital fund, but they couldn't delineate them
carefully enough to assure that they were providing services
earmarked for indigent patients as opposed to providing
operating funds for the core hospital. That was a very sore
point for many years.

After that, the only hospital or health funding that was
done was for special services like mental health, for example,
in those hospitals that had mental health services. It was an
angry kind of action that went on because the hospitals felt as
if they had been shafted. United Crusade didn't know how to
handle it too well. There was a committee that looked into it.

A Separate Bay Area Social Planning Council; Perception Problems

Luttgens: Remember, it was at this time that Bay Area Social Planning
[Council] was formed and taken out of the United Crusade
structure. BASPC became a separate entity funded by United
Crusade and was f ive-countywide . The understanding was that
United Crusade would provide X number of dollars. I wish I
could remember exactly because it was a substantial amount when
it was first formed. It supported a fairly large staff. Then
BASPC would contract with the United Bay Area Crusade to do
reports for admissions and for special projects that were
requested by the Crusade. This is the first report, for June of
1970 to 1971, a program report for the Bay Area Social Planning
Council. The kinds of things that they did were services to the
United Bay Area Crusade, services to voluntary community
agencies and organizations, services to governmental agencies,
and other major community services. That was a point that
became very sticky.

United Crusade on the one hand was saying we can't give you
as much money as you would like --it was in the nature of
$700, 000- -so you have to start generating some of your own
money. That was when BASPC started to serve other agencies for
a fee so they weren't totally reliant on the United Crusade
money. In other words, United Crusade was saying we aren't
going to sit by and fund you and have you do studies for all
these other groups that really aren't doing anything for us.
We'll only pay for the services you provide us.

So BASPC still continued to provide services to the budget
panels, did admission studies for the membership committee and
did special studies. I have a whole box full of special
studies .

Morris: I remember things like mental health services and mental

retardation services. There were staff people but then there
were large advisory bodies that were not only private agency
board members and staff but governmental.

Luttgens : That's right. They sought a mix. Mortimer Fleishhacker , Jr.
was the first chair of the Bay Area Social Planning Council.
They fed in a lot of the people who had served on the Bay Area
Welfare Planning Federation, but also tried to open up and bring
in some government people. They had private -agency people and
public -agency people on the board.

In 1969, I was elected chairman of the Bay Area Social
Planning Council's San Francisco operations. I had served on
the Bay Area Social Planning Council from the beginning. But
each county had its own county planning group. United Crusade
had a group in each county also- -trustees . So you have an
enormous number of volunteers, and in many ways that was good
because people were involved. Some were involved in planning,
some were involved in United Crusade, I was involved in both. I
served on the board of both of them, chaired the San Francisco
Social Planning Committee, was vice chair of the San Francisco
Crusade trustees along with chairman Dick Miller. I had feet in
both places and was hearing the problems that were going on from
both sides.

I can remember Larry Hoyt . f rom Southern Pacific, who was
very involved in campaigning. I can remember him saying to me,
"Leslie, I wish you'd tell me what the Social Planning Council
does. It's getting an enormous amount of money from the
Crusade," so I tried to explain to him but he really didn't see
the value of planning.

Morris :

Luttgens

Morris:
Luttgens

Morris :

Luttgens

So they were tieing the social planning budget to services
provided to UBAC, not to providing planning services for the
whole Bay Area.

It was money that child care agencies and health and welfare
agencies did not have?

That's correct. I thought these BASPC studies were valuable.
They made recommendations on other major community service areas
that the Social Planning Council thought were important to the
Bay Area. There was a study of Chinese newcomers in San
Francisco, - -

What's the date on that?

--1970 to 1971. That study was chaired by Stanley Mosk; Harry
Low served as vice chair. It included a number of members from
the Chinese community. I remember attending their meetings
because I was chairing the San Francisco Planning Council at the
time. The availability and use of emergency funds in San Mateo
County was another. A position paper on public welfare and
poverty, a position paper on housing for San Francisco skid row
residents, information and referral services in San Francisco- -
I've got probably the biggest file you've ever seen on
information and referral, that committee went on for years and
years- -unmarried mothers in the Bay Area.

These recommendations were perceived as coming from outside
of the individual county agency structure. They came from
county units of the Bay Area Social Planning Council. They had
no relation to United Crusade activities except in the larger
sense. And they did not come about as a request from the United
Crusade. They had to generate money for these or else have them
paid for by United Crusade, and that's where the bad feeling
began to develop. In many parts of the country, social planning
was becoming an integral part of United Crusade whereas in the
Bay Area we'd gone the other way. It now was a separate entity,
had a life of its own, had to raise money, was going to
foundations for money, was going not to individuals but getting
money from United Crusade.

Do you remember why the Bay Area went the divestment route when
other United Crusade communities were going to consolidation?

Because the Citizen's Survey Committee thought that's the way it
should be done. My theory is that almost everything has been
done. It's a question of which way — which combination- -you' re
going to do each year--

Morris :
Luttgens
Morris :

Luttgens

Morris :
Luttgens

--is going to work for your individual situation.

--and I frankly have forgotten the reasons why it happened.

It must have been odd to have been the president of the San
Francisco unit and also on the area-wide board of such a thing.

No, that was normal. In other words they had- -you' re speaking
of social planning?

Right.

That was normal. The chair of each of the county units of
Social Planning also served on the overall board. That was the
whole regional structure — regional spreading out to local. In
the United Crusade it was the same thing except that the trustee
bodies were quite separate. They really did not do very much
for the trustees.

--because the staff was the--
There wasn't a lot of staffing, no.

The current United Way has gone through a period of
developing two structures at the county level again. They don't
call them planning, they call them agency relations and campaign
as I recall. But they are, in most cases, unduplicated citizen
bodies in each county. My concern about that has always been
that it takes a lot of money to housekeep those large groups of
volunteers. If they pay off in terms of bringing in more money
for the campaign, representing a more diversified citizen
membership through agency relations, then it may be worthwhile.

But I have had sort of a dim view- -sort of a deja vu
feeling about we've been through this. My chief problem in
having the local groups reporting to a centralized body is that,
unless you're very clear about the expectations of what the
local group is supposed to be doing and what the limitations of
what it can do are, you get into a very provincial situation
where Marin is saying we're not getting enough money for thus
and so, and San Mateo is saying you're not paying enough
attention to our needs, and there's a lot of squabbling there
and a lot of bad feeling. I'm not saying that's true, I'm
saying that's something that is possible and it's one of the
things that was painful to work with in the early days of United
Crusade and the Social Planning Council, where the groups were
looking askance at one another.

Morris: If I remember correctly, Florette's [Pomeroy] view was that the
goal was always seen, by the United Crusade professionals and
probably select trustees, as being an eventual merger of the
campaign fundraising and the allocation and social planning on a
five -county basis.

Luttgens : Well, actually that's what happened when the Social Planning

Council was pretty much done away with. It was all brought in
under one roof. Then it's moved out again recently, that's
really what I was referring to.

Emmett Solomon was head of the Citizen's Survey Committee
when he was chairman of Crocker Citizens' National Bank. They
did accept the report. They said it should not be accepted as
an absolute blueprint, that an implementing committee would have
to deal with further clarification of local planning vis-a-vis
central planning. There needed to be a coordinated approach to
national, state, and local foundations, there was a need for
recognition for district councils in San Francisco extensions.
We had four district councils in San Francisco.

Morris: --within San Francisco City?
Luttgens: --I'd forgotten about that.

We had an information and referral service which was five-
county wide, which was dropped after about two years because it
was so expensive to run. That's why I had such a big file,
because I felt strongly they shouldn't drop it. I thought it
was too important to maintain and, of course, people are still
trying to bring it back- -it has been redeveloped at United Way
again.

Morris: Does the improvement of computer services make keeping an
information and referral service- -

Luttgens: --much easier. Actually it was started outside United Way by a
group called Project One as I recall. They were using
computers. They sold their product to the Social Services
Department--! think it was $100 a year for each agency that
participated, which was not very much, and it would be updated
from time to time. I think the Social Planning Council was
pleased when somebody else developed it. I think United Way
eventually plugged into it, too. But Project One isn't going
any more. I don't remember the evolution from Project One to

•

See Florette White Pomeroy, The Caring Spirit. California Social
Welfare Issues. 1932-198? Regional Oral History Office, University of
California, Berkeley, 1984.

the present information and referral system at United Way.
There's no question but what it's a lot easier. They do use
some volunteers.

I'm trying to see if are any other points in here. These
were the concerns that the agencies raised. The difference
between national agencies and local agencies was hotly debated,
The national agencies, as I recall, were sort of grandfathered
in and the local agencies had to establish their need to be in,
As I pointed out earlier, there was supposed to be the same
agency in each county or similar services in each county.

Hospital Funding Issue, ca. 1970

Luttgens : No specific references made to the participation in Crusade by
San Francisco hospitals, "however, in view of the history of
objection by some counties to their inclusion, the board of UCF
[United Community Fund] points out the necessity of assurance of
their continued support substantially at the present level until
such time as another level of UBAC support shall be determined
by a competent body mutually acceptable to UBAC and the
hospitals involved." That was the committee that was put
together to look at it. As I recall it acted as I described,
that only prescribed services would be supported.

Morris: I get the feeling, maybe just because we're talking about it

together, that the hospital fund would be about the same kind of
dollar amount as the social planning function.

Luttgens: I've forgotten how much it was.
Morris: --a sizable piece of money?

Luttgens: It was a sizable piece and the thing that they were really

concerned about was it was starting a new era in health care.
As you recall, the government was getting into much more
funding. Mark Berk, the director of the Mt. Zion Hospital, who
was a brilliant man- -I can remember Mark saying, "This will all
be moved. Everybody will have to have health insurance and the
government will be there providing a lot of the money. So
there's a period of transition, but it should be taken care of
elsewhere . "

y/y/

Morris: The pendulum has swung backwards now?

LuCtgens

Morris :

Luttgens

Morris :

Luttgens

Morris :
Luttgens

The pendulum has swung back to the place where hospitals are now
providing some care again through volunteer doctors, which had
been thought was not going to be needed- -everything would be
reimbursed by the government. But, as you know, because of the
government cutbacks there are people in the middle that are
being dropped and are not getting care. The very poor are
receiving care, but some of those that are a little bit further
up the economic scale are not. The county hospital- - the general
hospital- -isn' t able to provide as much care as it could and
again hospitals are talking about, as a community service,
providing some services to people. So back around the circle
again we go. There is a lot of hot discussion. One of the
groups that was concerned about their role was the agency
representatives body, because they saw themselves being shut
out. There had been a group of agency heads who had a very
strong role in what was going on- -agency executives- -and that's
what Florette, I think, may have been referring to also. They
were very unhappy about this. There was a group then
established for the agency people but a lot of the damage was
already done. They felt they had become second-class citizens.

The idea of an association of agency executives did not work out
very well in practice, is that what you're saying?

As I recall--! was lucky to see what was said here in the
comments from the agency representatives to the plan. San
Francisco felt that with Bay Area budgeting their agencies would
not get the level of funding that they had gotten before.
That's what they thought they were having to give up. Rather
than bringing services up to the San Francisco level, they felt
San Francisco services would be pulled down. Hospital
representatives were very vigorous and had great concern about
their continued relationship. I'm looking to see what they said
about their own role. I can't find anything specific. But
there was a lot of anxiety on their part.

Was there anything that you could do as one of the social
planning leaders to resolve their anxieties?

L'm sure we had agency executives on our council. Let me see if
I can look through these names quickly. Yes, Gil Marquis who
was head of the Association for Mental Health, Eugene Boyle,
while he was pastor at the Sacred Heart Church. They're really
pretty largely volunteers from a variety of backgrounds.

You have David DeMarche as the staff person.

Yes, he was the staff person and was a very, very good support
person for Florette, and very good with the group, easy — not a

hard driving person at all. Ray Baarts, I guess, was still head
because I remember Florette's interview indicated that she would
have been a superb executive but it just was not the time for a
woman- -they weren't ready, let's put it that way.

Morris: I was thinking about this specific matter of resolving the
anxieties of the agency people.

Luttgens : I think we simply had to work through and try to keep the

communication open so they didn't feel shut out. In looking
over this list, I don't see very many people who were agency
people. Somebody from the San Francisco Council of Churches,
Alan Wong for the YMCA--I'm only counting about four people --
Joe Mignola who was then assistant director of Public Health
Hospital Services, Earl Raab from the Jewish Community Relations
Committee. Almost everybody else was a volunteer of one sort or
another. So they just didn't have the strong role they had had
before. They didn't have their councils, their Group Work,
their Health, their Family and Children, to go to where they
could actually make recommendations that would move up the
chairs .

I look back at this report and I realize what an enormous
effort it was. I really haven't read it for a long time. I'm
just scanning it now. There's something here that talks about
the recommendation that the five county funds dissolve and each
name UBAC the successor organization. The rationale is "the
decentralized structures destructive of staff morale" and so
forth. I need to read that as opposed to just picking it out of
the blue.

Fundraising: Women as Vice Chairs

Morris: To what extent did you also get involved in the annual
fundraising campaign side of the--

Luttgens: I was never involved in the campaign except as an individual

campaigner who had a very small assignment. I never headed the
campaign, which was the usual route to become president of
United Crusade.

Morris: --via campaigns?

Luttgens: That's right. You became campaign chairman and then you became
president after that, and that was the route then. See, I
skipped that whole piece. I worked on the campaign, as I think

Morris :

Luttgens

Morris:
Luttgens

Morris :

Luttgens

Morris :

Luttgens

I told you before, when I was with the Junior League as an
individual volunteer. I worked with the women's cabinet which
did some campaigning, but I was never an officer of the
campaign. As president of United Crusade, I attended the
campaign cabinet which was all men, breakfast meetings at the
hotels at seven- thirty in the morning, and sat there while the
campaign chairman reported and I brought the word from United
Crusade--you know, "Keep up the good fight," and that sort of
thing. But I was really just there as an organizational head
and to say a few inspiring words.

When the merger came about, where did you then end up in the new
United Way organization?

I was on the board of each of the structures- -the Bay Area
Social Planning Council and the United Bay Area Crusade. I was
a member of the San Francisco Crusade unit and I was a member of
the San Francisco Social Planning Council and then it was out of
that that I moved into the additional responsibility to chair
the San Francisco Social Planning Council in 1969 and to be vice
chair of the San Francisco unit of United Crusade. Actually I
really ran the San Francisco Crusade unit. Dick Miller wasn't
very active.

--because of his own other business responsibilities?

He worked for PG&E; his mother, of course, was Mrs. Robert Watt
Miller. He just wasn't a very active person. He was very good
about coming to meetings, chairing meetings--! think he liked
being involved- -but I don't think he had a great vision as to
what we should be doing. As a matter of fact, I'll have to look
back over my file and see what we were doing.

Would it be because he knew that he had somebody very
responsible and competent as his vice chair so that he could- -

I think maybe it was the other way around; because he wasn't
doing anything, and I filled the vacuum. That's sort of the
feeling I have.

Does that happen very often? It's a fairly large board of
directors, isn't it, to fill it with people who are going to
spend equal amounts of time and thought? It seems to me to be a
complicated and difficult problem.

.think that women generally have played that support role; many
times they are running the organization for a busy figurehead
man who exemplifies something to the community. "This is a man
in business who is putting time in on this." I think that's

changing as men see that they can really do a great deal more
than just be named president and preside at meetings. But it's
been my experience that in many cases women were the ones who
were really running the show as vice chairmen. Now I'm getting
the credit for being out front.

United Bay Area Crusade New Directions Study. 1968-1971:
Concentrated Services Committee: Response to Third-World Grouos

Luttgens : Here's a 1970 report from the United Bay Area Crusade which

shows Larry Boiling as the General Budget Committee chairman and
Bob Harris as president, Leslie as the Membership Committee
chairman discussing that concentrated services area that we
talked about and the county trustees. "Chairmen of trustees in
each county also serve as vice presidents of UBAC . . . The elected
trustees are chosen on their records of outstanding civic
leadership and knowledge of their counties resources and needs.
These men and women as individuals and as a group provide an
effective voice in Bay Area organizational policies and
decisions ... continuous refreshment of volunteer enrollment in
local campaign performance and in the relationship of UBAC to
its member agencies.

Vice chairmen for these five counties are Mrs. Patsy Sheath
in Alameda, Mrs. Jan Bonner in Contra Costa, Edwin Johnson in
Marin, Mrs. Luttgens in San Francisco, and Jerome Taheny in San
Mateo .

Morris: By this time, your Concentrated Services Committee is the

organized response to increasing activism of some neighborhood
groups- -

Luttgens: Third-world groups they call themselves.

Morris: When do you recall the concern surfacing and becoming something
that--

Luttgens: Well, that's 1970 and we obviously were making some grants at

that point. This is that New Directions study and again this is
the background document. And this is 1971. This was when we
adopted new directions for UBAC and we had new eligibility for
Crusade funding. We established priorities for concentrated
services and that was when we developed this delivery system for
neighborhood services, day care services, drug abuse services,
and comprehensive health services. That's the committee that I
chaired.

They assigned $700,000 to implement other new directions,
concentrated services programs in 1971. There were already some
monies that were allocated in 1970 which is what made up that
million-dollar fund that I mentioned. That came out of this New
Directions report.

Morris: I was thinking about it the other way around. I have been told

it was a fairly vociferous protest to how UBAC was operating.

Had there been some negotiations with third-world groups earlier
on?

Luttgens: Yes. As I think I mentioned to you, there was a committee that
was established to meet with the La Raza people, we met for over
an year. That was during Bob Harris' term of office. That was
a result I think of the--

Let's see, Jerry Hull followed Bob Harris and it was during
Jerry's term that the groups joined forces. Some of the black
agencies and the Asian and the Hispanic.

[Interview 4: July 19, 1988 ]////

Luttgens: This was the report of the Welfare Planning Committee that
Caroline Charles chaired.

Morris: Okay.

Luttgens: The committee was set up in 1959 and the report was issued in

1961. Again, it includes a wonderful summary history of health
and welfare nationally and then in San Francisco. But some of
the fundamental issues raised sound very similar to some of the
later major New Directions report and then the 1982 Strategic
Planning Report. I think that relates to what you were saying
about change coming from many sources.

In the 1961 report, some of the things that you mentioned
in your outline were comments that the budgeting committees were
short on advice from social planning groups and that was wrong
because that made the budget committees social planners. There
was a question in the report about whether member agencies
considered their potential for public funding and a need for
evaluating agency leadership and programming, a need for uniform
statistical accounting and a need to go over and verify what was
acceptable in the way of supplemental income efforts of
agencies. Those kinds of questions seem to continue.

Morris: Is it that it is impossible to resolve them or did, as
conditions changed, the terms of those issues change?

Luttgens: I think as conditions change, there are different organizations
performing those functions. With Bay Area Social Planning
Council the tensions were very evident in what I was reading.
That came out in the Citizen Survey Committee, which we talked
about last time. The Citizen Survey Committee was 1963-1966.
It was set up by the United Community Fund, and the
recommendations led to BASPC and UBAC. Then out of that came
the New Directions for UBAC, which was done by Bay Area Social
Planning Council.

1969. President. San Francisco Social Planning Council: Juvenile
Justice and Ethnic Studies

Luttgens: Now, what happened after that?

Morris: Then in 1969 you were president of the San Francisco unit of the
Council of Social Planning.

Luttgens: That's correct, and it is at that time that we had a Forum
Review Committee- -January 13th, 1969. This is pretty good.
"For some thirty years the San Francisco Social Planning
Committee functioned as the planning arm of the United Community
Fund of San Francisco. Then in 1965 as a result of a survey- -
that's the Citizen Survey Committee- -this social planning group
and twelve incorporated social planning agencies of the Bay Area
voted to discontinue as separate entities and to support the
formation of a new regional social planning structure, BASPC.
The responsibility for activities related to the various fields
of service was delegated to three functional councils and
special committees of BASPC- -aging, committee on youth, et
cetera. The 1969 report recommended that those groups be done
away with.

The forums, as they were called, were really the outgrowth
of something I described much earlier, those councils of group
work and recreation agencies, and family and children agencies,
and health agencies- -those three- -they hung on to these, and
they were quite autonomous. They elected their own officers,
they appointed their own committees, determined their own
priorities and took independent positions on issues. The point
was to pull them in more closely to UBAC.

There was a Forum Review committee appointed- -Joe Mignola,
Jr. chaired it. Joe Mignola used to be the number two person in
the Health Department- -a very nice fellow. He was appointed
chairman of a committee of nine members to undertake the project

Morris :

Luttgens

to study this. Other members were Julia Bloomfield, Arthur
Coleman, C. Thorne Corse, Mrs. John Douglas, Mrs. Luttgens , Bill
Mackey, who's an attorney with Heller White & McAuliffe, John
May, Tom Nagle , John Rogers, and Norman Coliver, ex officio,
because Norman, I believe, at that time was chair of the Social
Planning Council. Without going into all of this, after due
deliberation, the committee recommended that one, "BASPC is in a
position to assume a leadership role if it's to fulfill its
function. It cannot do it alone but must have the cooperation
of others, that forums as presently constituted are not
effective instruments for involving agencies or the broader
community in the social planning process."

In addition, it recommended, two, "BASPC should establish a
process and structure for meaningful involvement of the
community in the social planning process" and noted that "the
amount of involvement increases as the council undertakes
significant studies, i.e., juvenile court, unmarried mothers,
New Directions."

The principle of BASPC and what Paul Akana, its director,
was driving at was rather than having these councils and putting
energy into that, that the BASPC would undertake what he called
building-block studies - -studies on a particular subject- -and
that as they grew and they undertook more, we would have a
picture of the problems within the community. In other words,
if the San Francisco council wanted a study on juvenile justice,
which they did, then that would be undertaken so that there
would still be the local input, but it would be focused on a
problem area that would eventually build this vision of a stone
or a brick wall, so you have a stone for New Directions, a stone
for unmarried mothers, and so on.

But even though San Francisco requested a juvenile justice
study, the study would actually involve input from the other
four counties?

No. It was strictly a San Francisco study. As a matter of
fact, that was one of the best studies BASPC ever did. I
reviewed the minutes of that. It was chaired by Harold Furst of
the Bank of America, who was a superb chairman. It was staffed
by Bob Keldgord, who was very fine and went on to be , I think, a
probation officer in Arizona. Bob was just very good. And the
committee itself was a terrific committee. Dave Perlman was on
it and Roe Tobriner- -Roe and I were the only two women- -and a
number of other prominent people.

We really worked hard, very intensively. At night
sandwiches were served, and we would work for three hours once a

Morris :

Luttgens

Morris :

Luttgens

week or every two weeks over at the old United Crusade offices
on Steiner Street. We made field trips out to the Probation
Department and down the Peninsula to Hidden Valley Ranch and so
forth. We came up with some very good recommendations.

Did the committee members do the digging out of information or
did the staff people do that and then say, okay now let's go
look at this?

It was a combination of both. My recollection is that the
committee's job was really to look at information and direct
staff to get more information in certain areas and to debate
what was appropriate and what was not. I've got a lot of files
on that because that was a really fine study. But I did
participate in a number of the other studies as well. I was not
chair of the San Francisco Planning Council when we did the
juvenile justice study.

I was chair when we did the Chinese Newcomers , which was
also a good study chaired by Stanley Mosk. We reached into the
Asian community to find appropriate Asians for that one.

The other one we did focused on the Latino population in
the Mission area, which was chaired by Jim Gaither, also a
useful study.

Back to this particular study, the Forum Review Committee
recommended that those forums on aging and family and so forth
be done away with and that BASPC could be strengthened by doing
specific studies and that the county councils continue but were
to have a different kind of format.

Was it a point where, as president, you felt a need to resign
from- -

No, that came later. That came about because I was involved in
both UBAC and Social Planning. UBAC delivered--! think I've got
that here- -an ultimatum, really, to BASPC for a much smaller
budget, and Social Planning revolted. I felt a conflict of
interest serving on both boards and resigned from BASPC.

VIII ALLOCATIONS AND REPRESENTATION, 1968-1988

A Study Plan for New Directions. 1968

Morris: At that point, was there already a growing feeling amongst
minority groups that UBAC was not listening to them and not
accepting them for funding? Was that beginning to happen?

Luttgens : It really hadn't surfaced yet. New Directions had been started.
I was not a member of the New Directions Committee, as I recall.

Morris: So the New Directions was not the result of the actual protest
demonstrations that I understand occurred?

Luttgens: No. I'd have to look again. That came later. A study plan for
New Directions- -May 31st, 1968 was when it started. "The board
of directors of the United Bay Area Crusade upon recommendation
of its Evaluation Committee on New Directions for UBAC"- -that' s
1971 so that's the response- -"has asked the BASPC to proceed
along the lines set forth in your memoranda of April 25th,"
which was a letter from Ben Biaggini to Mortimer Fleishhacker ,
UBAC and BASPC presidents, respectively. The UBAC board's
action to make this request was taken on May 2nd of 1968.

This was to look at UBAC's fundraising. "As the major
raiser of the voluntary dollar collected on a federated basis
with heavy involvement of corporations and employee groups, UBAC
has been a significant factor in the charitable enterprises of
the community. Its impact on community life is far out of
proportion to the amount it raises. In 1965 UBAC raised almost
$14 million. In that same year, total expenditures under both
governmental and voluntary auspices amounted to approximately
$475 million. The UBAC dollar therefore covered about 3
percent. UBAC agencies spent close to $56 million of which UBAC
supplied $12 million. So today therefore UBAC is fundamentally
an association of donors who consider it the donors'

responsibility to determine where their dollars should be
spent." The structure and organization is all based on that

San Francisco Effort vis-a-vis Other Communities

Morris :

Luttgens

Morris:

Luttgens

Does that have anything to do with what I also came across
repeatedly over the years, that San Francisco does not do as
well raising money than other communities of its size?

Yes, and that's one of the things that I think drives these
various reviews. I think it's what's driving what's happening
right now. United Way is looking at the amount of money that
they raise, and again it doesn't do as well as Cincinnati and
some other places and trying to figure out how they can have a
leaner structure, a more effective money-raising effort.
They've made great strides the past few years, but it still
isn't up to where they want and need.

In comparison with other communities,
intercity analysis?

Has there been any

Yes, the metropolitan areas are all lumped together. In other
words, the big United Ways compare one another's results and
fundraising efforts and so forth. But I think historically this
community is different. It's not an excuse, but the Bay Area is
over-organized, I believe, has more agencies, more passionate
devotees of particular areas whether it be cultural or whatever.

Independent Sector Daring Goals Campaign. 1988

Luttgens: I'm going to digress for just a minute. Did I mention this
Independent Sector effort that's occurring to increase both
giving and volunteerisra?

Morris: No.

Luttgens: Well, it's a national effort called Daring Goals for a Caring
Society.

Morris: That's a wonderful phrase, yes.

Luttgens: It's a national effort by Independent Sector, of which United

Ways are a strong part as you know, but also including cultural,

Morris:

Luttgens

hospital, and so forth. There had been a group of us meeting
for about a year and a half talking about how we could mount a
local effort for this particular thing. Independent Sector
doesn't tell local communities how to do it. They simply say,
"This is a good idea, and if you think it's a good idea, start
it in your own community in the way you think it would work
best."

Denver has been successful, Detroit has been successful --
--and it's primarily a fundraising focus again?
An effort to increase giving and volunteering.

Morris:

Luttgens

Morris:

Luttgens

There was a meeting last week at Irvine [Foundation] with a
number of players- -Peter Haas was there. It was an enlargement
of the group that had been meeting before but going in a
different direction, more foundation people. Meg Graham, who is
hired by Independent Sector in Washington to promote this
program nationally, was there. I have known Meg for quite a
while, because she was president of the Association of Junior
Leagues of America about five years ago—very enthusiastic
person—who feels that this effort is valuable because it has a
community looking at itself, finding out what it needs and what
it can do --the usual assessment. You have to have an assessment
before you can do this.

Joe Valentine welcomes this. It will require some
fundraising to support a survey of this sort. Those surveys
have been done in a number of communities. Detroit, for
example, found out it was in a lot better shape than it thought
it was because it's been through some trying times. There were
a lot of agencies--

Was the article in yesterday morning's Chronicle about yuppie
volunteers finding satisfaction--

Absolutely. I thought about the same thing. I thought about
clipping that out because some of those groups mentioned I'm not
familiar with.

Well, also there was a little box saying if you want to
volunteer contact volunteer centers. Now is that the same as
our old Volunteer Bureaus?

Yes, but I have to say that they are weak, and I'm not sure
they're ready. I'm not sure anybody called them and told them

this was going to come out in the newspaper. You know, that's
the sort of thing- -

Morris: But the Volunteer Bureau has reorganized and is now known as
Volunteer Center?

Luttgens: That's correct, yes. They should have a network of the
volunteer centers because somebody who is working in San
Francisco and living in Moraga may wish to volunteer in Moraga
but may wish to go and talk to somebody on his lunch hour in San
Francisco. So if there were a computer network it would be a
lot more satisfactory because by the time he gets home or she
gets home--

Morris: --it's too late.

Luttgens: --it's too late. There's nobody there at the center.
Anyway, back to--

Morris: How does that Independent Sector project, which has a great deal
of pizazz, how does that relate to San Francisco with the United
Way trying to increase the receptiveness- -

Luttgens: They're both going the same way. United Way would welcome an
enlargement of giving. After all they're the organization for
agencies, so whether it comes through them or whether it goes
directly to the agency, they don't care. It'd be nice to have
it come through them so that they could show their goal but they
stand ready to be of help.

The whole point is to enlarge something like this- -I don't
know whether it can be done, but they're talking about giving 5
percent of your salary and 5 volunteer hours a week. They have
a button that is a clock face with five red minutes on it. The
slogan is "Give Five."

Anyway, the point is that's something that's of nationwide
interest.

Now, whether San Francisco will be able to do it or not, I
don't know. The meeting at Irvine Foundation got bogged down in
talking about volunteers because while this man has been
organizing and is going statewide, there also is another fellow
who is IS staff who is mounting a media campaign and he is going
to have car cards around saying, "Give 5," "Volunteer." Both
Adele Corvin and I said, "Are you going to alert the agencies?
Are they going to be ready as you flood San Francisco with
this?" He said, "Well, we're just trying to raise awareness."

I guess I have a problem with raising awareness and not
having a plan. All the i's don't have to be dotted and the t's
crossed but I think there has to be some sort of a plan. I
think the volunteer centers have to be ready if their name is
going to appear. Oh no, nobody's name is going to appear, it's
just going to say, "Volunteer," "Give more." But you and I know
that unless you have someplace to do that--

Morris: --it can be very frustrating for an individual who wants to do
some good in their own neighborhood.

Luttgens : Yes, exactly.

Morris: If there's no job for him or her when she gets to the children's
center or whatever.

Luttgens: And a lot of those jobs require training and supervision, which
means the agencies have to have additional people to coordinate
them.

I don't mean to sound discouraging; I just think it needs
to be planned a bit more carefully.

That's probably enough to be said about that, that is in
process and it's going to happen.

Morris: That's kind of a long way around to increasing the annual giving
to United Way.

Luttgens: Keeping in mind that United Way is serving agencies and keeping
in mind that they have expanded the kinds of agencies that
they're giving to.

Innovations in Funding and Membership Policies. 1970-1972

Morris: You mentioned the question of turf within a group or between a

group of agencies. Did some of this sort of longterm irritation
between the agencies and United Crusade/United Way have to do
with the same kind of turf question?

Luttgens: There is, oh, yes. There's no question about it. Knowing that
United Way has only been able to supply a smaller and smaller
portion of the agency budget, which means that the agency has to
go outside and seek additional funding either from the public or
from grants. All those studies that Lester Solomon did
indicated the magnitude of the federal monies that they were

getting and when those had been cut back what they had to do
about it. You have all those studies, have you not?

Morris: Yes, they should be in The Bancroft Library's United Way
archive .

Luttgens : I served on the local committee, too, for his studies. It was a
sounding board for what he was coming up with. It wasn't an
action committee.

Let me go back to this New Directions study- -the call for
that study. You asked if some of the dissident groups were
beginning to ask questions.

Morris: Yes.

Luttgens: Here on page four it says, "A new development has been added to
the already difficult situation. That is the drama of the poor
and the alienated rising up to claim as their right a portion of
the unprecedented prosperity enjoyed by most of society. This
is a new experience for the charitably minded who had been
accustomed to finding and helping 'worthy and shame -faced poor
abiding in their own homes.' Now these poor, no longer waiting
to be found worthy, are out on the streets and demanding help.

"And so faced with this critical situation the government
--especially at the federal and municipal levels --has intervened
with massive doses." That's the background as to why they asked
BASPC to undertake a New Directions study.

Morris: The New Directions study was authorized in 1969 and the report
came out in 1971.

Luttgens: Yes.

Morris: Then now is the time to go sideways I guess to your chairmanship
of the membership committee which is right on the front line of
that.

Luttgens: Yes. But standing and waiting for the report, you see, that's
why I've had trouble talking about all of these times because I
had so many fingers in so many pies.

Morris: I can believe it.

Luttgens: But of course I went with it as I was in the middle of it but to
sort it out now and tell you what came first- -let me just say
that the purpose of the report was to provide UBAC with
objective judgments which would enable UBAC itself to determine

100

what services it should support in light of changing times and
new human needs, changing nature and structure of agencies,
massive intervention of government funds, which harks back to
the reason why the Charles committee white paper was written.
Again, we're seeing a reiteration of the same themes and the
continuous emergence of new voluntary charitable organizations
seeking community support.

That was the report. There always is such an elaborate
structure to do one of these things. There are one or more
technical advisory panels, there is a staff team and they
collect a lot of data. All of this has to be done but as you
look at it it's- -you' re trying to reach every constituency so
that everybody is in on it, which has to be done, but it gets
very ponderous .

Morris: Yes. What's interesting is that there was also the mechanism to
have the membership committee go ahead and do something in this
area while the full-dress, two-year review study was going on.

Luttgens : I think the timing on that is that- -and I could be wrong, I have
that whole file of Concentrated Services somewhere.

Morris: Yes, but before Concentrated Services was this $400 , 000- -and
that was the process I wanted to ask about- -$400 ,000 was
allocated to give to non-member agencies working with youth in
crisis particularly in the area of drugs and--

Luttgens : That was Concentrated Services, as I recall.

Morris: The 1970 annual report doesn't call it "Concentrated Services"
yet. It just says, "Leslie Luttgens and the membership
committee," did these things and then further on in the annual
report it says, and then we're going to turn that into a
Concentrated Services Program.

Luttgens: But that was 1972.

Morris: In May 1970, there was a major budgeting change --this was the
$400,000- -for allocations to the emergency services for
alienated youth with concerns about drugs and/or underserved
minorities .

Luttgens: It split in the middle.

Morris: Was this the Membership Committee going to the board and saying,
"Look, we really need to do something"?

Luttgens: No, it was--

101

Morris: --an allocation decision.

Luttgens: I'm trying to come at it from a little bit different way because
I have this in front of me and I'm fighting with it trying to
refresh my memory. This is an evaluation committee of the New
Directions Committee. It was appointed by UBAC after the New
Directions Committee made its report. This is 1971 and it says-
-it goes through the recommendations- -but down here it says,
"Dollar Assignment. The New Directions Evaluation Committee
recognized that the board of directors has already allocated
$550,448 for grant programs in 1971," which generally fit within
the Concentrated Services definition, "and now recommends that
$700,000 be used to implement other New Directions Concentrated
Services programs."

I guess I would have to look at the minutes specifically in
the 1970 time frame. It's my recollection that because I was
chairing the membership committee, because we had just received
the New Directions report which I believe we had- -this was also
tempered by the third-world groups that were saying they were
not being recognized. That was a separate committee- - the La
Raza Committee and some others that I mentioned to you- -that was
meeting with Bob Harris chairing it.

Morris: He was then president in 1970-71.

Luttgens: Yes, he was chairman of the board in 1971 so he would have been
president the year before and Jerry Hull was president in 1971.

Morris: Again the annual report had another one of those marvelous

events that mark your career. You became chairman when Howard
Carver left the area?

Luttgens: I had totally forgotten about that. I remember Howard Carver.
He was a great guy. He was from Emporium-Capwell , I think- -
very nice person.

Third-World Leaders and Staff

Morris: And the vice chair was listed as Edward Reyes and I wondered if
he might have been Hispanic.

Luttgens: He was Hispanic- -wonderful Hispanic member- -from the East Bay--
from Contra Costa, I believe- -and went on to spend a number of
years with United Crusade. I don't know what's happened to Ed
Reyes .

102

Morris: What was his reaction and- -if there might have been a black

member of the committee going into this --what was their reaction
to the hue and cry being raised by third-world groups?

Luttgens: As I recall they had great dignity about it, but they said there
was truth in what was being said. It really does make me want
to see if I could ferret out those minutes when we did report to
the board. A lot of it doesn't show in the board minutes, but
it might call to mind exactly how that- -I frankly can not
remember how that occurred except that I believe it occurred in
response to those meetings with third-world groups and--

Morris: --the La Raza Committee?

Luttgens: That's right.

Morris: Was there another committee of--

Luttgens : I don't think there was a black committee, but there was

definitely a third-world challenging committee which had on it
Asians, blacks and Hispanics- -all three of--

Morris: A Third World Challenges Committee of UBAC?

Luttgens: Well, I'm calling it that. It was called the Third-World
Committee .

Morris: Right, and it was a UBAC committee?

Luttgens: Oh, no. It was from outside. It was saying to UBAC, "You are
not giving enough money." You see, for the first time they had
come together instead of being isolated voices. The La Raza
committee was very strong, and there was black leadership, I
believe, but I don't remember who was involved in it.

The other thing that United Crusade did at that time, as I
recall, was to hire a black and a Hispanic and an Asian. They
worked in a variety of areas, they were all young men about the
same age. Steve Brooks was the black who went on to head the
Bay Area Black United Fund. Gary Hernandez was the Hispanic. I
think Gary went to Sacramento. He was the most sophisticated of
the three. Jerry Loo was the Asian, who worked for a number of
years for United Crusade and then, I think, left to go into
private business for himself.

Morris: Were these young social-welfare graduate students or something
like that?

Luttgens: They were beyond graduate student status.

103

Morris: They came out of some grassroots organizations?

Luttgens: They were brought on deliberately to add another voice; they

were not out of the usual, traditional social -work background.
I remember meeting all three. I couldn't tell you exactly when
they came. Of the three, I thought at the time Steve Brooks
would have the greatest problem adjusting to the United Way way
of doing things. Steve turned out to be the most insightful and
staffed the Foundations Emergency Fund when it was first
established for United Way.

I became very fond of Steve and still see Steve from time
to time. He came and asked me if I'd have lunch with him a
couple of years ago to talk about what he was going to do when
he was leaving the Bay Area Black United Fund and what his
opportunities might be in some settings where I was involved.
His wife runs a child-care agency in the East Bay; her name is
Dolores Brooks.

Bay Area Black United Fund

Morris :

Luttgens

Morris :

Luttgens

I'd like to ask about the evolution of the Black United Fund.
Was that a challenge situation again, or was it the wisdom of
the time that this was an appropriate thing to do?

That's complicated because there was a national movement to
establish Black United Funds. The head of the national Black
United Fund movement joined with Pablo Eisenberg in his
Committee for Responsive Philanthropy. Pablo's particular
agency is the Center for Community Change. Pablo gathered those
people together and sought funding for the Committee for
Responsive Philanthropy.

My understanding of what happened here was that United Way
felt it would be valuable if they supported for a period the Bay
Area Black United Fund with both technical assistance and some
funding, which they did; they worked that out, as you probably
know. This was after I was no longer involved in United Way, so
I'm not privy to what went on in those various deliberations.

It's only the last five or six years we're talking about, isn't
it?

That's right. But they did come to the Rosenberg Foundation for
funding and we did fund the Bay Area Black United Fund
initially. After a couple of years we became a little

104

Morris:
Luttgens

disenchanted because they had very grandiose plans . They had a
high administrative budget because they felt that they needed to
do things in a first class manner to establish a real ambience.
And after two or three years that didn't seem to be changing
even though the foundations had said, "Well, we'll help you get
started but we do think you're going to have to do more in your
actual moneyraising. "

After a few years, we said at Rosenberg that, "We're no
longer going to fund you unless you come to us with a project.
In other words, we're not going to fund your core operating
budget. If you come to us with a project that's appropriate,
then we'll certainly look at it." That was what happened. I
believe it's still going on. They do have an annual dinner
which I get an invitation to.

Steve Brooks is no longer- -

He is no longer there. They have a young woman who I've seen in
meetings who is very strong, Toni Cook. I don't know how
they're doing, frankly. But they went through an evolution;
they have a good board, I thought, from the people I knew who
were on it. But nationally we had some problems with the
Committee for Responsive Philanthropy. So these two things were
going ahead.

Committee for Responsive Philanthropy and the Rosenberg
Foundation

Luttgens: We at Rosenberg had been funding the Committee for Responsive

Philanthropy because we felt that foundations needed a critical
voice; they seemed to be the only one around. I happen to like
Pablo very much. I don't feel as warm toward Bob Bothwell,
who's the program director who had a more abrasive manner. But
we had funded them for a number of years, and, finally, when
they were challenging United Crusade as much as they were — and I
believe Peter Haas was still on our board, I was on the board at
Rosenberg, Lew Butler had come back on the board- -it seemed to
us that what they were doing was just kicking United Crusade
around, as opposed to really accomplishing what they had said
they were going to do in their proposal. So we asked for a
meeting with them. We met with as many of their people as they
could get. It was very illuminating.

Morris: The local Rosenberg people and the--

Luttgens

Morris :

105

Yes. It was Lew and Peter and I can't remember who all was
there, but there were five or six of us, I guess. Kirke
[Wilson], of course, set it up; Pablo was there and some of
their local people, who were obviously not clued in at all.
There had been no communication between the national and local
people, who didn't know what was going on. So we decided that
until they were clearer about what they were doing, we would no
longer fund them.

In the last year or so we have funded them again because
they have a project- -I've forgotten what it is --but they seem to
have more of a focus on things we thought they were supposed to
be doing in the first place. So that's Black United Fund and
the Committee for Responsive Philanthropy. But they're
interrelated, you see.

I see, that's useful. Was the Committee for Responsive
Philanthropy involved in the debates with United Way about
allocations priorities?

Luttgens: No, and I'm not even sure that they were very much in view or

certainly not locally. On that point, since they were formed at
the time of the Filer Commission, you'd have to refresh my
memory on when the Filer Commission was, but it's been a long
time ago.

Morris: That was about 1969 and 1970.

Luttgens: They didn't have much of a local focus, is my reaction. They
were too busy fighting the national battles.

More on New Directions and Concentrated Services

Morris: Going back to the inviting in or offering grants to agencies
that were not yet members of United Crusade. Was that a
decision of the board of United Crusade to tell the membership
committee to take a look at this, or was it the people that were
meeting with the Third-World committee saying, "We're going to
have to do something about this?"

Luttgens: I think it was a combination of both. The major decision that
had to be made was: Are you going to go outside the regular
membership process to make grants, as opposed to bringing
agencies in and then providing funding. That was the reason the
membership committee was involved. But, as I recall, that came
out of the committee that was meeting with the La Raza people

106

and then in discussion with, I guess, the executive committee.
We were trying to find a solution to some of these problems that
we've had and that seemed to be the only way to go.

Morris: Did that involve some soundings of some member agencies about
how they would feel about including some non-members?

Luttgens: That was a very hot and difficult situation. I believe that

that decision was made unilaterally by United Crusade and that
agencies, of course, were very distressed because that money had
to come from their budgets. In other words, they expected every
year to get the same amount- -maybe a little bit more- -instead,
we were taking something off the top to make some grants to
agencies outside.

Morris: It was about 2 percent of the total budget that year. Was it
just from agency relations or did some of it come from the
management budget?

Luttgens: I think it all came out of agencies. But see, that's all mixed
up with the New Directions study. It's why New Directions is
such a dirty word with the agencies, because they see New
Directions coming out with a report United Crusade--! frankly
had forgotten that United Crusade had allocated a piece of money
first, really, before they got into this Concentrated Services.

Morris: These two were going on at the same time, and you make it clear
that it was sort of doing something right now while we have the
longer term study going on. That's very difficult.

Luttgens: And beyond that the other decision- -and I would have to read the
results of the New Directions study to remember where that came
from- -that happened at that time was a decision to bring
consumers on the board, which we talked about before- -consumers
being people who used services of the United Crusade agencies.
You and I could be consumers if we used the Visiting Nurses
Association or something of that sort. But the aim really was
to bring lower- income people on the board. That was a result of
the piece that I read to you earlier about people wishing to
participate and not wait around until they were proved worthy or
received a handout- -it was a new philosophy. So that was the
other interesting piece.

There were lots of parts of United Crusade that resisted
that enormously. So there was activity going on moving toward
change before the by-laws provided for it. The by-laws had not
been changed and I can remember being a key part of that
discussion about what we were going to do with this. We want to
bring consumers on the board, but there are board members that

107

Morris :
Luttgens

Morris:
Luttgens

Morris:

Luttgens

Morris:

Luttgens
Morris :

think it's wise, and there are other parts of United Crusade
that don't think it's a good idea. Until we get the mechanics
worked out, what are we going to do? And that was when, as I
recall, I said, "Let's take longer, spend more time meeting with
both trustees and with agencies to talk about this, and then
make the structural changes. If we try to do it earlier, it's
going to meet with enormous resistance."

That was why we started the Concentrated Services Committee
because I remember saying in the board, "Why don't you establish
a piece of money to be allocated in the way that you're
designating to particular areas."

it.

The thing I'd forgotten was that there were two parts to

--the alienated youth and the--

That's right- -and the Concentrated Services. Of course that was
when I got the call that night from- -I thought Peter Haas was
president then. Obviously he was not; it must have been Jerry
Hull. I got the telephone call saying would I chair a committee
that would distribute that fund; so that I was moving, you see,
from membership into another category.

--really an allocations- -

I was thinking about it this morning that that was really my
first experience- -

--for the first time United Crusade and Leslie, in
particular, were having the responsibility of establishing a
granting procedure.

--because it was a grant procedure rather than the traditional
kind of allocation.

- -membership- -that's right. Different than membership or
budgeting.

Right. Can you recall a little bit about that? There was a
note that there was something like 130 groups who were wanting
some of that money.

We established committees- -what else?

This was the Concentrated Services Committee?

108

Luttgens: Yes. I don't remember how we did them earlier. I believe that
was done through membership, and I think we had a combination
membership -granting process, the earlier piece I believe. I'd
have to look again at that.

Morris: Was it considerably different the second year when it was more
of a Concentrated Services Committee?

Luttgens: Yes, because Concentrated Services was looking at a particular
area of interest- -either day care or whatever — and looking at
what was going on. In other words, looking at the whole subject
area as opposed to simply responding to requests. It was quite
different. There had to be a lot of knowledge.

The drug area was the hardest because nobody really knew
what worked- -was it drug education, was it drug therapy or
direct services- -what was the best way to use that money? So we
had a subcommittee.

Morris :

Luttgens

It was the first time that United Crusade had had the
flexibility in any area to operate as it thought it should to
accomplish a project. Before we had always --the process was
laid out, it was being done the way that it had been done for
years. Membership had certain guidelines- -maybe you'd tinker
with them from time to time. But for the first time we had a
totally new ball game--

We were operating in very much a free -flow area. We needed
to look at what was happening in the area of child care and drug
abuse, decide where the scarce dollars could best be applied and
how to operate. So it was a different kind of thing.

So you were actually working with these organizations looking
for money, helping them shape their program?

We were in day care because in the day care area there was
government money available and we could provide a 25 percent
match and federal money would provide the 75 percent. Later,
Cap [Caspar] Weinberger, who was then HEW [director, United
States Department of Health, Education and Welfare] was talking
about rewriting the regulations for child care. If he did that,
a lot of our child- care agencies would not have been continued.

109

Foundations-UBAC Emergency Fund Created. 1973

Luttgens: I had letters on my desk. We had been funding thirty-one child-
care agencies with this 25 percent match. There is no way we
could have picked up the 75 percent match. I had on my desk
letters from these agencies saying, "Please help us to
continue," "please write to HEW," and so forth. It was out of
that situation that the Foundation-UBAC Emergency Fund was born.

John May and Ed Nathan came to me. Their foundations had
also funded a lot of these child-care agencies. I was by then
president of United Crusade. This was after the Concentrated
Services, after we'd brought in all of these agencies. They
came to me and said, "How would it be if you pledged your child-
care money," which as I recall was about $500,000 that we were
investing in child-care agencies, which again was the 25 percent
match. "We'll put in," so much, "in the pot and let's try to
keep these agencies afloat as long as we can until there's a
decision about those regulations."

We asked the United Crusade board if we could start the
Emergency Fund, and we did. Out of that we began to draw some
other foundations- -Cowe 11 was very early in, as I recall, and,
certainly because of Ed and John, both San Francisco and
Zellerbach, Tom Layton sat in because he thought it was
something Gerbode might want to put some money in. Kirke was
dying to be a part of it, but he didn't think that Rosenberg
would put any money into it, so he wanted to come to meetings,
but he didn't feel he could unless they made a contribution, and
I've forgotten who all else was involved. I'm sure I've got a
box of files on that, too.

That grew, with Steve Brooks as our staff, and we met at
2015 Steiner Street in a little room. We invited the United
Crusade budget panel chairman to sit in as we expanded from
child care to some other kinds of agencies where it was
relevant. In other words, where an agency came to the Emergency
Fund asking for interim funding- -either loan or grant --we'd ask
the panel person to sit in.

Morris: Did anybody get in touch with Cap Weinberger- -anybody who knew
him from his years in San Francisco?

Luttgens: Yes, and I remember Martin Paley saying- -maybe this was a couple
of years later, after he became director of the San Francisco
Foundation- -Martin saying, "We can't continue to just put money
into an emergency fund unless we try to change the reasons why
the emergency fund is there." There were letters that went to

110

Cap Weinberger,
the pool.

He did back off and those agencies were left in

Morris: And it was Martin who went to Washington?

Luttgens: No, that was later. Because John was still head of the San

Francisco Foundation in the early days, but it expanded, as I
say, from child care to other areas; but always the idea was
where contract funding had been interrupted. It was never a
lack of fundraising success of the agency — we made that clear.
That was very interesting. Of course, now it's a terribly
important function and totally separate from United Way,
although United Way still has somebody there.

Morris: But originally it was a joint--

Luttgens: That's right. It was a collaborative effort, again something
new, between foundations and United Way, whereas before the
kinds of relationships had been foundations, funding agencies
and United Way picking up on the funding of the agency after a
period of time. That was no longer possible because of lack of
United Way financial support and also government was not picking
up, so this was part of the evolution of what was going on at
that point.

Public-Private Partnerships

Morris: Did that also signal an interest in direct conversation with
governmental bodies about their funding regulations?

Luttgens: Some, but at that point the governmental bodies still could

pretty much do what they wanted. You know, all this talk about
partnerships has only really come about recently. Partnership,
I need to explain, in my mind shows some compromise on both
sides. Collaboration shows some coming together in a way that
might be different than if one went ahead separately. These
words are used very loosely to my mind.

But the word partnership used to be used by government when
they would talk to private agencies but then they'd go right
ahead and do what they were going to do in the first place
because they had the money. Now, I think, it's quite different
since the federal cutbacks. I do think government agencies are
much more interested in talking to the private sector in a
different atmosphere.

Ill

We've gotten off track again, I'm sorry. But all these
things are so interrelated.

Morris: The way these threads are interrelated is exactly what the oral
history is all about.

4-> r

g •» fi «

I ffS-o g

CU CU «H

|| ij

112

IX PRESIDENT, UNITED BAY AREA CRUSADE, 1972-1974

Executive Searches

Morris: Could we go back then to your progress into the presidency? It
was still the United Bay Area Crusade when you were president of
the organization?

Luttgens : Yes. I'm not even sure when it became United Way- -that's
interesting. Sometime in 1975-76.

Morris: It sounds as if the change was not a big organizational upheaval
in San Francisco, that it was coming from the national
organization.

Luttgens: It may have been around the time Bill Aramony became head of the
national organization. I know he wanted to have the same name
used by each local body.

How long has Joe Valentine been here? He's been here about
eight or nine years.

Morris: He came with the new name?

113

Luttgens: He may have. I have files. Two of the files I have up there --
I've not found the Joe Valentine search committee file; I was on
that one, too. But I did find two earlier files which are
really very interesting- -the search for, first of all, Jim
Mergens , which came about when we went into the five -county
structure, and the search for Bob Young. The search for Mergens
occurred when Steve Nelson was, do I dare say, sent away? I
guess so.

Morris: Because of the kind of local characteristics that make San
Francisco a difficult fundraising town?

Luttgens: He was rather insensitive to the problems that were going on

with the challenges of third-world people to the Crusade. This
was in 1969 and '70.

[He wrote a letter to the directors of several other
metropolitan United Funds addressed to "The Chosen" from
"Baghdad by the Bay," in which he said, "The Black Caucus has
now joined La Raza and the Brown Berets in advertising our
campaign via 'Boycott UBAC' . . . The Chinese community has been
heard from too. They say 'If Black is Beautiful and Brown is
better, Yellow is yummy!'. . . Sorta makes us plain whites a
little green with envy."

He mailed it from the basement mailroom of United Crusade.
Of course somebody in the mailroom picked it up and took it to
the newspaper and the fat was in the fire.

An interesting aspect was that we were completing the most
successful campaign in history, chaired by Peter Haas. There
was an outpouring of concern about Mr. Nelson from the UBAC-
supported agencies, spearheaded by the Family Service Agency of
San Francisco.

Memo, Steve L. Nelson to "The Chosen," October 21, 1969. See
appendix for listing of related items deposited with memo in The Bancroft
Library.

113a

Dick Cooley was, who was then president of UBAC in
Australia when this occurred and Bob Harris, as president
elect, had to deal with the immediate situation. On Dick's
return, I called him and said, "We can't let this man stay if
that's the way he's talking."]*

We had never had an executive committee up until then, but
Dick appointed an executive committee and asked me to serve on
it. We were asked to make a determination about what to do. We
were very fair and objective, I believe, but we felt that we had
to seek another executive.

Steve Nelson undertook a private business venture, I
believe .

Morris: And Jim Mergens didn't work out either?

Luttgens : He was not the effective director we thought he would be, let me
put it that way. The national United Fund [United Community
Fund and Councils of America] found another post for him.

Then we had to seek another director. We found Bob Young,
who was fine for that particular time. There was a lot of
healing that had to go on with agencies, with donors and so on
as a result of having redirected so much money into Concentrated
Services.

I think Bob was there for about three years and then he
went off. Times changed for him, too, and we needed a new kind
of person, a dynamic fundraising executive; and that was Joe
Valentine.

Morris: That's what the search committee was specifically looking for,
that strength?

Luttgens: That's right, so different times had different needs.

Morris: Had any of the three of these executives come from other United
Way experience?

*Bracketed materials revised by Mrs. Luttgens during her review of the
transcript.

114

Luttgens

Morris:
Luttgens

Morris:

Luttgens

Morris:

Luttgens

Morris :

They all had. It was especially interesting to me because it
was the first search committee I served on, I was so naive, I
thought, "Well, we simply look for the best person wherever he
is from- -or she. "

Was a she suggested?

I don't believe there were any shes in any of the interviewees,
but there were a number of people from outside United Way.
There was a fellow named Ken Phillips who was with United Way of
California. There was a labor official who had no United Way
experience. There was an Hispanic who I thought might be good.
But when push comes to shove they always seem to select the
United Way executive from someplace else. And, of course,
United Way refers a number of people.

That was what I was wondering, is there a national United Way
process for--

--for recommending, that's right.

Was a personnel search firm used at all?

No. I'd have to look through those files more carefully, but I
don' t believe so.

The other thing that it made me realize is that there were
no minority United Way directors. Certainly no women. Now
that's changed within the last, I'd say, six or seven years. As
a matter of fact, one of the things that Joe Valentine has done
is that he has spun off people who have been working here with
him who are now executives elsewhere. The woman who was head of
campaign is now head of a United Way in Florida; he brought a
woman in to head campaign which had never been done before. One
of the men who had worked with him is now head of the United Way
in Hawaii. Another one is head of the Portland United Way.

They all were here at a volunteer leaders conference for
United Way when Joe received the San Francisco Foundation Award
this year. They stayed over for the event. It was arranged
that they make the award presentation on Monday after their
weekend meeting so they all could be here. I went and was
fascinated because I didn't know what had happened to all these
people. They'd just gone off somewhere and here they all were.
And of course they'd stayed around and it was a very moving
award ceremony.

You think that he had encouraged people to try their wings and
go on to other United Ways?

115

Luttgens: Yes. And I think that's good. I think it shows that he's not
afraid to keep his little group here working away but is
offering to help his people to learn and move on to something
else, and it's given him stature in the field, there's no
question about it.

Laurence Boiling as President-Elect

Morris: We talked a little bit, but I think it was off tape, about Mr.
Boiling as the expected president.

Luttgens: He has a very impressive record. "Two years ago Boiling became
the first black president-elect of UBAC but withdrew his name
for consideration and Mrs. William F. Luttgens took over as the
first woman president." He says he couldn't afford the
position. "This is a family-run business," he says of his box
manufacturing company. "The giants of business and industry
have lots of backup men, I don't." Then he gives Leslie
Luttgens praise for revitalization of UBAC and so forth.

"The Crusade did not address itself to social ills, it went
through the motions of automated annual campaigns. The women in
the movement turned it around just as women had been the strong
force in the black movement. Men's excuse is that they are the
breadwinners, they have the important job. The truth is that
men have more time than women and men waste more time." Isn't
that interesting?

Morris: That's pretty startling. Had he been fairly carefully groomed
and searched for? He would have been the first man who was
black to be president of this Bay Area Crusade.

Luttgens: That's correct. See, we really have been very progressive in
the Bay Area. I mean, talk about putting consumers on boards,
talk about having a black president, talk about having a woman
president. This was all unprecedented. Now it's taken for
granted. Adele Corvin came along and was president a few years
after I was, but again she was breaking ground. There still
weren't a lot of women. I can remember Mary Ripley from Los
Angeles, who had been vice president of the Los Angeles United
Way, saying, "We were always vice presidents. We were never

*"Laurence Boiling- -The Man from UBAC," Caroline Drewes , Sunday Scene
San Francisco Sunday Examiner and Chronicle, n.d. [1974].

116

allowed to be president. We were in there doing the work." So
I think we've been fairly progressive.

Morris: Was there some rumbling around about what on earth do we want a
woman as president for?

Luttgens: They were awfully polite. I didn't ever hear that.
Morris: How much advance notice did you have?

Luttgens: I think I had about six months as I recall. I've forgotten what
our year was at that time. I have the feeling it may have been
--if it was June it seems to me I was asked- -

Morris: February, there's a nice press release saying, "Today Mrs.
William F. Luttgens became the first woman president--"

Luttgens: Okay, then it's about four months, I think.

Morris: So you heard about it during the fundraising campaign. Would

Mr. Boiling have been in charge of the previous year's campaign?

Luttgens: No, he did not do that. He was head of the budget committee --
budget and allocations- -and did a wonderful job, an excellent
job. But I think the realization just came to him finally, as
he really began to think about it, that it was going to be more
than he could do on his own. I quite agree with him. Of
course, it was more than I could do, too, but I didn't hesitate
to call on help from United Crusade or from the business
community or whatever.

Ceremonial Functions. Fundraisinz Fluctuations

Morris: How much time does something like being president of a major
metropolitan United Crusade take?

Luttgens: I was there every day.

Morris: They have space for the president to have an office?

Luttgens: Yes. And Adele [Corvin] has continued to use the office there
I did not do it once I was through but she's continued because
she's continued on various committees and so forth. It's been
kind of her base although she's now moved on. She's somebody,
too, that you would want to interview sometime.

117

Morris: I think that's very clear.

Luttgens: She now is leading the Bay Area American Red Cross, which is an
organizing thing that a few years ago I would have enjoyed
doing; but at this point it's just more than I'm interested in.
They did ask me to be on that board, and I declined. But she
will do a wonderful job.

Morris: Was she on your board?

Luttgens: Yes. She was head of the Group Work and Recreation Council when
we abandoned that. She was on ray first National Association for
Health and Welfare Committee, along with Jane Roe --Jane brought
Adele in somehow- -I've forgotten how. I think through Volunteer
Bureau. But let's see how she's listed. I think she was on the
board at this point. She was head of a budget section during
this period and then she became head of the whole budget and
allocations area. Larry Boiling was head of general budget in
1971, I was head of membership.

I think she may have followed Larry or a couple of years
afterwards . She came up through the chairs . She was also
chairing the Volunteer Bureau at the same time and was a very
good Volunteer Bureau chairman.

Morris: Chairman? She moved from the volunteer sector into the
professional sector?

Luttgens: No. She was the volunteer chair.

Morris: Since being president, isn't she now staff to a foundation?

Luttgens: No, you're thinking of Joan [pronounced Jo Ann] Dills.

Morris: No, I thought I was thinking of Adele.

Luttgens: No, Adele is not staff. Her friend Joan Dills, who also was

chairman of the Volunteer Bureau, worked for the San Francisco
School Volunteers for a while and then became staff at the
Stulsaft Foundation where Adele is on the board as one of the
founding members.

Morris: Did you feel like you were making a stride for womankind when
you took on the presidency?

Luttgens: Yes, I did. I mean I've never been an aggressive feminist, but
I did think it was important that women were being recognized
for all the work they do; because they do. As I say, they do a
major portion of the work that goes on.

118

Morris :

Luttgens

Morris :

Luttgens

Morris:
Luttgens
Morris:
Luttgens
Morris :

Still in the fundraising campaign? Traditionally, it used to be
women doing the door-to-door domestic kind of thing, but it
seems as if the fundraising campaign has shifted more to the
workplace- -is that accurate?

Oh yes, absolutely. As a matter of fact, I think last year
there was a discussion at the United Way about mounting a
residential campaign again. It is so people- intensive for the
amount of money raised. And you get back to the "I gave at the
workplace" answers and you can't really tell. It's just not
terribly cost effective, so they've been trying to do that
through direct mail.

Think of all the new people who are in this community,
which is who they're trying to reach through the direct-mail
sort of thing. I don't know how successful that's been. But
rather than having somebody go door -to -door, they're trying to
concentrate on small businesses, which also is people- intensive .

It looked as if when Peter Haas was campaign chair that there
was a little blip up in the fundraising campaign. I wondered- -
it had been running at about $16 million a year from 1969
through 1972, and then Peter Haas brought in a little bit more
when he was campaign chairman--! wondered how much time as
president you've had to put on the fundraising campaign.

I think you asked me that before, and I did not put a lot of
time in. Stuart Menist, president of Firemen's Fund, was
campaign chairman in 1973. I made appearances with him at
various campaign settings. I remember going to Schlage Lock
Company and a number of places like that as president, and I
attended those campaign cabinet meetings which were made up of
CEOs --early in the morning, the seven- thirty breakfast at the
hotels and that sort of thing, to say a few words of
encouragement, but I didn't have to spend a lot of time. It was
mostly celebratory appearances of some sort. They did a balloon
race and I ' d go and watch the balloons take off and that sort of
thing.

But the fundraising did perk up a little bit?

Yes, and I've forgotten what that was because it has--

-- raised a million and a half more than the previous year.

Yes, and I can't recall why that was. Special effort, I'm sure.

Yes, okay. Having read repeatedly about the woes of the
campaign, I looked at what was going on when you were president,

119

and it looked like you inspired everybody to greater
accomplishment .

Luttgens: Well, I don't know about that. I think there may have been a

push as a result of New Directions and some money taken away and
taking in new agencies. It may be that the realization that
that was there to stay meant that there was a bigger push. I
frankly don't remember.

Morris: It's interesting. There was a little increase in 1971, the year
before or the year that you made the first new kinds of
allocations, and then it dropped down a half a million or so and
then as I say, in 1974, it bumped up again.

//#

Luttgens: The drop down, I'm sure, was a result of the agencies' lack of
strong participation in fundraising, because that was marked.
They were furious immediately on those cuts that came out of
their budgets, and there was a lot of fence mending that I had
to do- -the holding hands, the saying to them we can get it up as
far as the goal is concerned.

We always had this battle every year. Were we going to
have a needs goal or an achievable goal — that was the question
that came up every year when the campaign goal was set. One
year it would be one, and one year it would be another,
depending on the make-up of the board. But it was one of those
perennial questions, and I'm sure they're still asking it now.
Do we shoot for a goal that really represents what's needed in
this community, or do we simply shoot for something that we know
we can get or maybe is just a tinge higher, so the volunteers
aren't discouraged when they don't make it, that's the point.

Orientation: Addine Consumers to the Board

Morris: When you were asked to take over on short notice, did anybody do
any extra orientations or briefings for you to bring you up to
speed on what kinds of things you were going to be responsible
for?

Luttgens: Yes. I think I spent time with Peter talking about that. I
very seldom go into something without having a pretty good
orientation about it, because I don't want to go in blind-
sighted. But, remember, I'd been around for quite a while, too,
so I had pretty much of a sense about how the board worked, and

120

Morris :
Luttgens

Morris :

Luttgens

Morris:

Luttgens

I'd been pretty good on organization, so I knew what was needed.
We had consumers for the first time on the board, as I said
earlier, which required some special handling to make them feel
very much a part of what was going on and not just that they
were token board members .

Did you do any special meetings just with them?

Yes, we did. And, as a matter of fact, if we had a consumer
representative who didn't come to one of those we sort of
crossed them off after a while, after we gave them two or three
opportunities to come. If they didn't show up, we started
thinking about somebody else for the next term.

Is that a problem in general? Those committees and the board
seem very large in terms of the span of--

Yes, and not only that, for the first time we were faced with
the business of reimbursing for babysitting- -the question was
raised about reimbursement for time away from work, which United
Way had never dealt with before. I think where we ended up was
not reimbursing for time away from work, but reimbursing for any
other travel expenses- -bridge fares, babysitting, that sort of
thing. That's my recollection of where we ended up. But even
that was quite a departure. And the fact that we wanted to do
it in a discreet way so that we weren't singling anybody out,
and those that wished to take advantage of it could and those
that did not wouldn't. That was new for United Way.

Did it mean some shifts in scheduling- -maybe more meetings in
the evening or weekends?

We did not have evening meetings, although that was discussed.
I think I told you earliej: about Ed Roberts and the business of
needing a ramp to get in. He was a trustee; I don't believe he
was on the board of directors.

There were a lot of things happening to United Way that
made them realize that the world was changing around them, and I
think they were responding fairly well, given that this was a
large organization that had always operated traditionally.

Roberts was a leader of the group that convinced University of
California, Berkeley officials to make facilities available and accessible
so that disabled persons could attend the University. A founder of the
Center for Independent Living and later director of the California
Department of Rehabilitation, Roberts brought his own portable ramp to UBAC
headquarters so he could attend meetings.

121

Morris :

Now that you've described it you get a sense of United Crusade,
because it was an umbrella agency, maybe being somewhat removed
from the ultimate consumers of member-agency services.

Donor Concerns: Social Activists

Luttgens : I would just be clouding the issue if I go up another direction,
but the other thing I remember is trying to keep the old large
donors happy at the same time that we were moving into a
different kind of granting with different kinds of agencies.

I can remember Bob Harris and I going to call on Mrs.
Robert Watt Miller who I've always liked very much. She's done
so much for the community. She had cut back on her gift, and
she was very distressed at what was happening with some of the
traditional agencies. I think we were able to establish a
feeling that we were still there and she knew us and everything
was going to be all right. I believe she went back to her
original gift patterns.

There were a lot of people like that who had to be
contacted on a one-to-one basis. Bob was very good about that
because he was out of the traditional world that had been donors
and spent a lot of time working on it.

Morris: He was now a trustee if you were president?

Luttgens: I think this was before I was president. This is at the time of
New Directions when he would have been chairman of the board and
Jerry Hull would have been president and then Peter Haas --they
all were still there in place even though they had been
president two years before. They were still there either as
chairman or as a trustee so they could be called upon for help.

Morris: This calling upon the donors- -you were involved in that as part
of this membership committee?

Luttgens: No, I was involved as somebody who was known to Mrs. Miller.

Mrs. Miller had been very active in the women's cabinet, and she
knew me through that and through some other things. As a matter
of fact, I have the feeling, and I may be wrong, I believe that
she was asked to chair the San Francisco unit of United Crusade,
and I believe that she said she thought a man should chair it.

Morris: I see- -a traditional view.

122

Luttgens

Morris :

Luttgens

Morris :

Luttgens

Morris :

Luttgens

Morris:

Yes, traditional view. And I think that was when her son,
Richard Miller, was appointed.

It sounds like being president, except for the fact that it took
a lot more time, was not that much different from, as you say,
the general flow of other responsibilities you'd had with United
Way.

That's true, except that we were in the process of change and
that required some different kinds of things to be done, as I
said earlier- -meetings with people, some hand-holding, some
assurances that- -you know, same old business. When you're in a
process of change, keep all the lines of communication open, as
John Gardner says, be very clear about what it is you're going
to do and don't have people think you're going to pull a fast
one on them.

At the same time, we had committees meeting to determine
whether we were going to have by-laws that were going to bring
consumers on the board or that we were going to have new rules
for bringing in agencies- -all of those things were happening at
the same time. By the time Tom Clausen got to be president,
most of that change was through and we could go on with
business, not as usual, but as redirected.

You mentioned going to call on individual donors. Were there
also corporations whose leaders had similar concerns that needed
to be- -

I don't think so, it's not my recollection. There may have
been, and I wasn't aware of it because I wasn't as plugged into
the corporate community then as I am now. I would have known
now, but I didn't know then. I believe that there was a strong
enough constituency from the corporations, through the campaign
cabinet and that sort of thing, that they knew what was
happening, they knew why it was happening.

They were having their own problems. They had Cecil
Williams leading groups to meet on their front steps and demand
more help for homeless and so forth, and I've got an enormous -

--in 1973?

think that was all going on. There were marches occurring- -
It was the homeless I was plugging into.

123

Luttgens : Cecil has always served the homeless and those without food. I
took a dim view originally of what he was doing. I happen to
think he's a terrific member of our society, now that I've
gotten to know him and I know what he's doing, and a very
constructive one. At the time I saw him only as a rabblerouser
I believe that it was at a United Way trustee meeting that he
threatened to disrupt by speaking for the needs for more money
for the needy and homeless.

We were still meeting at the Bank of America on Montgomery
Street before the new building was built- -the old Bank of
America building, and we had trouble getting up into the
building because of demonstrations.

This was after the third-world business, as I recall, but
there was a lot of waking United Crusade up to the rest of the
world.

Women's ChanginE Role: Mayor's Fiscal Advisory Committee

Morris: And your sense is, having observed this process for some time

now, that sometimes the rabblerousing technique is appropriate?

Luttgens: I think there has to be- -excuse the expression- -a cutting edge
just as the National Organization of Women [NOW] whom I didn't
approve of then- -it wasn't my thinking that all volunteering has
to take place for social change, which was the early precept of
the National Organization of Women. But I think they played a
role in the early days, raising consciousness. I can remember
saying to Aileen Hernandez, "When you get to the point where I
can accept what you're doing, then you'll know that you've
attracted the mainstream." And my viewpoint changed as well.

Morris: And what was that point?

Luttgens: I think that point probably was the day when, as a member of the
bond screening committee which was a subgroup of the Mayor's
Fiscal Advisory Committee, we met with city officials, probably
1977 or '78. The background on this is that there were fifteen
of us on the Mayor's Fiscal Advisory Committee. I was the only
woman, and I said to Roger Boas when he asked me, "Roger, why
are you asking me to do this?"

He said, "Because you would fit in well with the other
members of the committee, who are all sort of corporate types,
and we're going to be of assistance to [Mayor] George Moscone ,

124

and, besides, you're a woman." I said, "Well, I'm not going to
be the only one," and he said, "Oh no, we're going to have some
others." Well, there weren't any others for a while, and then
Ellen Newman came on and some others .

He called for a bond screening committee. George Moscone
decided that he really needed a citizens' committee that would
be part of his fiscal advisory committee that would look at the
bonds that were going to be proposed. They had already been
screened by the capital improvements committee so that the
technical part had been approved. So this was to be a citizens
bond screening committee.

Roger asked for volunteers, and a lot of the members could
not serve because they had a conflict of interest. They were
from investment houses or groups that were going to be handling
the bonds, so I said, "Roger, for what it's worth, if you want
me, I ' d be happy to serve. I have just common sense about
whether something is needed or not. I have no expertise as to
whether this should be done, other than my knowledge of what
seems to be sensible."

Morris :
Luttgens :

So I ended up being one of the members of the bond
screening committee along with Roger; I've forgotten who the
third person was. I appeared on time for the meeting with each
of the proponents of proposals for the next ballot. These were
not the heads of the department but were the second in command,
because the heads had already met with the capital improvements
committee; so they sent their number two people to this meeting.

It was a very warm day and people had arrived in shirt
sleeves. It was at City Hall. I was on time and Roger wasn't
there yet, nor was the third member. I introduced myself when I
came in, and as they came in, they introduced themselves and we
were just sort of sitting around. Finally the man from the
controller's office down at the end of the table smiled nicely
at me and said, "Well," he said, "are you here to take the
minutes today?" and I said, "Mr. So and So, I am a member of the
bond screening committee, and we're going to be looking at your
proposal in a few minutes to determine whether it's something
that should be on the ballot." I said, "Besides, that's a very
sexist statement. "

Good for you.

That's the first time I'd ever done anything like that. I was

so proud of myself, and I was so mad. He just sort of sank into

his chair and nobody said a word until the rest of the people
arrived.

125

Interestingly enough, the bonds that we were screening that
day- -one was the clean water bonds: the sewer bonds. We've had
to live with that. But it did pass, of course, and we did turn
down a couple of other things that we didn't feel were
appropriate .

Morris: I think that was the project that had a woman as coordinator.

Luttgens : Oh, did it? I'm not sure. It's had a very checkered history,
you know. They've had problems, there's no question of that.
It's been much more expensive than they thought. Every time I
pay my water bill, and I realize that I'm paying as much or more
for the sewer project as I am for my water, I have a fit. But
on the other hand, it was something that had to be done. There
were a couple of other things that would have been nice to have
done but we didn't feel that the city could afford them, so we
did turn down. It was an interesting experience, but I think
that was the thing that really turned--! recognized what he was
saying, how women were viewed. I've told that story many times
on myself because it was my kind of emergence as somebody who
was going to speak up for women.

United Crusade Board Teamwork: Developing Leadership

Morris: But you didn't have similar experiences in your term as
president of United Crusade?

Luttgens: No, I did not. I had a lot of cooperation, an enormous amount
of support. The board was marvelous. We had a good board, we
had a good working relationship, which is one of the things
that's always been my experience when I've been president or
chairman of something. I've worked hard to bring the board
along so it's a cohesive team.

Morris: But in the United Crusade case you don't have much to do about
inviting people to serve. They've already been selected by the
nominating committee.

Luttgens: That's true, but that's true of a lot of other boards where I've
served as well where you have to work with people that you might
not have selected yourself. It's not like a committee where you
can say I'd like so and so and so. The board generally
represents certain constituencies and skills, and to get all
that to work together--. I had the same experience when I
chaired the Council on Foundations, which is a whole other
subject down the line, where it was terribly important to have a

126

board that worked together, and we had that cohesiveness when we
made a lot of changes in the council.

Morris: Were there any special kinds of things you introduced in terms
of trying to get a board working together?

Luttgens: I think that business that I mentioned before, we spent almost
the whole first board meeting just going around the table
talking about ourselves one by one and allowing some interaction
between board members and then getting down to the business.
People could remember what someone did and what he or she cared
about in his or her community

Morris: In general, with a board that large, is there a problem with
maintaining a quorum and with attendance in general?

Luttgens: There wasn't at that particular time. I think we were very

fortunate to have a board that was so interested in making this
new United Way work that we had people attending. I think they
were afraid they would miss something for one thing, and they
wanted to participate. There were boards before that and after
that- -I still attended board meetings when Tom Clausen was
running United Way, and there were times when a business person
on the board just simply would not be able to be there, but
generally it worked out pretty well. I really don't know what
attendance is like now^ I don't recognize a lot of the names
that are on the board currently, but then why would I? They're
people that have been coming up in the ranks and hopefully are
strong participants and knowledgeable about United Way.

Morris: Were there any people you remember in particular whose work with
you on the board was particularly helpful?

Luttgens: Ed Reyes for one. I don't think Larry Boiling stayed on the

board. There was a wonderful young man named Eddie Washington
who was so enthusiastic and was from Contra Costa County, who
worked in an agency- -he was a staff person in an agency- -and I
believe went back to school to get a further degree. But he
brought such a sense of youthfulness and vigor to the board.

Then there were the veterans like Jan Bonner, who had been
around for a long time but was just true blue and putting in a
lot of time. Hazel Benninghoven, who was head of budget. We
had a good mix of people.

Fred Moore, who emerged from another part of the country.
He probably was president after Tom Clausen. Fred was with one
of the big accounting firms. He had been shifted around the
country, and he kept saying, "We've got to do something about

127

this. You're making me president, but I've only been in this
community for four years. You need to get people who have been
in this community longer than I have."

It was after Fred, as I recall, that the real drive to
begin again to involve local corporate leadership, which I guess
had dropped off a little bit. But to plan ahead, because when I
was president we were planning ahead two and three years as to
who was going to come along as president. Somewhere along the
line I think Fred- -he had more time that year than Jack Grey or
somebody else who was coming along so he was put in that slot.
But now they have things pretty well lined up.

Morris: And it's been able to be people who have got longer years in the
Bay Area?

Luttgens: Yes.

Morris: Is there kind of a rotation of San Francisco alternating with
Marin County alternating with other counties?

Luttgens: Not really, because they've sought somebody who's head of a

corporation, and there aren't many headquarters of corporations
in Marin, there are only three major ones in the East Bay. The
Silicon Valley people (Santa Clara United Way) really haven't
developed the leadership except for, of course, Hewlett-
Packard. John Young, I think, is feeling very pressed to do his
own thing, although Charlie Lynch certainly has been involved
when he was at Saga and again when he was at DHL [Dalsey,
Hillblom & Lynne] Worldwide Express, but of course now he's gone
off to the East Coast- -he's not DHL any longer.

It's part of what we discovered with the Business
Leadership Task Force as well --the mergers and acquisitions, the
early retirement of some executives, or even regular retirement.
By the time they're able to give time to United Way, they're
pretty close to retirement. They had Fred Mielke, who had
retired from PG&E as president. That's a question: do they want
an immediately retired president who might have more time?

They had John Place, who had been chairman of Crocker
[Bank] before Crocker was taken over by Wells [Fargo] . John was
president-elect of United Way, and he continued. He put in a
lot more time than he would have been able to if he'd still been
at Crocker.

Morris: That's an interesting thought, given people who are planning to
retire at fifty-eight or sixty.

128

Luttgens: That's right. It's one of the things they are talking about

right now, as I understand it, in this whole United Way retreat.
Do we want somebody who's coming along, who's younger; perhaps
who's not the CEO, but is the next one down and looks like he's
going to be there?

The routes that were encouraged in my days at United Way
were campaign chairman, then president or president-elect, then
chairman, so that there was a whole continuity of about four
years. I'm not sure they've still got that. They do try to
move the campaign chairman into president, so there's a two year
commitment. But they have somebody different as chairman of the
overall group --the trustees.

Something we haven't even talked about too, going back, and
I would have to look at the date, was the doing away with the
county trustees. That was part of this whole activity that was
going on with New Directions, Concentrated Services.

Morris: I thought that would have been part of the shift over to United
Way. You recall it as a separate--?

Luttgens: I recall the trustees as still being there; it may have come out
of the forum review.

Morris :

It was very painful. We had a man named Charles Kelly, who
was from San Mateo , who chaired the finance committee for years
for United Way. Somehow I got myself on the finance committee
before I was president, and it was very much closed- shop.
Charlie ran it the way he wanted to run it. The people he
selected, the people who came on- -and I've forgotten how I got
selected. I think he liked me. After he went off the United
Way board, he still was a very strong trustee and would come to
the trustee meetings, at the point where we decided that we
should no longer have local trustees- -and I've forgotten why,
whether we were going to have a smaller group that would still
have some local representation or what it was.

But anyway, I can remember going to see Charlie Kelly along
with Bob Young, our executive then, and maybe somebody else, and
Charlie was madder than a wet hen. We called on him at his
house .

He was going to mount a campaign to keep the trustees. It
was another one of those things we had to do something about.

But you weren't going to do away with trustees per se, it was
just representation--

129

Luttgens : I think that was it. We were going to keep trustees. Again,
I'd have to look and see, but it was quite a battle. I think
the point was, you had this great local trustee body which had
staff locally--! think that was the crux. And instead of having
a local presence through staff we were going to have whoever was
down there have a much smaller office and not be staffing
trustees. Interestingly enough, the Strategic Oversight
Committee later went back to that same pattern of having more
local presence staffed so that there was a United Way office in
each county.

We went through a period of trying to be lean and mean and
cutting back financially. So I guess we were cutting back on
administrative as well as on agency budgets.

Morris: I was wondering about this idea of the United Crusade role as
convener of the community. If you were thinking in terms of
cutting back on the presence in individual counties it sounds
like there was a shift in that idea.

Luttgens: There was. And I think part of that dynamic was what was

happening with BASPC as well, because BASPC had a county body,
and they were convening around issues. So what were local
county trustees at the United Way supposed to be meeting around?
See, a lot of that was trying to sort out who should be doing
what.

Morris: And United Crusade trustees didn't have any role in relation to
the BASPC?

Luttgens: Not really. Although if it was somebody like me, you see, I was
in both so there was some overlap.

Next Career Steos: End of Social Planning Council: Labor Unions

Morris: Were there other specifics that you recall being pleased with
about your term as president or other areas of tension that
needed to be resolved?

Luttgens: No, it was trying to mend some fences and move into a new

structure and that sort of thing, which I thought worked well,
then turning it over to Tom Clausen so that he could be the next
president. I put a lot into it, I got a lot out of it. I'd
already started doing some other things at the same time. That
was all in that period when I was being recognized by Mills

130

College and giving the graduation speech. So there were a lot
of other things happening at the same time.

Morris: Right, and by then you're on the Rosenberg board- -

Luttgens: --that's right.

Morris: --and you already had started as a corporate director?

Luttgens: Yes, had started in at Pacific Telephone at that point. So
there were a lot of other things happening. It wasn't as if
finishing my presidency was the end of my career.

That's always one of those things I talk about with
volunteers, that if your career ends in one area you generally
can either continue with, expand, or start a new career in
another area.

Morris: Do you think that some people have a problem of feeling like
they're losing their power when they--

Luttgens : I'm sure that's true if you've only done one thing. If you had
worked only in United Way — and United Way isn't even a very good
example because it was so broad, there are a lot of facets to
it- -if you had only worked for Edgewood Children's Home, for
example, for years and years, you finish being president and
there wasn't anything else for you to do- -do you go back and
become just a volunteer again because you care about the
organization, do you spread your wings and move to something
else? I've always felt that whatever you did in a volunteer
capacity, you need to go the broader step beyond the first focus
of an agency or an interest, what's the broader community about,
do something in the broader community that builds on what you
had been doing. So in a way I was ready to do that.

You had asked about the ending of the United Way Social
Planning stuff, and I did look over my notes.

It was in 1972 that the rift between UBAC and the Bay Area
Social Planning Council occurred. There was a memo of
understanding that went from Peter Haas, who was then president
of UBAC, to Social Planning.

Paul Akana had left, and the fellow that replaced him, Al
Taylor, was there. I was on the board of both organizations.
The UBAC Finance Committee recommended to cut the budget of
BASPC. That was in the minutes of December 1972. And the BASPC

131

Morris :
Luttgens

board was up in arms, "We cannot possibly operate with that
budget. "

And it was at that point that I resigned, because I felt it
was a clear conflict of interest for me to sit on both, and I
had to really make a decision about whether I was going to fight
UBAC for the funds or whether I was going to stay with UBAC. I
resigned from BASPC in January of 1973, and I had one of those
nice letters, "Thank you so much," and so forth.

But there was considerable bitterness between the two
organizations, and, of course, the BASPC was quite right. They
really could not survive. Their budget had been dwindling and
dwindling and dwindling. So I cannot tell you exactly when
BASPC was no longer an entity because I was no longer on the
board, and I don't have files on that- -I should remember. But
it was that action that triggered it and triggered my
resignation.

Also, at that time, Peter Haas announced the resignation of
Jim Mergens , who had been our executive director, and mentioned
that Larry Boiling, I believe, was going to be an officer or a
member of the United Way board nationally and that I was to be
president-elect. That was in 1972.

So that was just to finish that up. Now you mentioned
relations with labor unions. I think we discussed the problems
that I had, the problems that Tom Clausen had. I'm not quite
clear exactly the date that Bill Morison was later president of
UBAC, but it was at that point that he took a firm stand with
the labor unions and would not budge. That was what really
stopped any collaborative working together with labor for quite
a long time. It's been years. Now, I think Joe Valentine has
been able to bring them back into the fold, and labor is an
active part of the United Way. It's changed over the years, I'm
sure.

What was Morison' s--

I've forgotten what the issue was, but I think it was more of
the same. It was labor demanding the unionization of some
agencies. I think it may have been Lincoln [Children's] Center
over in the East Bay. I think Bill Morison decided that enough
was enough, and it was just going to go on and on, so he and the
board together just took a strong stand and said, "Can I have
this sort of unionization that's plaguing our agencies all the
time?" That's my recollection of it.

132

X SAN FRANCISCANS SEEKING CONSENSUS: GOALS FOR 2000
[Interview 5: August 3, 1988 ]##

Morris: I read in the Chronicle that you are involved in this group, San
Franciscans Seeking Consensus.* That sounds like an effort to
create the kind of community forum the old social planning
councils used to provide.

Luttgens: I was surprised that the Chronicle sent a reporter to the

meeting. We had been meeting informally for some time, and we
felt maybe we should go beyond small group. We thought it was
worthwhile, but we didn't know what anybody else thought about
it.

Mervin Field got interested in us because he said, "Any
group that'll meet at seven- thirty in the morning and on
Saturday mornings," which was when we were meeting, "must be
pretty dedicated." So Merv came to a couple of meetings and he
said, "How would you like me to put on some focus groups for you
for a larger group?" We said, "That sounds great."

We very carefully drew up a list of about 400 decision-
makers in the San Francisco area and sent out invitations for
them to come together in smallish groups — not more than twenty-
five --to talk about further progress.

We had very good representation from everybody except the
business community. The problem was they scheduled the meetings
at seven o'clock at night- -from seven until nine --and most
business people don't live in San Francisco any more, and they
just plain didn't come.

"Warring Factions Focus on San Francisco's Goals in 2000," Vlae
Kershner, San Francisco Chronicle, August 1, 1988, A7.

133

Then we came back together again at Fort Mason. [Mayor]
Dianne [Feinstein] had not been invited to be part of this, and
she was furious when the report came out in the newspaper
because she had not been aware of us. And she called Martin
[Paley] and just gave him the dickens.

We deliberately had not involved her because we didn't want
her to take it over as her thing. We wanted it to be a citizen
effort. Father Lo Schiavo, I remember, was a good participant.
We had the religious community, we had a lot of neighborhood
people.

And at this report meeting at Fort Mason we broke up into
small groups in that big conference room that they have there;
so we were all in one room with a box supper. The point was,
where did we go after that?

There was very much a feeling that the effort should be
pursued. It was about that time that Martin was getting into
the Buck Trust events, and there was no way that he could devote
time to SFSC.

Art Kern had been one of the leaders. Art left KPIX to go
into business for himself.

The group dwindled for a bit. Nothing happened. And then,
after Martin got settled on his own, we started meeting again.
Almost everybody who had been in the first group has been
meeting again.

A year ago there was a conference out at UCSF, in Laurel
Heights. About two hundred people were invited from the
original group, and about half of them came. It was a lunch
arrangement, and they met all day long. They scheduled it on a
Saturday when, unfortunately, I could not attend.

Out of that came a very strong feeling that education was
the most important thing that should be pursued. So we came
back together again to plan, and we have just completed three
meetings to which we invited those same people that had gone to
Laurel Heights. Out of those, we had about seventy in
attendance at each one of the sessions.

You were supposed to come to all three, not just one. The
first was on education, the second was on housing, the third was
on jobs and the economy, because we felt those were all very
related. The whole idea of the regional approach has come up
over and over and over again because San Francisco obviously
cannot operate in a vacuum. However, we still are limited

134

Morris :
Luttgens

pretty much to San Francisco people, we simply haven't felt
secure enough to move outside that.

Did Martin take a strong role once he got on--?

--the lead role, yes. He is the convener. So those of us who
have agreed to be the steering committee have been meeting again
to plan those sessions. Aileen Hernandez has played a very
strong role and has been superb.

The first session on education- -Superintendent Cortines
advised us but was not able to be present at the planning
meetings. He did come to the conference. He did make an
appearance at the other two conferences but couldn't stay.

The first conference was not very successful,
your dean of education at UC Berkeley- -

We asked

Bernard Gifford.

I can get you the reports of those conferences. I have them
right here, if you're interested.

Did he not see a role for the university?

He provided us with a paper that he had written on education.
His talk was a disaster. It was twenty- five minutes of
anecdotes. He did not speak to his paper. He had not done his
homework. The panel was also poor. The only person who was
good was Jere Jacobs (Pacific Telesis) speaking from the
business side about what business thought was important for
education. They had a parent who read some very long piece from
a very early education report which didn't seem relevant. Then
the other—I've forgotten who the other people were --but then we
broke up into small groups.

We also met at one of the public schools, and it was so
dismal. I mean, if you wanted to know the problems of the
schools, it was physically depressing. Dinner was bad; it was a
half a chicken with plastic utensils and no way to cut the
chicken. I objected vociferously.

We also decided at that point that we had to raise money to
put these conferences on- -mostly from foundations. I'd been on
the resource committee, and it was tough to do. We got some
money from Chevron and Gerbode and San Francisco Foundation.
Also the Walter and Elise Haas Fund, because Bruce Sievers has
been involved from the beginning- -from the start of these
sessions that we've had.

135

Morris :
Luttgens :

The second session was better. It was on housing and it
was at Fort Mason. The locality lent itself very well. Again
we were in the big room at Fort Mason so we could break up into
small groups and come back together again.

And the last one was on jobs and economy. I went to all
three. A lot of people did not come, even though they had been
told very strongly that they had to come to all three. As it
turned out some people came to one or to two; after the first
one, we lost a few because, frankly, it wasn't terribly
worthwhile. I'm hoping we're going to revisit education.

But out of the three the last one was very good. Ray Brady
from ABAC [Association of Bay Area Governments] had given the
talk at the October conference a year ago and has really
galvanized people. He was very clear, very action-oriented. He
again spoke at the last one on jobs and economy and again people
said, "What are we going to do next? Let's do something."

So we are planning another, October conference and this
will be the fourth. It will follow education, housing, jobs,
and the economy and hopefully will bring together the elements
of all of those conferences. I don't think there's going to be
a bit of a problem about deciding on issues and goals. The
problem is going to be how you get there, which is where the
differences are going to occur.

I don't know whether it's going to be successful or not but
the reporter [Vlae Kershner ] - - they had spoken to him about it
and he was very interested. The Chronicle is interested in
having him pursue it. And I'm assuming he'll be at the October
conference .

He had talked to Martin, and he had talked to the person
that we had hired as a staff consultant, Chuck Forester, and
said that he understood I'd had something to do with education
and wanted to talk to me for a minute. And, as I said to him, I
didn't think that the October conference was going to be the
end. I thought it was going to be the beginning. I hoped that
there would be some action that would come out of it and that
those who attended would be interested enough to volunteer for
task forces that could pursue particular aspects of education- -
but I can't tell you what those aspects are now until they come
together.

And it's still an ad hoc group?

--yes, but invitational. The only reason for making it
invitational is that we very carefully try to balance the group.

136

And James Ho, for example, who spoke at the housing session as
Mayor [Art] Agnos' deputy for housing, came late, left early,
and had his deputy speak in his place on the panel. She looked
around the room and, being Asian as well as Mr. Ho, said, "There
aren't enough Asians here." So the only thing we're doing at
the October conference is we're trying to augment those who came
before with additional Hispanics and Asians. There seemed to be
a lot of blacks that were interested and there have been a
number of neighborhood people- -those neighborhood activist
types --and again some business people, not a lot. But the
business people that have come have been very good.

Walter Johnson got up at one point at the housing meeting
and gave us his blessing. In other words, "This is a very
important thing and so forth."

His deputy, Jeff Greendorfer, has been a member of the
steering group --an active member.

A lot of staff help has come from [Pacific] Telesis in the
form of Linda Mjellem who is also staff of the mayor's fiscal
advisory committee and has been working on this, and she is
superb. She and her assistant, Annalisa Brunato, have been
present at each session, have prepared materials, have provided
meeting space for planning in between. We're having another
planning meeting on Thursday morning at seven- thirty to try to
refine the steps.

Donald Terner from Bridge, on housing--! guess that meeting
was held at UCSF at Laurel Heights rather than Fort Mason, the
last one was at Fort Mason. Don Terner was excellent- -very
clear, very definite.

The housing area is probably the hardest to attack because
there are some real underlying problems, there's no question
about it. People who live in one part of town don't want to .
open up their area to other people. It's that kind of thing.

I think on education everybody will agree on goals. The
problem will be how you arrive at them.

I think on jobs and the economy there will be a much more
regional aspect than the other two, although housing has some,
too.

I think it's a worthwhile effort. I don't know whether
it's really going to accomplish anything--! hope it will. It's
certainly timely as far as Mayor Agnos is concerned. It's
exactly the kind of thing he says he wants. We've tried to get

137

Morris:

Luttgens

Morris:

Luttgens

Morris:
Luttgens

Morris:

Luttgens
Morris:
Luttgens
Morris:

people from the mayor's office to attend since he has been in
office- -nobody has come except for James Ho.

The obvious thought, of course, is that if a really nifty plan
gets put together it would be very easy to have various
political persons decide they would- -

--use it as their agenda?
Right.

It's one of the reasons that we will be asking some of the
supervisors, I believe, to come- -I'm not sure. We've gone back
and forth on it- -should we invite all the supervisors, should we
invite none of them? The October conference unfortunately will
be just before the November election. So it could be used as a
political vehicle and that's not what we want.

And I'm rather .surprised at the mayor because we're billing
this as the vision for the year 2000, which is exactly what he's
been talking about. I've talked to Claude Everhart, deputy
mayor, as have others, and Claude has said, "Oh, yes, I'll be
there," but it's just low on their priority list. It may be
that they're waiting till all the spadework is done and then, as
you say, come in and get involved.

Right. It would seem to be a delicate area because a lot of the
agenda you would think would end up having government
implications.

No question about it, and that's why the public people have to
be there. Now, as I say, Superintendent Cor tines has been very
interested and has come because he sees the value of working
together on it.

That's fascinating. I've put the tape recorder on because we
might not get back to it another time and- -

- -absolutely- -

--it seems like a very--

- -significant- -

--appropriate kind of a thing to include in our general
discussions.

138

XI ROSENBERG FOUNDATION TRUSTEE, 1969-

Joining the Board

Morris: At what point did somebody talk with you then about possibly
becoming a member of the Rosenberg Foundation board?

Luttgens: That was 1969, and Frank Sloss was the person that spoke to me

because he was chairing the nominating committee. Of course, at
that point, I knew Frank through the Social Planning Council. I
knew Caroline, I didn't know Fred Whitman. I knew Fred Merrill
through my Presbyterian Hospital days because he had chaired
that board- -knew him very well. I knew Malcolm Watts because he
was a friend- -a friend from the medical community. Eleanor
Sloss I had not known before, nor Ben Duniway.

And I had known Lewis Butler for a long time. Lew in the
meantime had gone off. I was replacing Lew, as a matter of
fact, on the board. Oh, and Bill [William Matson] Roth was on
the board. I knew Bill through- -well, it says Bill was 1970 to
1977 so I guess I went on the year before Bill- -I hadn't
realized that.

Peter Haas came on after I did, we were very close in
starting our terms. Lew came back from Washington, and I said,
"Aren't we going to ask Lew to come back on the board?" There
then was an opening. And the board said, "Wonderful idea," so
Lew was back on the board.

Morris: So, in effect, he took a leave of absence.

Luttgens: Yes, in a way. Although he came into another slot. I guess

what had happened at that point- -Fred Whitman resigned in 1973,
and so that was when we brought on Herman [Gallegos] , as I
recall. Fred, I think, became ill and felt it was really more
than he could do.

139

Morris:
Luttgens

You have a question in here about why did people resign.
It seemed to me it was for illness except for Mai Watts, who, I
think, felt we weren't doing a lot in medical granting any more
and just wasn't sure that he needed to be there. But by and
large people just went on and on. You know how long Caroline
was on the board, Frank Sloss, Ben Duniway.

There was no discussion of a set term or anything like that?

No, there really wasn't. And it was at the time when the San
Francisco Foundation was establishing board terms, and we
didn't. I think we just felt it would be better to take a look
at that situation when our three-year term was up to see if the
individual wished to continue. That has gone on, as a matter of
fact, since then.

But there is a sort of a three year--

Oh, yes, you were elected for a three-year term, and the board
is staggered so that every year three members of the board come
up for reelection.

Herman went off, as you know, because he was asked to serve
on the Rockefeller Foundation board and he felt that it was not
fair to take two slots for one person. He was very much in
favor of--

When you say you took so and so's slot, was it--?

Well, no. They really weren't designated but I guess I'm
referring to that because of the way- -a vacancy occurred is what
I should say rather than slot- -there were no slots.

Diversifying Directors

Luttgens: But what did happen since I went on the board in 1969, there was
very much a feeling that the board should diversify. Up until
then it had been pretty much white male and female. I was on
the nominating committee when we were asked to seek out some
people of more diverse backgrounds. And it's in that fashion
that we arrived at Herman.

I was asked when I chaired the nominating committee to see
if we could find a young person. We were doing work with young
people. And we tried very hard to find someone who was willing
to participate, with two criteria: one, a young person, and the

140

Morris :
Luttgens

Morris :

other, somebody from the Valley up around Stockton or Sacramento
or that area.

We identified a young woman who we thought would have been
superb. She was a Stanford graduate and had been very involved
in things, but she had two small children, she was building a
house. It sounds ridiculous to say there was only one person
identified, but she was ideal. I think we came to the
conclusion with that effort that it was going to be very hard to
attract somebody in that age group who was very involved with
family and particularly from an area of that distance.

We also were looking for a black member, because we did not
have one, and identified a young man who was an attorney, but he
was starting his career, and he said, "I'm not going to be here
very long. I have an opportunity to go East." So again it was
that mobility factor that we found was a problem.

Right.

We did end up, as you know, at that point with Norvel Smith. And
Norvel has continued on the board.

When Herman left, we did ask him to identify a leader in
the Hispanic community. It's the only time I remember that
specific a search. And he identified Cruz Reynoso, who at that
time was not a supreme court justice but was an attorney.

Was Mr. Reynoso then with the Agricultural Labor Relations
Board?

Luttgens: No, I think he had left that, but again that was a real plus

because he had that firsthand understanding of what goes on in
rural communities. He was a judge at that time --and, of course,
we had Ben Duniway as well. So that was fine.

And we did ask Herma Hill Kay. I remember going over to
talk to Herma when I chaired the nominating committee to ask her
if she would serve, and she came on in 1978. We must have
talked to her about 1975. Jing Lyman was on the board, and Jing
had been identified by Caroline Charles because Caroline, of
course, was serving on the Stanford board of trustees; she knew
Jing and we brought her on at Caroline's suggestion. Dick
[Guggenhime] was then president.

Jing had never had an experience like that before and she
was thrilled and had a real learning experience with Rosenberg,
which she acknowledges freely.

141

Morris: So she kind of took Caroline's seat when Caroline was--?

Luttgens: No, because Caroline didn't retire until 1974 so she and Jing

were on the board at the same time. I'm not sure whose vacancy
she filled. She must have filled Fred Whitman's. At any rate,
when we asked Herma, she said she had an activity that she'd
agreed to do for two years and really could not undertake the
Rosenberg Foundation position. But she said sometime she would
be interested, which we remembered when a vacancy occurred in
1978 and asked her then if she would serve. She was delighted
and has been a wonderful member, of course, and is president
now.

Grants Budgets

Morris :

Luttgens

Morris:

When Frank Sloss talked to you first, what kinds of questions or
ideas did he put forth and what kind of questions would you have
asked him, do you recall?

To be quite frank I knew what foundations did but I did not know
how they operated, so my questions were largely operational. He
sent Ruth Chance to talk to me and Ruth came with a big folder
of materials- -by-laws , granting, annual reports and so forth. I
remember we sat downstairs in the living room. The one thing
that I was surprised about was that we seemed to be invading
capital; we didn't seem to be only spending income and I was
concerned about that and she said, "Well, the board has always
felt that if something were important to do, it needed to be
done and we could carry that forward and then make it up another
year," which, of course, is what we were doing.

So my recollection is that Rosenberg has always spent up to
the limit of funds available. It was not until Herman came on
the board that he raised the question of having a grants budget.
Since that time we have had a grants budget, and the finance
committee determines each year how large that budget should be,
what we can afford, for example. Then we always stretch it just
as far as we can. So there's never been any question of holding
back, it seems to me, when a project needs to be done. Although
you do look at the amount left for the year when you get to the
end of the year and you try not to short-change those projects
that are brought to the board at the end of the year.

Once a grant budget was established was it kind of divided into
quarters or so much per--

142

Luttgens: Not really, although the idea was that --well, yes, and certainly
since Kirke has been there. He has tried to pace the granting
throughout the year, for two reasons. Not only because of the
budget but also because of the staff work. If you bring all the
grants to one meeting or two meetings, it requires an enormous
amount of staff work and also it would mean spending everything
in the beginning of the year when there might be a terribly good
project that would come along later.

Early Board Meetings: Leadership Matters

Luttgens: You asked about- -well, from the first board meetings I was very
impressed. They were very brisk. That board had worked
together for such a long time that they knew what each other
thought and what the foundation's policies were. We met at
noon.

During lunch there was always a very pleasant exchange of
what was going on in the various members' other activities,
which I found absolutely fascinating.

Morris: In their other activities?

Luttgens: That's right, Stanford board of trustees, various community
affiliations. And, of course, I could contribute to that
because of my own experience and what I was doing, so I never
felt junior in any way, although I was certainly new to the
field. The kinds of very candid discussions that occurred about
very important things that were going on provided a wonderful
collegial atmosphere. Then we would immediately get down to
business after lunch was pretty well served.

Ben Duniway was the first chair I worked with. He was a
very good chair, certainly allowing for discussion; but there
was very much a climate of not a lot of dilly-dallying about
projects. People knew pretty much- -they had all done their
homework- -how they felt about something, and Ruth, of course,
was superb, as far as her handling and her relations with the
board. Everybody respected her, admired her, loved her. There
is a difference, there's no question about it, in styles, as far
as chairmen are concerned, but Ben's meetings were very well
done. Caroline, I believe, followed Ben. [reading from fiftieth
anniversary report] Caroline Charles, '71. Ben was '65. Who
was in between? Ellie Sloss. Ellie was '61 to '64. She was

143

not president when I was a member.
Morris: Was she still a trustee when you came aboard?

Luttgens: Yes. She went off in 1970. I haven't really plotted out who

succeeded who on the board. What I'm really trying to find out
is who followed Ben. He was until '65. Oh, Fred Whitman was
'65 to '68. Then Ben Duniway came back again as president, '68
to '71, and in those days the president's term was three years.
It wasn't until Lew Butler became president that he said, "You
know, it's going to be the year 2000 before some of the newer
members end up being president." By that time, we were going
chronologically. In other words, when you came on the board
determined when you became president. There was no question of
selection.

You also asked if there was a problem about electing a
woman president, and Caroline's time to be president did come
up. Ellie Sloss had been president '61 to '64, but Caroline,
after Ben had come back and been president for the second time,
was concerned that they were trying to pass over her. She
simply said to whoever was chairman of the nominating committee,
"It is now my time to be president, and I'm going to be
president." And she was. Ever since then, it's been very clear
that it simply follows chronologically, so there's not a
question of selecting somebody, which I think is different from
many foundations where there is a real attempt to select someone
as "leader."

Morris: Or possibly even in some cases, a rivalry, when somebody decides
they really want it and they don't want somebody else to be
president. Does that occur in some foundations?

Luttgens: I think so. But, of course, Caroline was a very strong member
always, and she was a terrific president. It was during her
term that Ruth retired, and a search committee was formed. You
asked if there were changes in the board during that period to
'73, and that's quite right. It was a very stable board, and
there weren't a lot of new voices, new people coming in at that
period. Ruth retired because of age.

Future Planning: Executive Search. 1973-1974

Luttgens: It's my recollection that she said, "You know, I should retire."
The board talked her into staying during that period while we
took a look at what we should be doing. You said, "How did the

144

idea of doing extensive assessment of social change...?" and so
forth- -that came about because the board realized that they had
to deal with a new person, and they had to decide whether they
were going to make the work manageable. The applications were
coming fast and furiously. The question was, were we going to
narrow the focus, so that the applications could be handled by
one person and an assistant and somebody to do the accounting
work, or were we going to expand staff? That was the beginning
of taking that look.

Morris: That was an all -board committee?

Luttgens: Well, it started out to be a future planning look, as I recall,
and the whole board got so interested that we all got involved.
The search committee was separate, and I was not a member of
that, but I did come across a file the other day of some of the
people we interviewed, and it's my recollection that Ruth had
known Kirke through some of his work for the state and in the
valley and thought he would be a good candidate. I don't know
that she identified him to begin with. I think he may have
applied, but she knew of his work and was very supportive of him
in that role. He was, of course, selected.

Morris: Was there a wide -scale sending out of announcements?

Luttgens: Yes, and we had a very good applicant from the East Coast who

was up almost until the end; she is in the foundation field, and
I've run into her from time to time. As a matter of fact, I
can't remember if it was Frank Sloss, or who it was, who
suggested that I might be a candidate. I just didn't feel
adequate to the job at all. I hadn't done my nuts and bolts of
that sort of thing but was asked quite seriously by the search
committee if I wished to be a candidate.

Morris: If you had been there longer at that point, might you have?

Luttgens: I don't really think so. My life was at a point where I didn't
think I could undertake a full-time job. And, of course,
anybody following Ruth--

Morris: It would be at least time-and-a-half labor.

Luttgens: That's right. But Ruth was very much a part of our looking at
what we might wish to do. In many organizations that I know,
such a group that is planning for the future will say, "Well, we
ought to wait until a new person comes on board," so he or she
could be a part of it. It was very much a feeling of the
trustees that they wanted to articulate that vision of whatever

145

it would be, and that whoever came on would come on with that
understanding.

Morris: That this was where the board had arrived in its thinking.

Luttgens: So then we did end up with Kirke. I will always remember a

little sidelight. Caroline Charles, who was president at that
time, decided that there would be a reception for Ruth at her
retirement. And Ruth said, "Absolutely not." There was quite a
pitched battle about it, and Caroline, who could be very strong,
simply put her foot down and said that she and Allan [Charles]
were going to have a reception at the Town and Country Club, and
all the people who had been close to Ruth would^ be invited. So
Ruth finally realized that Caroline was serious about it. It
was the most marvelous party in the world, because all of the
people that she had had anything to do with—who had such
respect and love for her- -came. Some of the names of people,
who I had heard of but had never met, turned up, like Florence
Wyckoff , Gib Robinson. All these people who were names on a
piece of paper, as far as granting was concerned, and part of
the history of the foundation, were there. It was an absolutely
marvelous party. I think Ruth enjoyed it, and I think it was
absolutely the right thing that Caroline should have done.

1969 Tax Reform Act: Supporting Improvements in Philanthropy

Morris: The year that you came aboard was also the year that the 1969
Tax Reform Act was passed.

Luttgens: Yes, and you asked about that. Ruth kept us very well informed
on that, and as you recall, Bill Roth had served on the Filer
Commission and was a fount of knowledge on the Filer Commission.
Everybody on the board was very interested. The attorneys were
knowledgeable about what the '69 Tax Act might mean, and Ruth
was very up on it. So that was part of the agenda that we would
discuss, before the meeting started, largely. I believe that it
was the handwriting on the wall about how foundations were going
to be treated and played a significant role in the kinds of
granting that the foundation did for philanthropic support for a
variety of endeavors.

Morris: In terms of what you were speaking of a few minutes ago, about
setting up a grants budget?

Luttgens: I'm not sure whether that particular item was related, but the

kinds of support that the foundation provided for, later on, the

146

Morris :
Luttgens :

Black United Fund, for these subgroups that were working to
improve the field of philanthropy. Certainly the Center for
Responsive Philanthropy, which we granted to, which was the
offshoot of the Filer Commission that Pablo Eisenberg was
involved in. And certainly, later on, the establishment of the
Foundation Center Library in San Francisco- -all of those
peripheral activities which we look at once a year as activities
that are related to the world of philanthropy. Sometimes the
trustees would get anxious: "We're putting more money in there
than maybe we should, if it's not going to direct grants." But
at the same time, it's been felt that it was important to
strengthen support for the Council on Foundations.

In the Bay Area as well as nationally?

Yes. You mentioned in my annual report I did say something
about it. It was at that time that we were looking closely at
the amount of money that we were putting into that field—women
and foundations, corporate philanthropy, and so forth. There is
a limit, certainly, to the number of peripheral organizations
you can support. I think that all really goes back, perhaps
because that's when I came on the board, to 1969. I'm not
saying those things weren't supported earlier. They were. But
there were not as many. They were proliferating from 1969 on.

Foundation Staff "Brown- Bag Group:" Corporate Grantmaking

Morris: There weren't that many other foundations in the Bay Area that
had staffs in the early 1970s.

Luttgens: That's correct. When I first attended the so-called "brown bag
group" for foundation staff, I think I was the only trustee who
attended. Ruth invited me to come, and the meeting was held at
the old Irvine Foundation offices, which I believe were on Post
Street. Claire Denahy was there, John May, Ruth, Ed Nathan, a
few other people who I really didn't know that well at that
point. I hadn't met them, so she really guided me into knowing
some of the foundation people and that group. Larry Kramer was
one of the originals.

I didn't attend those meetings regularly, but I did go to
that one meeting. I was really very struck with the
collegiality of the group and the fact that they weren't passing

'President's Message, Rosenberg Foundation Annual Report- -1979 .

147

Morris :
Luttgens :
Morris :

Luttgens :

an application around the table, saying, "Are you going to fund
this? We think we may." They were talking generally about the
field. And the developments in the field, as opposed to looking
at specific grants which, in my understanding, is what the
corporate grantmakers did when they first started out. They
would say, "We have a request from this agency. Are you going
to fund it? I haven't decided whether I'm going to or not." I
have problems with that approach.

It is not collaborative funding. To my mind, it is setting
up a curtain that grantees cannot get through. My definition of
collaborative funding is when some foundations come together
around an issue, and everybody takes some part of it and works
together for the goal, as opposed to a specific application
which may stand or fall because the possible grantee is viewed
as inadequate in some way.

Foundations differ. I can remember Lew [Llewellyn] White,
when we were funding the program in Berkeley on transient youth,
saying to me, "Your foundation is putting money into providing
showers for those folks, and that's just perpetuating the whole
thing." And I said, "I'm sorry. We happen to think that it's a
very good project, and we want to pursue it."

He said, "Well, our foundation isn't interested." I said,
"You know, if your foundation isn't interested, that's fine. We
are." There was much less collaboration in those early days.
There was the coming together of colleagues but it was not
collaborative funding.

It was more mutual problem-solving and confidence-building?
That's right.

The corporate "pass the application around" approach sounds
similar to what I've been told that the banks have tended to do
for years. They've sort of had an unofficial clearinghouse
committee, that in addition to passing checks back and forth,
has a group that decides on contributions.

I don't believe that's true anymore, or at least I'm not aware
of it. I think all of that changed as the corporate grantmaking
group became much more sophisticated and had staff that was
designed to take care of granting. And as they discovered after

148

Proposition 13, they simply couldn't fund a little something
here and a little something there.

I can remember a member of the staff at the Bank of America
contributions group in the Emergency Fund after Prop. 13 when I
said, "I think that all of the corporate groups are going to
have to develop a focus as to what it is they want to do." I
can remember her saying, "Oh, we couldn't possibly do that,
because we get grants from all over, and we have to grant
broadly across the field." And I said, "Well, it would be
easier for you if you had an emphasis somewhere, because both
those grantseekers and those of you who are investigating
applicants would know more about a particular area." And she
said to me, quite a long time afterwards, "You know, we really
have had to do that, more or less. We still give to a lot of
things, but we've developed a particular kind of granting or
particular area that we want to grant to."

So I think Prop. 13 changed a lot of that. The corporates
were so flooded with requests, because the feeling was, "Go to
the corporations. They've got money." And they found they
simply could not fulfill all the needs, and they had to be much
more professional and much more focused on what they were doing.

Conflict of Interest Policy

Luttgens: Well, we're skipping around here. Your outline asks about legal
responsibilities of trustees generally. There's always been an
emphasis at the Rosenberg Foundation on no conflict of interest
and that sort of thing. The San Francisco Foundation also
developed, early on, a "no conflict of interest" policy which we
freely shared back and forth. The Rosenberg Foundation: from
all my recollections, the trustees had been very well educated
to the fact that if a trustee was involved in a particular
organization either formerly as an officer or on the board or
currently, that we told the rest of the board about that, and
that we refrained from voting on the project. If the other
trustees felt that we should not join in the discussion, we did
not. That's now a formal policy for Rosenberg, as it is for the
San Francisco Foundation and others.

*June 1978 California ballot measure; its passage sharply limited
local property taxes.

149

I remember taking a San Francisco Foundation trustee to
task when I was asked to sit in on their distribution committee
at one point. He was very involved in an organization, and the
application was about to be passed over when he said, "I think
you really should look at this," and he was a member of the
board. I was, frankly, appalled, because the staff had come in
with a strong recommendation not to fund. When I was asked at
the end of the meeting by Martin if I wished to say something, I
could not refrain from saying, "I think it's terribly important
that trustees refrain from any conflict of interest, actual or
perceived." And the trustee knew exactly what I was talking
about, because he immediately responded.

But back to the conflict of interest policy at Rosenberg.
We were all very active in the community, so we obviously had
involvements in some of the projects that came to the board, and
so I think it was particularly important for us. I remember, in
particular, the days of the Riles-Roth School Commission, when,
of course, Bill Roth was on the board, I was on the board, Lewis
Butler also. I don't remember whether Herman was still on the
board, but there were about three or four of us, and we all had
to refrain from discussing or voting on the request to fund
them.

And I've had the same experience at the Walter S. Johnson
Foundation. I've actually left the room, when I was chairing
the San Francisco Education Fund, and they had a project from
the Ed Fund that the staff person had developed. I said, "As
you know, I chair the group," and I left the room and didn't
participate in the discussion or the vote. They did vote it
through. Now they are still doing projects with the Ed Fund,
and I say, "I remind you that I am no longer on the board or
chairman, but I have been very closely affiliated." And they
all say, "That's fine." I don't know about the projects that
are being presented now. Beforehand, I simply read what's there
in the docket. I think it's an important point, because it's
what the media brings up all the time- -that the trustees are
self -dealing.

Like the Danforth Foundation and the George Washington
University grant, where the brother was a president of the
university.

150

Walter S. Johnson Foundation
Foundation in Transition

Observations on a Family

Morris: The Walter S. Johnson Foundation is not as well-known as many in
the Bay Area. How did you get connected with them?

Luttgens: It's interesting. I was talking about this yesterday, because
it is a family foundation, and I've been really the only off-
board member. They had a man named Joe DeMaria, who was on the
board when I came on, but he had been--

Morris: The only non- family member on the board?

Luttgens: That's right. But Joe had been so close to the family, so close
to Mr. Johnson, and so involved in the financial affairs of Mr.
Johnson, that I always considered him a member of the family.

Morris: Is this the same Mr. Johnson that put up the money that started
the preservation of the Palace of Fine Arts?

Luttgens: Yes. First of all, I knew Gloria and Chuck Eddie- -Gloria is Mr.
Johnson's daughter- -through their coming to meetings when the
foundation was just beginning to be established. I met them and
was told that they were in the process of establishing a
foundation, and they wanted to learn as much as they could about
foundations. They hired a young woman named Donna Terman who
had just graduated from Stanford Law School, and their feeling
was that she was somebody who also didn't know very much about
foundations, so they'd all learn together. Donna immediately
began acquainting herself with people in the foundation world.
She talked to Ruth, she started attending conferences, the
national Council on Foundations and, with no hesitation at all,
seeking out national leaders in the field and asking them if
they would talk to her. She has been an excellent executive for
them.

They then asked me if I would attend a retreat that they
were going to have --this is after the foundation was formed- -up
at Lake Tahoe . At that time, on the board were Gloria and Chuck
Eddie, Gloria's sister Jeneal Shackelton and her husband Harry,
their daughter Sandra Shackeltpn-Bruckner , Walter S. Johnson,
Jr., and Joe DeMaria. I was simply asked to talk with them
about foundation processes, which I did. I spent the night
before and spent the day with them and then flew out that
afternoon, and John Goodlad was coming the next day to spend the
day with them, because they were particularly interested in
education. I didn't think very much about it. It had been
interesting to meet them, and I felt they were very much in the

151

formative years. Then, lo and behold, they asked me if I would
join the board. I thought about it. They also asked Ruth to
join, as I recall. They decided they wanted two outside people.
Ruth declined. She had met with them a couple of times. They'd
asked her to come down. And they also, I believe, talked to
John Goodlad about joining the board, and he didn't feel that
was appropriate because they were funding one of his projects.

So they ended up with just me, and I'd have to look up the
date. It's been about five and a half years, or maybe five
years, that I've been on the board. Joe DeMaria has since
retired from the board, because he felt that when Mr. Johnson's
property over in Pleasanton was sold that he was not as
interested in the granting process as he was in seeing that that
property became a financial asset to the foundation.

They have had a policy of rotating two grandchildren at a
time through the board, and it's been very interesting for me to
watch how this has occurred. Sandy Bruckner went off. She now
is a member again. I guess I didn't know very much about family
foundations, and I didn't give credit to them. It seemed to me
they were just sort of dabbling, and I found that that's not
true at all, with a good staff person and a very committed
board, which they have- -a very serious board that wants to do
the best job they can. They're doing a very fine job of support
and particularly in an area which is important; as I say,
they've selected education as being an area they're interested
in, and they're bound geographically by Northern California,
Reno , and Maui .

What's happening now is that the Shackeltons have gone off.
Mr. Shackelton wasn't too well. I think he and his wife were
only on for about a year after I was there. Walter S. Johnson,
Jr. has gone off. He was living in Maui, and they were doing
some granting in Maui, some in Reno where the Shackeltons live,
and the rest in the Bay Area. They're a young foundation, and
they're doing a lot of soul-searching about what it is they want
to do and how they want to operate. I'm about to go off. They
finally established terms for board members, which they hadn't
done before, and I felt that it was time for me to go. I had
stood for one term and been elected. I had been on the board
before they had terms. I've been on the board about five and a
half years, and the new arrangements are that any board member
who is not a member of the family can serve two terms and no
more, whereas family members can either go off or repeat, as we
do at Rosenberg. I felt I was so close to my two terms that I
said I thought I should go off this fall.

152

So I'll be going off, and I'm in the process of assisting
them to find somebody who will be a non- family member, who can
bring to them some of the skills they need. I think I was
helpful to them in the beginning because of my particular skills
in organization and in education, and in knowing how a meeting
should be held. When I first started, we had two meetings- -two
days of meetings — for each session. All day Friday and all day
Saturday, from nine in the morning until about five at night.
And I, of course, had to drive to Menlo Park and back again. I
would be absolutely exhausted, and it seemed to me that it was
not necessary to meet for that long. So I have been an advocate
of brisker meetings. We're now down to one -day meetings, and
they have been meeting three times a year. They've gone to
four, because they have some less experienced grandchildren, and
they've also gone to more of a committee structure, which they
really did not have before. They have what they call a grants
committee; it's made up mostly of the younger members, and they
screen and review grants. The last meeting that we had went
very briskly, started at nine and was over by four- thirty, and I
credit the grants committee for allowing that to happen.
Because instead of long discussions about each grant, the young
people have had a chance to review them, look at them, talk
about them in a separate session.

I think that I've been able to help them up until now. Now
I think they need a different set of skills and experiences for
somebody to come on, largely in the area of understanding
financials. There's a lot of discussion about asset allocation
and relationships with the investment people; and personnel- -
not that they've had problems in personnel, but they don't know
a lot about how to operate in the area of compensation. They do
have an investment advisor. They do have a very good attorney.
They have a double investment arrangement, where they have one
investment company that is overseeing two others, one for
equities and one for fixed income.

--I think the foundation is functioning much better than it
was when I came on. And the thing I'm particularly pleased
about is that the grandchildren are getting involved with a
degree of responsibility. Up until then, they had simply passed
through, and I think what they have now are some grandchildren
who are really interested. I said at the beginning of this
discussion that I had been talking to Sandy Bruckner yesterday,
who is showing a great deal of leadership in the area. She had
called me about a meeting that we're going to have with a
prospective board member, and she said, "You know, I don't know
how to do this. What is it we have to do?"

153

Morris:
Luttgens

In selecting a new board member.

She knows what she wants. What she doesn't know is what to do
at this meeting, because it's a delicate area.

Selecting Trustees: Rosenberg and Johnson Foundations

Luttgens: It made me review in my own thoughts what we've done at

Rosenberg, when you look at a prospective board member. When I
came on the board (Rosenberg, now, is what I'm speaking about),
there was never any question if somebody was qualified. Number
one, that person might be known to everybody on the board, but
if not, we went along with whatever the nominating committee
recommended. We'd all discussed the kinds of needs the board
had, whether it was diversity or a particular skill. And then
when the nominating committee, which is usually composed of
three people, came up with the suggestion, we went along with
it. The second phase was when we had to devise an excuse for a
broader group, either the whole board or a enlarged nominating
committee, to meet with a prospective board member. We had to
think of an excuse, for example, for Herma Hill Kay to meet with
us; we asked her to talk with us about what she'd done in the
field of family law.

Morris: Not calling it "We'd like to talk to you about whether or not
you might be on the board."

Luttgens: No. Very delicate, and Herma was absolutely marvelous, because
I really think she thought we just wanted to pick her brain. So
we took her to lunch, and we talked about it, and that was fine.
It wasn't until afterwards, when we then formally said, "Would
you join the board?" that there was any problem. A couple of
other candidates- -Jim Gaither, I'm sure, knew what it was we
were doing when we met with him.

Morris: Is that Rowan Gaither 's nephew or son?
Luttgens: Yes, his son.

Morris: Whom Ruth Chance had worked with on the Ford Foundation board a
generation ago.

Luttgens: Yes, that's right, and she knew the family very well. She knew
Charlotte, his mother, very well. Jim had spent some time in
Washington and had a broad look at the human problems in
resources and so forth. He was a superb board member,

154

absolutely marvelous, but resigned when he became managing
partner of his law firm. He'd also been on the Walter and
Evelyn Haas [Foundation] Board and dropped that as well and kept
only the Stanford board of trustees and a couple of other
outside activities. Then they pulled him back on the Marin
Community Fund, as you know, to be chair of that group when it
was established. And of course, now he's chairman of the
Stanford board of trustees, which is lovely.

But back to the process. There were a couple of people who
we met with, who we thought would be good candidates for board
membership, and we had to devise this trick of pretending we
were, or perhaps we were, interested in the field in which they
were particularly skilled, who we didn't invite to membership.
I think that's very difficult. So Sandy Bruckner was saying,
"How do we do this?" I said, "We're all going to have lunch
together a week from Saturday."

Morris: With one candidate or with two or three possible?

Luttgens : With one candidate. And I said, "I'll be perfectly frank with
you, Sandy. I have already mentioned to her the fact that I'm
going off this board, and that if she is interested and the
board seems to think it's a good idea, there might be an
invitation to join." I said, "I just don't see any other way
with somebody like this who is so busy and so involved, that you
can have a lunch out of the blue. We've already had one lunch
with just Gloria Eddie and the candidate, and they got along
like a house afire. Gloria's very anxious to invite her to
serve on the board, so now she's meeting with some of the
younger board members, and I'll be there, too."

So I said, "All right. Let's look at the problems we have
on the foundation. Asset allocation, she knows a lot about
that. She has not served on a foundation board before, but
she's very skilled in the area of accounting. She is both a CPA
and an attorney. She also is very skilled in the area of
compensation and is involved in several corporate boards where
she has had that sort of experience. I think the thing is
you're already tracking. You're making the list. Simply ask
her for some help and suggestions in this area."

Sandy said, "You know, whether she agrees to do this or
not, I have the feeling that maybe we should ask her if she'd
mind just talking to us about some of these things." So I think
that's the way the lunch will go. The candidate will know,
obviously, what the purpose is.

155

Morris: Is it helpful if a sort of an interested third party says,

"These people might want to talk to you at some point, and they
might want to offer you a spot on the board," so that the
recruiting people aren't saying formally, "We'd like to consider
you for the board but we don't know whether or not we're going
to like you." I would think it also works both ways.

Luttgens: Oh, yes, because as she sees more of the board members, she may
feel she doesn't want to spend time on it. Well, I thought and
thought, because I was asked by a couple of people that are
attached to the foundation, the professional people, if I would
be of assistance, because I'd had broader experience than
immediate family members, in suggesting who might be good. You
see, I think they make a mistake in asking a professional who
has been seeking funds from them, like a John Goodlad, to come
on the board. Although they may be very experienced in the
field, they may need them for consultants; you can do it that
way, without involving them in the board.

Morris: And such a person would be more appropriate as a potential staff
member if you needed that particular skill in a foundation?

Luttgens: Or a consultant. In other words, if you were to say, "Would you
give us some consulting help for a year while we get into this
new area of granting which we don't know anything about, rather
than as a board member?"

Morris: Was that a problem, say, with somebody like Herman Gallegos or
Norvel Smith, who had professional experience in fields
Rosenberg makes grants to?

Luttgens: It's very interesting. Caroline felt very strongly, and I think
she says in her interviews with you that her view of the best
kind of trustee was somebody who was not a professional in the
social work field but somebody who was a very experienced
community volunteer or person of that sort. My own view is that
the broader the experience, the more one can bring. But there
were a couple of people who were suggested as members of the
Rosenberg board who were never invited because they were
professionals in a particular field. Herman really did more
than his social work things. He became known in other areas as
well, as a leader in the Hispanic community.

Morris: Partly with the assistance of some fairly skillful grant support
in developing some national Hispanic organizations. So there's
a sort of a hybrid kind of a personal resume.

Luttgens: That's right. Yes, I would say that that was an example. Yori
Wada, for example, has gone on the Stulsaft [Foundation] board,

156

although Yori was considered for years as somebody who was such
a skilled social worker that it was better not to involve him as
a trustee. And, of course, he's superb.

Morris: But if a governor appoints him to the University of California
regents, does that move him into a different category?

Luttgens: That's right. Well anyhow, I don't know how this will come out,
but as Sandy Bruckner said to me, "We are beginning to establish
a process. We haven't had it before. I want to be sure we do
it right." She's the chair of the nominating committee. I
said, "Well, you have to have a meeting with the candidate, in
this case. I mean, you all want to do that. And then I think
you have to poll your nominating committee and see if they wish
to invite her to membership, and then you report that to the
board, that you would like to invite her to membership and send
her a letter. "

And hopefully, all this can be done before the October
meeting, and she can be elected at the October meeting to start^
serving in March of next year, which would be their next
following meeting. So, who knows? This candidate may decide
she doesn't want to fuss around with all these young people in
this kind of effort. But the board is coming along very well, I
think.

Capital Questions at Rosenberg

Morris: As you mentioned, it sounds like they're very much interested in
developing the process and in having a sound foundation. Is the
plan that its assets will grow and it may develop?

Luttgens: That's a good question. They have, to all intents and purposes,
sold this property in Pleasanton. The last payment will come
next January. When that is done, they are through with that.
Now the only way their assets could grow is by a different kind
of investment, because as it is now, they're pretty much
spending income every year. There will be no other grants to
the endowment, as far as I know, unless Chuck and Gloria Eddie
or Walt, Jr. have made provisions for that. I don't see
anything else.

Morris: Well, I was interested, in going through the Rosenberg

Foundation records, that there have been a couple of non-family
additions to capital.

157

Luttgens: That's right. There have been.

Morris: And I wondered if those were expected. John May used to speak
about bequests that would mature at a certain time. There had
been Charlotte Mack's gift way back.

Luttgens: Charlotte Mack's gift, Ruth may have known about. I don't know.
We did not know about Ellie Sloss's gift. That came as very
much of a surprise. As far as I know, there haven't been any
others. The only other time that, I think, the trustees felt
that they would like to individually give was in memory of Frank
Sloss, so that was done. We had talked, from time to time,
about actually trying to go out and solicit from people who we
thought would be interested, but we've never done it, and I
don't think we ever will. We had had discussions over the
years. I remember Lew Butler, in particular, saying, "Well, we
can either go on like this in perpetuity- -or try to raise funds
from individuals." There was very definitely a feeling we
didn't want to turn assets over to the San Francisco Foundation
so that Rosenberg would go out of business.

Morris: Was that suggested at one point?

Luttgens: That was something that was mentioned. The other thing was that
we didn't want to spend ourselves out, as some foundations have.
The other alternative would be to go out and solicit gifts or
make an attempt to get gifts from either former trustees or
something of that sort, and we really didn't think that was such
a great idea.

Morris: Was this part of this future plans review of the 60s and 70s?

Luttgens: It's come up from time to time. I believe it was part of that
discussion, that early discussion, around the time that Ruth
retired. But we're sort of happily going along spending what we
can.

Morris: Was the Sloss bequest large enough that it made a difference in
how the foundation operated or its potential for making grants?

Luttgens: It was $50,000 and was earmarked for some activities at Mills
College, because we felt it was something that she had been
particularly interested in.

158

Expenditure Responsibility

Morris: What about the expenditure responsibility provisions of the 1969
Tax Reform Act? I remember ten years ago, when I was talking
with foundation people, they were much concerned that federal
regulations would mean that they would become much more involved
with and responsible for grantees. Did that turn out to be as
much of a problem as it was thought to be?

Luttgens : From time to time, that issue has been raised, and it's always
mentioned if a grant takes that expenditure-responsibility
effort by the board, it's always reported in the application as
the director reviews it with the board. The board has had to
look at that.

There have been a few for which we have taken expenditure
responsibility. You tend to forget particular grants after
you've made them as a trustee, unless the area is one that's of
particular interest, or the grantee is one that is consistently
supported over a longer period of time. And when we talk a
little bit about those long-term grants, that has some
pertinence. But there was a grant at one point, where a man in
Oakland did run off with the grant money. It's been a long time
ago. I think it was when I first came on the board. But it was
one of those things you really could not have anticipated. The
two directors that I have known in their capacity as director,
both Ruth and Kirke, have always been very careful about
mentioning expenditure responsibility.

Public Policy Considerations

Morris: It sounds like there was not a formal orientation when you went
on the board.

Luttgens: Ruth Chance was my formal orientation. She really spent about
an hour and a half or two hours with me, going over these
materials, discussing the foundation and the history. And
somewhere in the outline you've mentioned the history of the
foundation. That's something that I bring up from time to time,
as far as the board's concerned, now that I'm the senior member,
because it's something that some of the newer board members may
not be aware of. They certainly were during the fiftieth
anniversary. The outstanding people who had been trustees at
the foundation and really, the national tone that that set for
the foundation, that it was attracting outstanding people and

159

Morris :

Luttgens

those of us who are now trustees really, I feel, should be very
proud to be a foundation trustee.

You asked me how I felt when I was asked to go on the
foundation board. I really was thrilled, because what it said
to me was that I knew enough about the community to be put in a
position of allocating some very precious funds and to join that
august group. I really was thrilled, and when people have asked
me what part of my community activities I've enjoyed the most,
my answer always is the Rosenberg Foundation. It's been really
a delight to serve there and to work with people who I
thoroughly enjoy, both staff and board, and to be privileged to
be in the area of doing- -as I said in my annual report, that
it's doing very important work, even though government funds are
so much more sizable, or were.

Still, the foundations can lead the way, and the steps that
I've seen foundations take, this foundation, in particular, the
Rosenberg Foundation, in moving from simply providing service to
changing public policy, has been a hallmark, I think, of
Rosenberg. We've actually turned down grants, where we've
looked at the grant, and it's a perfectly good grant. It's a
fine grant. But we can see that that agency has the capacity
for raising funds from other foundations, from a lot of other
places, and unless it's really something that is going to bring
about some change .. .This has nothing to do with the merits of
the grant, necessarily. There are always too many good grants,
and the grantee, or the applicant, can say to you, "But I've met
all of your criteria." And they have, but there is an area that
goes beyond meeting criteria, which is judgment- -how good the
staff is, how important the grant is to the field, and how
necessary it is that we make that grant.

In the first years you were on the board, did you already have
the sense that part of what the board was doing was looking for
things that would make a public policy different?

I think it was there, certainly in the kinds of things that Ruth
was recommending. I can remember one grant in particular, and
this is jumping a bit. I perhaps haven't answered your
question. The answer is yes, I think it was there. But not as
clearly articulated as later. I remember one grant, early on,
that all of the women on the board were in favor of. This would
have been Caroline, me, I think Ellie Sloss was still on.

It had to do with assisting conscientious objectors to know
about what their options were. The men on the board absolutely
would not go for it. And I can remember Caroline saying
afterwards, "Give up. We can't do it. We aren't going to have

160

a pitched battle about this. It's a good project, but they
obviously feel it is not appropriate from a patriotic standpoint
and from a male standpoint, and so there's no point in pursuing
it." Which was an interesting thing.

Most of the time, most of the things we funded were
proposals that Ruth brought to us, and then later Kirke.
Although there were times when we turned things down, for one
reason or another, and there were times when we had split votes,
when it wasn't unanimous. If it was a very split vote, we would
reconsider.

Relations with Applicants

Luttgens : One of my pet peeves was when some of the newer board members

came on, they would try to redesign the project at the meeting,
and I've always had trouble with that. It seems to me that if
you start telling the grantee to do something one way or another
as opposed to what he or she has in mind, number one, it's not
going to work, because he or she will only do it to get the
grant, and it isn't really what they had thought about in the
first place. Those sorts of things, it seems to me, need to be
worked out, before it ever comes to the board level. It really
bothers me if your executive director comes in with a project to
the board and the board starts saying, "Well, maybe we ought to
do this instead of that." An add-on is all right, as far as I'm
concerned, if you want to add an evaluation component or
something of that sort. But to start turning and twisting the
project- -

Morris: Do you have any sense, from listening to Ruth's, and later
Kirke' s, presentations, as to how many times they will have
suggested changes to an applicant in the process of review?

Luttgens: Yes. I think both of them have, from time to time, in the

discussion with the applicant, been sensitive to this and have
suggested that it would be a better project if it were focused
slightly to one direction or the other or whatever. It seems to
me that your staff person is a filter, and that filter is based
on the knowledge of what it is the trustees are interested in
and the thrust of where the foundation is going based on
discussions and published policies. It is up to the staff
person to refine the project, as much as it can be done, to
bring it to the board.

161

There was a piece in the Foundation News, two or three
years ago, that they asked me to comment on, where it was asked
how much direction or discussion should the staff person have
with the applicant. And my response is, number one, if the
project's good, anything that will help make that project as
good as possible, without directing the project. And I still
believe that's true. Because, after all, what you want in
granting, to my mind, is a successful outcome and, without
tinkering, it seems to me some suggestions can be very helpful.

Morris: It sounds as if, amongst foundations in general, there has been
quite an increase in foundation staff people working with
applicants. Sometimes when it's in a policy area, I have
wondered if there is some concern about whose project is it.

Luttgens : And whose priorities.

Morris: Yes, and does that become a problem?

Luttgens: Well, again you have to have faith in your staff and what

they're doing, it seems to me. If the purpose of the project is
appropriate, if the applicant perhaps is not as skilled in one
area as another and the staff person says, "Perhaps you want to
have this looked at by a legal person or an accountant," or
something like that, I consider that technical assistance. I
think skewing the project, as you are somewhat suggesting, is
where you get into difficulty, because the grantee, or the
possible grantee, wants the money and thinks perhaps that can be
tinkered with enough so that it will be funded.

Morris: And if the foundation's policy is the same as the general area
that the applicant is working in, it would seem to me that that
could become a sort of a tricky area.

Luttgens: I think it is tricky, but on the other hand, if a foundation

simply looks at applications and says, "Well, that's the purpose
we want but it isn't a well-written application," and sends it
back, it seems, to me, that's detrimental. One of the biggest
criticisms, as I understand it, from grantseekers , is that there
isn't enough communication between grantgivers and grantseekers.
Now they don't mean direction, and they don't mean shaping, but
the ability to communicate between the two.

We had a marvelous conference down at Stanford a couple of
years ago on the future of foundations, where Pablo Eisenberg
was one of the participants. And Pablo said, "You know, you can
learn from us, because the grantseekers that are coming in know
where the problems are. Let us participate in discussing with
you what the aim of the project is, what it is we're trying to

162

accomplish, and so forth." And I think there's a lot of
validity to that. That's very different.

Views on Site Visits

Luttgens : You have a question in your outline about did we ever do site

visits at Rosenberg. Frankly, we didn't. It was very much that
the filtering process of the executive having the contact,
bringing in the project, presenting it to the board, so you had
three parts to the equation. I think that's changed somewhat,
and I remember Lucile Packard and I, on panels, when we were
together, would present these differing views. She felt very
strongly that a site visit was important for the trustee to
understand the project. I still have some reservations about
it. I think that what is apt to happen is the person making the
site visit, particularly if you have a board that is broken up
so that one team is going to one project and another team is
going to another project, you can't help but get involved if you
see a good project. And when you get into the board meeting,
you're going to speak for your project.

Morris: That's an interesting aspect of it, yes.

Luttgens: And I have a problem with that, because I've seen granting done
by a board that would not be done by me by myself, or Jane Smith
by herself, or John Doe by himself. But when they come
together, the board as a group determines that this is
important, and it seems to me those group decisions — you see, I
call that collaboration within the board, and I talk about that
in that little piece I did for the Northern California
Grantmakers book, "Collaborative Granting." I think you have
all kinds of collaboration. You have board collaboration—what
it is they want to do. You have collaboration between staff
members around a particular area that they want to address. But
that collaboration is awfully important, as far as the board's
concerned, because you're spending money that isn't yours, and
you have people on the board who come from a diverse group of
backgrounds. The board needs to feel comfortable in making a
grant, it seems to me . It's what they need to do to carry out
the wishes of the foundation.

*"A Trustee's Perspective on Collaborative Funding," Perspectives on
Collaborative Funding, San Francisco: Northern California Grantmakers,
1985.

163

Board Collaboration and Continuity: Recent Additions

Morris: Could you find me an example for how board collaboration differs
from consensus -building?

Luttgens: That's probably a better word for it- -consensus -building. And
perhaps I'm using the word incorrectly.

Morris: Consensus is a more usual term, but I have this sense that
collaboration is something that you've thought about.

Luttgens: Well, the reason I thought about it is that I was asked to do
the piece on trustees for the little book that the Northern
California Grantmakers did. I wanted to introduce it as an
element of consensus-building, or whatever you want to call it.

Morris: Is it what Kirke refers to as the culture of the foundation?
That's a striking image.

Luttgens: Well, it's what the corporations were all trying to do to

establish- -a culture for their corporation. You know, you talk
about culture of an organization.

Morris: That is, it's a personality and a dynamic specific to your
organization?

Luttgens: That's one of the reasons I haven't gone off the Rosenberg

board. Nobody's asked me to, but all of our terms came up about
the same time.

Because we had all come on at about the same time--
[ reading] Peter in '69, Leslie in '69, Lew back again in '72--
Lew called the three of us together and said, "I think we ought
to talk about the fact that we shouldn't all go off at the same
time." So we had lunch, and we talked about it. And Peter
said, "I want to go off, because I have a lot of other
activities that I have to get into." I believe he was chairman
of Levi Strauss at that point. And Lew said, "Well, I'll go off
second, then."

So Peter went off first, which would have been '83, and Lew
went off in '84, and then I said, "And I guess that means I'd
better go off in '85, or whenever my term is up." Lew said,
"No, I think you ought to stay as long as you can." And he said
to me the other day, "Don't get off that board. Don't get off
that board." He said, "They're doing a wonderful job, but they

164

Morris:
Luttgens

Morris :

Luttgens

Morris :
Luttgens
Morris :

Luttgens

still need the sense of history. There has been so much change
on the board recently." So there you are. I'm still on the
board with, how many years is it now? '69 to '88 -- that's
fifteen years, almost.

Almost twenty years.

Oh, you're right. Good heavens! But I say to them every once
in a while, "Any time you don't want me to continue, I will
retire, but frankly, I enjoy it." So I've stayed.

And the board is superb right now, I think. We really have
done a lot of work to bring on people who care about the
foundation and have particular kinds of interest and skills to
give. You look at Ben Dial, who is recently retired as an
executive vice president of Pacific Telesis. Don Ritchey, who
is a former CEO of Lucky Stores, but who I'd known through a
couple of corporate connections, and he's started a whole new
life. He's on the board of California Tomorrow with Lew Butler.

He's having a wonderful time. He's a very thorough kind of
person. Before he would come on the board, he wanted to
interview as many board members as he could, and I suggested
that he talk to Lew Butler. He went to talk to Lew, and of
course, Lew immediately thought, "Wow, I have to have this
person on my board," and asked him. And of course, Don came on,
and he's just enjoying it thoroughly. It's opened up a whole
lot of things that he was interested in that he wouldn't have
done before.

You said he'd gotten into a whole new life,
left his business career.

I wondered if he'd

After he retired. He gave them notice that he was retiring as
chairman of Lucky Stores over a two-year period. Then he turned
the CEO spot over to somebody else. He continued as chair for
another year or six months and then continued on the board and,
I guess, has been on the board until now. Lucky Stores has been
taken over by American Stores. It was phased.

Is he in his fifties or sixties?
He's in his fifties.

So he has phased out of his business career younger than many
people do.

That's right. However, he is still a director of a couple of
corporations, particularly the Christian Brothers -Chateau

165

LaSalle.
order.

They had brought on members from outside the religious

Morris: Christian Brothers?

Luttgens: That's right. And several of them. They are having a wonderful
time. They are changing, bringing about better marketing.
They're making all kinds of suggestions. He's on California
Tomorrow, as I say, and a couple of corporate boards. He's on
the McClatchy newspaper board, where he's seen how a newspaper
operates, and is setting policy for that. They've gone public
with their stock for the first time. There is some enlargement
going on.

Don is currently our treasurer, and he's absolutely superb,
because he's introducing a lot of new ways of looking at
financials, which I wasn't competent to do. When I was
treasurer, he was on my committee, and he began introducing some
of these ideas. So I was delighted when he became treasurer
this year.

Mary Metz is an enormous asset, of course, with her
background. Dick Rosenberg went off when he went up to Seattle.
He has come back to San Francisco, but not on the board.

Morris: Has he any connection to the Max Rosenberg, who created the
foundation?

Luttgens: No. No connection. Don and I knew him when he was the vice

chairman of the Crocker Bank board. I had known him through the
San Francisco Education Fund, when he was with Wells Fargo. We
had him on our Ed Fund board, and he is just a cracker jack
person. But he resigned from the board when he went up to
Seattle. He laughed when we asked him on the board, because he
said who else could have a foundation named after him without
having anything to do with it, until he became a trustee.

Phyllis Cook is a very active member. Jim Gaithers's gone
off. Cruz Reynoso, if all follows in process, chronologically,
will be our next president after Herma Hill Kay completes her
term this year. Peter Sloss has already been president. Bill
Kimball went off when he was chairman of the board of trustees
at Stanford, and it just got to be too much for him. But he's
continuing to serve on the Wattis Foundation board. He's
related to the Wattis family and is giving his expertise there.
Marguerite Lederberg was really Jing Lyman's suggestion, because
she knew Marguerite from Stanford. None of us knew her. Her
reaction was, "Well, I don't know anything about a foundation.
Could I try it?" She was really on the board fairly briefly,

166

'75 to '78, when her husband went off to head Rockefeller
University in New York City. She'd really never hit her stride;
and, of course, Norvel is still a member. Herman is now going
off the Rockefeller board.

Morris: Would the Rosenberg Foundation invite him to come back?

Luttgens: Probably not, because we have a full board complement now. The
board is developing that consensus -building, that knowing one
another well over a period of time.

Peninsula Area Philanthropists

Morris: And the sense of continuity that you're providing. You

mentioned Lucile Packard a few minutes ago. We were not able to
interview her before she became too ill, and listening to you
describe the evolution in the developmental stage of the Johnson
Foundation, I wondered if you would have known Mrs. Packard when
she and her husband were in the developmental stage of their
foundation.

Luttgens: I really did not. I knew them slightly up at Fallen Leaf Lake,
where they used to come in the summertime. Caroline used to go
to Fallen Leaf, and Bill and I went to Fallen Leaf Lake, so we
would see them once in a while up there. But I really did not
know her during those early days . She was a wonderful board
member, and she did have that difference in her philosophy and
mine, but I think it's the difference between a family
foundation, where you really want to see what your money is
doing.

Rosemary Young, the wife of John Young, the chairman of
Hewlett-Packard, is now serving on the Peninsula Community
Foundation board, and I had met her through Lucile, and I told
her if there was anything I could do to be of help certainly to
let me know and never did have that opportunity to talk with her
on a one-on-one basis at her invitation or whatever. But Bill
Somerville asked me to come down and talk to his trustees one
night over dinner, which I did, and I made the comment that I
did not feel it was necessary for board members to make site
visits, for the reasons that I've already described. Rosemary,
I could see, was getting very disturbed, and finally she said,
"I'm so new to this field that if I don't make site visits, I
can't learn." And I said, "I understand that, and that probably
is a very valid reason for making site visits, but the problem
is getting too attached or having the grantee or applicant think

167

you are going to speak for them at the board, which needs to be
clarified. "

So I can see both sides of it, and especially since the
Johnson Foundation grandchildren, although they have this grants
committee that is reviewing projects, they also are getting into
going with the executive to visit projects --a site visit. I
guess I've changed my mind a little on it. There are
circumstances where it can be very educational for trustees.

168

XII EVOLUTION OF ROSENBERG GRANT PROGRAMS

Kirke Wilson Becomes Executive Director. 1974

Luttgens: Of course, that leads us into the discussion about the trip to
the Valley and also the San Diego trip, which are both good
examples of the trustees en masse finding out about an area
where they have been making grants .

Morris: To introduce that, my question would be: What kinds of things
did the board ask of Kirke coming in, and then how did he go
about taking hold of the job? I understand that Ruth was around
for a while as a transition for him.

Luttgens: She was, and she was available to him during that period. He,
of course, is so bright that he immediately took hold, and with
great sensitivity to Ruth's position, I think, of being of
assistance to him. He brought some particular kinds of
experiences that she hadn't had- -his experience in working in
the Valley with people. I would say he had no problem at all.
I think at his first meeting, he was a little apprehensive about
whether the board was going to approve the grants or not and was
very relieved when they did. And as a matter of fact, as I
recall, we approved every application on purpose.

Morris: What a nice gesture.

Luttgens: As I recall, we did that. We might have turned one down, if it
hadn't been for the feeling that it was important to him to
approve all of his grants the first meeting. But I think he
brought us good grants, and he's continued to just do a superb
job, and we get into these discussions about should we change
direction, should we modify, or whatever.

His annual summary that he gives us is particularly good--
how the grants have changed over the past few years. For

169

example, there was a question about minority grants. For a
while, we felt very strongly that we were not granting enough to
women's projects, and projects run by women, not projects for
women run by people who were not women. He does an annual
summary of projects by area of granting. We've already
designated by women, minority, and so forth, which very clearly
allows us to put into perspective where we've been and where we
might say to him, "You know, it looks as if we don't have enough
projects in this particular area. Can we do something about
that?"

From Immigration to Families in Poverty

Luttgens : The last couple of years, of course, have been an aberration,
because we've put almost all of our money into the immigration
area. But we now are looking at the whole area of children in
families in poverty, because I think we've gone probably as far
as we can in this particular phase of the immigration picture.
We don't have a lot of money left this year, but we are trying
to educate ourselves about this. Board members making
suggestions about materials and Kirke getting materials and
sending them to us has been very educational for us. We really
aren't shaken down yet. It's such a massive field that it's
going to take us a while, but I know we're on the right track.
It's a natural for us.

Central Valley Self-Help Projects Revisited

Morris: How did he present the idea of going out to look at the Valley?

Luttgens: I can't remember. I have the feeling that suggestion came from
Lew Butler. Because Lew has always been very innovative in his
thinking, just as Lew suggested that we ask Lou Cannon to do
that annual report profile. I believe that was Lew's
suggestion that we have somebody do the profile, and it was out
of that suggestion that Lou Cannon came about. The board really
didn't have anything to do with Lou Cannon. Kirke did, and
whoever was overseeing the annual report did. I was not on that

"New Factories in the Field, An Essay on Agriculture," Rosenberg
Foundation Annual Report- -1978 , San Francisco, 1979. Copy in supporting
documents .

170

Morris :
Luttgens

committee, and I'm not sure they even met face -to -face with him,
but it was the idea of getting someone who could really describe
what was going on there. And of course, I thought it was a
superb essay.

Morris: It's a striking piece. I was really interested, because I have
read a lot of Cannon's political reporting and have found it
very interesting and entertaining.

Luttgens: But the trip to the Valley, as I recall, was a result of Lew

Butler's saying, "We ought to go down to the Valley sometime."
And I must say, it was an absolutely wonderful experience.
Number one, we hadn't participated as a board in an informal
setting like that before. As Lew Butler said, "The big question
is, what are the trustees going to wear?!"

Now that's the question usually a woman in the group asks.

Well, because we always met at the St. Francis Hotel for lunch,
everybody was formally dressed in downtown clothes, but this
event was to be leaping in and out of planes, vans, riding
through the hot countryside- -what did one wear? Well, the
ladies wore slacks. Jing had her slacks tucked into boots. I
had my tennis shoes on, but as Lew said, they were my dress
tennies, because they were brand-new.

So we all climbed on the airplane to go to Fresno, or
wherever it was we landed, and then Kirke had worked out a
wonderful day. The thing that struck me most about it was that
it did bring all that granting to life. The self-help people,
who I hadn't met- -they had just been on paper. Bard McAllister
was wonderful. They put us in individual cars at one stage,
where we were driven by the grantee population in small groups,
so that we had a chance to interact on a one -one or two -two sort
of basis. We had lunch, of course, with them, and to see how
thrilled they were that we were there was just a revelation.
They had heard about us for years, too, but the only people
they'd met were Kirke and Ruth, originally. So it was, to them,
a mission to their part of the world. It was really a marvelous
experience .

Morris: Were there still some of the people from some of the grants that
the American Friends Service Committee had sponsored?

Luttgens: I believe so, because some of those had continued. Not a lot,
but there were a few that we'd been granting to for years and
years .

171

Morris: Twenty- five years was what the annual report said, which is

really remarkable, considering that some people have a terrible
time getting a one-year renewal or extension.

Luttgens: Well, of course, the projects change. It wasn't as if we had
supported one project. It was that they would come in with
something else that was an important new project. I think that
came from Ruth and from Kirke both, who felt that if you had a
good grantee, and they were continuing to grow and do different
things in line with changes in policies that had been
articulated by the board, why not? And even when we changed,
this last time, from the areas that we had been funding.
Bananas,* for example, no longer met our current criteria after
that yearlong look- -the most recent one- -Kirke very carefully
designed a two-year carryover, so that those grantees who we had
been giving to over a period of time were given notice that our
grant policies were changing, that they would, to all
appearances, no longer qualify, but that we would continue to
grant over this period to them so that they could develop
resources and so forth. Not that we were their sole source, but
it was a very humane way to do it.

Morris: Bananas is a good example, because they've been around for about
ten, twelve years now. Have their programs changed and their
focus changed?

Luttgens: Yes. They've established a program for twins that we funded, as
I recall, and they had parental-education projects. Of course,
we funded the child-care switchboard in the very initial stages,
and that's now grown to be quite a major thing. You asked about
the child-abuse area. I don't recall that that was granting
that we did with Zellerbach [Family Fund]. We could have, but I
don't remember it in the context.

Morris: It doesn't come as much into focus as some other areas.

Luttgens: I think the whole area of, again, collaborative granting, is
something that's fairly recent, as far as the Bay Area is
concerned. Kirke, for example, will fund something that maybe
Gerbode was also interested in, but it wasn't as if they came
together and said, "Let's do this," or that Kirke called Tom
[Lay ton] and said, "I've got this grant, and I think it's good,
and you'd be interested, too." It just happened, but it is a
way of assessing the kinds of granting other people do.

Pioneering child-care services umbrella organization.

172

Collaborative and Corporate Grantmaking

Luttgens: I remember Marcia Argyris at McKesson [Foundation] when she

first started with them, and I would see the McKesson granting
turn up on some of the projects that Rosenberg was doing. To
me, that was a real breakthrough, because most of the
corporations were not doing the kind of risk-taking that
Rosenberg was, and it established in my mind that those programs
were good. I was on the McKesson board when Marcia started.

On the corporate boards, I chair a public-policy committee
at both McKesson and at Telesis. We do not approve specific
grants . We approve an amount of money at the beginning of the
year, which is the contributions budget. That's been one of my
little things that I speak to from time to time in the corporate
setting as well, because, for example, at one corporation, one
of the directors would say, "I see you didn't give anything to
the ballet last year. You know, my wife is very involved in the
ballet." I would speak up in no uncertain terms, and I would
say, "I think we, as directors, need to keep straight what our
role is, which is to establish a gross contribution budget but
to allow the staff to allocate the contributions within that."
The fellow from Fresno is always saying, "I see you're giving
more to Fresno this year than you did before," and we all kind
of laugh about it. He doesn't say "to these specific
organizations . "

We had a member of the public-policy committee at another
corporation who was from another geographical area who would
specifically offer advice on particular projects, and I told the
staff person that I had some real problems with that. So they
worked it out so that he could give input early on about
something he was interested in, but to leave it alone for the
staff to evaluate whether it was something they ought to do or
not. It's a sort of a corporate stance, which is a hangover
from the days when the CEO or his family interests directed the
corporate contributions, and that is not as true any more as it
was in the past.

I've forgotten how I got off on that.

Visit to San Diego Immigration Facilities

Morris: Oh, we started on site visits, and then we got to Rosenberg
trustees going en masse to the Valley.

173

Luttgens: It was a very worthwhile experience, and as a result of that,
when we got into the whole area of granting in the immigration
field, Kirke suggested that we do that San Diego trip. Lew had
gone off the board by then, as I recall, but we included him in
that session. I think that's right; I don't believe he was
still on the board. That visit was one of the most stunning
experiences I've ever had.

Morris: I haven't heard that one described in much detail.

Luttgens: The San Diego one? Well, we all flew to San Diego, and the
night we arrived, we immediately went out with the [U.S.]
Immigration and Naturalization [Service] people, met with the
officer in his office, and then were shown around. The order
may be a little skewed- -these were the elements of what we did
the first night. We saw the holding pens, where people were
held, which were absolutely appalling. People like caged
animals, looking through fences. We were taken out on top of
the mesa in a van in the dark, with a communications officer.
We could hear somebody from someplace else saying on the radio,
"Don't go to Quarter Number 5, because there are some people
there with guns." The helicopters were flying around, and the
searchlight was shining down, and behind the little bush comes
an immigrant with all his belongings in a little cloth sack.
He's immediately apprehended by somebody else who packs him in
another van and off he goes.

Morris: This is somebody coming across the border from Mexico?

Luttgens: He had crossed the border. We saw the area — actually, we went
out, I guess, before it was dark — where all of the people were
playing ball across the way, which Kirke had described to us,
across the border. We could see them all, out on this great big
playing field, and as soon as dark came, people began to
disperse over the border, and the whole thing was so vivid. And
then we visited the computer room, where the fellow that had
just been picked up was run into the computer, and Washington
reported that he'd already been picked up twice before and had
been sent home or had been held for some reason. And I kept
thinking, "There I am in that computer." They know where I am
every minute, so to speak. It was really a frightening
experience.

The next day we met with some of the service agency people
that we'd been funding- -where the Spanish-speaking counselor
would talk with the immigrant and find out what the situation
was, what could be done to help. Perhaps the family had come
from another part of the United States, through San Diego,
because there were better health facilities and they had ill

174

Morris :
Luttgens :

children or a child with cerebral palsy, or whatever. There
were women whose husbands were still in Mexico who wanted to go
back and join their husbands. Of course, this was all before
the [Simpson-Mazzoli] immigration law had been passed, so we
were seeing a pretty normal process.

The second day, as I recall, Kirke had invited some other
people who were serving in the area- -foundation people. I
remember a friend from First Interstate Bank, Lloyd Dennis, who
was staffing an immigration committee for the California
Business Round Table, was invited because he was trying to learn
as much as he could about this area. He was their public
affairs and contributions person from First Interstate for the
Round Table, but his boss, Norm Barker, chairman of First
Interstate, was chairing the committee that was looking into
immigration to make a report. And Lloyd was seeking as much
information as he could, so he was part of that discussion,
along with a number of service-providers, grantees who we had
been funding. And we all came together to talk about the whole
thing, and I remember Lew saying, and I totally agreed with him,
"There's no clear answer about what to do."

Of course, there are too many people coming. It was my
personal opinion that the immigration service was doing its job,
but what a dirty job to have to do, with these people's lives.
The whole thing was so big. Until something could be done about
the economy on the other side of the border, you were going to
continue to have people coming into the U.S. One of the
revelations for me was that it wasn't just Mexicans and Central
Americans. It was East Indians. It was people from Europe.
There were all kinds of people that were coming in through the
portals that were available to them in infiltrating the border.

Through Mexico?

That's right. Because it was a way to get into the country,
which I hadn't been aware of. I just thought those people on
the other side of the border were coming over here because they
need jobs. And the breakup of families and the whole thing was
just a stunning experience. I remember having lunch with a
friend a couple of days later, and I still was under the spell
of what I'd seen. We still, of course, are funding some of
those agencies, and they were part of that fiftieth anniversary
--some of them. It was wonderful to see them as part of that
meeting. That fiftieth anniversary event, I think, was one of
the most exciting things I've seen happen, as far as Rosenberg's
concerned.

175

Larzer vs. Smaller Projects: Child-Abuse Council Venture

Luttgens: I guess, getting back to the child-abuse prevention, you said,
"Were these initiated by Kirke?" No, they were not. That
started when Ruth was still there, and we funded Elizabeth
Davron doing that study on child abuse, which was a very
definitive document for us, then, to build on. Out of that
later came one of those child- abuse projects, which was one of
the larger, longer- las ting projects, which was not as
successful. In other words, we were looking for bigger
projects. And that was something that Malcolm Watts had
advocated. He said, "If you have a small staff, why not give
more money to a particular grant and do a bigger impact?" We
did the Child Abuse Council, and it was one that was not very
successful.

Morris: There were a couple of agencies in the San Jose area, and I
wondered if they were related.

Luttgens: I believe we led the way.

We were funding a lot of child-abuse programs. We had also
gotten into the area in a pioneering way in Santa Clara County
with funding projects on incest, to try to keep the family
together as opposed to having everybody go to jail or end up in
a psychiatrist's office and so forth- -but to work with the
family. Both of which were very pioneering. And it looked as
if we shouldn't just keep funding more and more child-abuse
projects because it was endless, and other people were beginning
to get interested in it- -and the same for incest now. There are
a lot of people funding that.

So we came upon the idea that was presented to us of
establishing a Child Abuse Council in San Francisco with the
professionals that were working in the field coming together and
working together. It seemed like a great idea. So we started
it with a fairly large grant, as I recall, and I can't tell you
the year we started it. It was the only time, up to that time,
that a committee was established to oversee a project.

Morris: A committee of the board?

Luttgens: Of the board. Frank Sloss and I served on it, and I think we
were the only two. We met with the main person, Dr. Moses
Grossman, a pediatrician from San Francisco General [Hospital] ,
and tried to take a look at the project. We did not play an

176

active role. They had him report directly to us, along with
Kirke. It went astray because they had problems with their
staff, and instead of our stepping in and saying, "You need to
make a change. You need a different kind of staff person," we
sat by and watched them switch staff two or three times, and it
just wasn't a very successful project. However, today it has
been revitalized and is well supported and viable.

Now, Ruth would probably be the first to say that probably
out of that came some good things , because there always are some
good things. And probably the good thing was that the people
that were working in the same field had more of a sense of who
they were, so that they had more of an understanding of their
own network. We had such great hopes that it would establish
some real standards in the field and make some progress, and I
don't think it ever really did that. I can't remember what the
other project was that we had a similar experience with that
taught us that you simply can't say, "We're going to do a bigger
project and put a lot of money into it," without really
providing some supervision.

Morris: In order to make a bigger impact on awareness of, or possible
solutions to a problem?

Luttgens: Yes. There's always been the feeling in each one of these

program direction re -evaluations that we would continue to fund
some little projects that would be good projects because of the
person that was running them or had conceived them, who would
bring those ideas to fruition. That's what so much of it comes
back to --the individual who can develop a project and then grow
it and turn it over or get out if they can't continue to run the
larger organization.

Morris: And leave a loophole for the foundation to respond to a project
run by an individual with ability that may not fit into an
overall granting program?

Luttgens: That's right. And that's my earliest recollection from the time
that we first started talking about what the foundation was
going to do when Ruth was retiring, was that the board really
didn't want to let go of those little projects that maybe didn't
quite fit the criteria. But they were so good and nobody else
was going to do it, that we wanted to do it.

177

Discretionary Budeet, Board Meeting Practices: Annual Reports

Morris:
Luttgens

Morris :

Luttgens
Morris:

Is there a discretionary budget for the executive director?

There is now. There wasn't when I first came on the board. I
think the board now is much more business -oriented than it had
been before and is apt to say, "You ought to b able to approve
grants up to a certain amount," or where a grancee wants to
stretch out a grant or where there is an add-on like an
evaluation or something, where it doesn't change the purpose of
the grant. But those are always reported to us immediately at
the next meeting.

The other thing was we always used to meet every month,
except for July and August. Now we're on an every- two -months
calendar, and again that's because we have participants,
trustees, who come from the East Bay. They would rather come
for three hours once every two months than to come for two hours
every month, because of the travel time. So that's worked out
quite successfully. We say we're going to be there from twelve
until three, and if we finish by two -thirty or a quarter of
three, that's fine. I think it's just a better use of people's
time. It's also been easier for the staff, because they don't
have to provide a docket each month but have a little bit more
time .

Does it still include lunch and sociability?

It still includes lunch. Actually, some of the sociability- -it
depends on the docket. If it's a big docket, we get into it
faster. The chairmen have been much more organized, I think,
than they used to be. There's still a lot of discussion about a
number of things that are of interest to individuals, and we
each have our own kind of specialties that we can chime in on or
get asked about, one or the other. It's a board that's working
well together now, I would say.

That's wonderful. Why don't we stop there for today, and next
time we meet, what I had thought we'd go into is your term as
president and this emergence of thinking in terms of public
policy, because I think that's really important and interesting.

I'll have to review what happened when I was president
(laughing), because I was--

Well, I think the immigration support may be an area in which
this is happening, as you described it in your president's
message that year.

178

Luttgens: I really struggled over that message that I did. It was my

report, and I think in the past, staff had drafted the report,
with some changes. Then, Lew Butler wrote his own report and
did a super job. And I don't know whether Peter Sloss--you see,
we have another annual report coming out that'll be a three-
year report.

Morris: Well, actually, from the point of view of trying to reconstruct
the history, a three -year report is fine. You can see what is
happening over time.

Luttgens: Well, I was very embarrassed, though, as chairman of the Council
on Foundations, where we were advocating for annual annual
reports, when the Rosenberg Foundation did not.

Morris: Was three years behind. Yes.
Luttgens: And I kept raising the question.

More on Board Diversity

Morris: In reading the fiftieth anniversary notes, I saw that Peter
Sloss was president that year, and I must say, I wondered if
there was a Sloss seat on the board.

Luttgens: You did say that. No, there isn't. When the nominating

committee was meeting before, or maybe when Peter Haas was going
off the board, I don't remember, anyway, Peter Haas suggested
Peter Sloss. Peter may have even been off the board, because we
sometimes would consult with former board members from time to
time, at any rate. And that does raise a question- -There are a
number of Jewish members on the board, and they've always been
outstanding individuals... We have also had Catholics,
Protestants, educators, all kinds of people there; I think that
that's part of the diversity, as well as having Hispanics,
blacks, women. We have been getting away from just men on the
board, too. In the early days, I suppose that was all right;
but I guess I'm sort of a balanced kind of person.

Morris: I understand that Herman Gallegos was given to commenting that

there should be diversity not only on the Rosenberg board but on
the boards of grantee organizations.

Luttgens: Well, that was something that we all agreed to. So what

happened was that we really have a question now on the form for
each applicant that Kirke reports to us, in which it says, "The

179

board of this organization is 20 percent minority and 20 percent
women, and the staff is--" As far as I know we have never
turned down an application for that reason.

It's a piece of information that raises our consciousness
and raises their consciousness. And I think it's a good thing
to do, and I think given this particular era, that more
foundations will be following suit.

We talk to our friends. There are an awful lot of
foundations out there that don't think twice about any of these
things. Some of them don't want diversity on their boards.
Sometimes a consultant will say that a family foundation should
have more people than just family in it, and they don't like it.
The reaction is that it's their money. They want to use it for
the public good, but one of the problems can be that they don't
know very many people they would be comfortable with if they
brought them on their board.

180

XIII SPECIALIZED PHILANTHROPIC VENTURES
[Interview 6: September 20, 1988 ]##

The Soviet Union Tests the Waters in the 1980s

Luttgens: While I was in Moscow this fall, I went to a luncheon for this

new International Foundation for the Survival and Development of
Humanity. It was very interesting. Andre Sakharov spoke of his
hope that its efforts would lead to fewer soldiers in the world
and greater nuclear safety. There was also a woman economist -
sociologist named Tatyana Zaslavskaya, who wanted the foundation
to fund an international study of bureaucracy.

Morris: She is doing an international study?

Luttgens: She wants to. Neither she nor Sakharov understand the

democratic system, of course. Nobody does in Russia. I said to
her, "What are you going to do as Gorbachev cuts out all of
these jobs, which he's trying to do. There's no place for
people to go, and everybody's been guaranteed a job in the
Soviet Union." And she said, "Well, we're working on that,
we're planning." But you see, there's no private sector to pick
up those unemployed.

Morris: Back in the czarist days, didn't the nobility fund churches and
hospitals and that kind of organization?

Luttgens: I don't know. It's all government now, except for the new
entrepreneurs. There are some new entrepreneurs. They're
running co-op restaurants, and as she said they're just on the
border of illegal, because they don't fit the regulations. And
they don't understand. Both Sakharov and Tatyana brought their
ideas to the foundation for funding, but the foundation doesn't
have enough money yet. It has a big grant from MacArthur
Foundation, and Armand Hammer put some money into it, started

181

it. But anyway, it's a whole different kind of thing for them.
Let's see now, I was trying to figure out--

Morris: Did they have any questions about the kinds of things that the
people from San Francisco had to say about how philanthropy
works in this country?

Luttgens: Yes. I think they were looking at major, major problems, and

they don't have enough money with this international foundation
yet to really attack such massive efforts. For example, I
leaned over and through the interpreter I said to Sakharov,
would he tell us what some of his ideas were that he had brought
to the foundation? And he said, yes, he would be happy to but
he wanted to wait until he could tell everybody at the
appropriate moment. And he talked for about twenty minutes or
so. But he started out with how to reduce the numbers of people
in the army, internationally, and how to make nuclear plants
safe. He's a physicist. He believes in nuclear power. He
thinks there has to be a balance, and I said to him, "I'm glad
to hear you say that, because I think we have to have some
nuclear power, too, but it must be safe." And Vergeni Velikhov,
who is another physicist and board member, Gorbachev's top
science and arms control adviser, who was really the most
articulate, said the same thing. So they were all saying, "We
have to have nuclear power, but we want to make sure it's safe.
And of course, so do I, and that struck them. They're
interested in the environment and all that sort of thing.

Now, where did I put my notes?
Where did we leave off?

Okay, Rosenberg Foundation.

Response to Government Funding Cuts: Proposition 13 (1978) and
After

Morris: We had gotten about to the point where I wanted to ask you about
the impact of the 1978 Proposition 13, and whether the Rosenberg
board had done any advance thinking about what it might mean or
what kinds of response the foundation might be able to make, if
it passed.

Luttgens: Well, we were part of that group of the Northern California
Grantmakers that studied the implications of Prop. 13.

Morris: Did that group begin before the proposition was passed in June?

182

Luttgens: I believe it did. We hired Judy Pope, who was with the

Zellerbach Family Fund at that time and then went on to be an
assistant director of the United Way of California. She does
program kinds of things and has now left there as well to do
consulting. But she did a lot of the legwork to find out what
the implications were going to be, and that was quite a massive
document, which she probably had a lot to do with, that we
developed. That was carried back, in part, to each of the
foundations that participated. Hewlett was part of it,
Zellerbach, Gerbode. I've forgotten who all, they're all listed
in the front of the report. But we met quite intensively around
that, and I believe we did start before. And I mentioned that
in that paper that I gave you, too.*

Morris: Right. Well, you seem to have done quite a lot of speaking. I
found copies of several speeches in your papers that you had
made on that subject, then you published an article.

Luttgens: That came about because the Foundation Center asked me if I

would come to New York and speak about Proposition 13 and its
implications. And I had raised the question at the Council on
Foundation's board meeting that it was something that
foundations generally should be looking at across the country.
And I was told by the other foundation people that, oh, that was
just a California phenomenon. It would have no relevance to
what was going on in the rest of the country. I said I didn't
believe that was true, that I thought so many things started in
California, and that it would be replicated in other states.
And of course, that was what happened.

But the Foundation Center put on a session. Now I've
forgotten exactly when it was. It preceded the paper. What
happened was that Maggie Mahoney, I don't know whether she'd
gone to the Commonwealth Fund at that point to be president, or
whether she was still with the Johnson Foundation with Dave
Rogers. But she was there, and she called Virginia White, who's
the editor at Grants Magazine, and said, "You should ask Leslie
Luttgens if she would do a paper that would follow her talk."
And so that's why I did the paper, for Virginia.

And then Gordon Hough, who then was chairman of Pacific
Telephone, had seen the paper and thought it was a good paper
and distributed it to a lot of corporations statewide over his
signature, which was very nice. I don't know how far it went,
but he asked for a lot of copies. And people in a number of

*Leslie L. Luttgens, "Proposition 13: The Implications for
Philanthropy," Grants Magazine, March 1979, p. 23.

183

Morris:
Luttgens

Morris :

Luttgens

Morris:

places asked for copies, and as a result, I was asked to speak
in several places. I wasn't the authority. I just had the
experience and happened to be in the position.

At that time, was it discussed in terras of the larger question
of whether there would, overall, be a limitation in public
funding for social programs?

Yes, that was the larger picture that we were seeing. And then
there was the follow-up proposition, which you would remember,
that I have forgotten.

There was the Paul Gann limitation on government spending.

That's right. Okay, that was the Prop. 9 in 1979. And that
[NCG] group was resuscitated, and another study was done there.
And all of that really preceded what Lester Salamon did, of
course, then, with the Urban Institute. They hired Paul Harder
to do the local work on that one. Judy may still have been at
Zellerbach, I don't know.

What kind of changes did the Rosenberg Foundation make in its
grants policies in the face of--

Well, we discussed- -and it was a question nationally, really:
Should foundations move from a risk-capital seed program,
starting new efforts, or should they pick up on some of the
massive federal deficit in programs that were being cut. The
feeling, generally, across the country and locally was that
foundations needed to be aware of what was going on in the
cutbacks so that whatever granting they did was against that
backdrop, but there was no way that foundation money could pick
up what was obviously going to be cut back. But I think there
was a change in focus. There was no question about that. I did
a message in the San Francisco Foundation bulletin that Martin
asked me to do about that time, in which I used the expression,
"It really is a whole new ballgame," of how we look at
foundations not as a substitute for government money but against
that backdrop.

In the actuality of three, four, five, and now ten years later,
did you see any noticeable change in the kinds of requests that
were coming in in applications as a result of the various
limitations on public spending?

San Francisco Bay Area Nonprofit Organizations: The Challenge of
Retrenchment. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 1987.

184

Luttgens: We began to get requests for programs that had been- -as long as
they fit in our guidelines, which were children and families--
we began to get requests for programs that had been funded by
government. And of course that, as you well know, is something
that foundations don't like to do. They don't like to pick up
on government programs when the government walks away from
funding. So that was part of the discussion. Do we do that or
do we not? And, as I recall, we were quite clear on not picking
up on government programs .

Origins of the Emergency Fund, 1973

Morris: How long did it take before the various state bailout funds
ceased to carry some of the programs that they had carried?

Luttgens: Seems to me it was a year or so. And remember that we had our
foundations Emergency Fund at the same time, which was moving
along simultaneously. And that was where we saw a lot of
stress, as far as programs were concerned that had contracted
with the government when government was trying to shift that
responsibility someplace else.

Morris: The Emergency Fund, if I'm right, had been set up several years
before .

Luttgens: Yes, it had.

Morris: What was it that was going on, it must have been about 1974, or
'73, that it was set up?

Luttgens: I was president of United Way in '73 and '74, and that's when it
was set up. Because I think I may have mentioned this in an
earlier interview, Ed Nathan and John May called me and said
United Way has a big program in child care. That's how it
started. Cap Weinberger was secretary of HEW. They were
rewriting the regulations to qualify for child care
organizations. We had just done an outreach, United Way, where
we had brought in thirty-one child care agencies with 25 percent
amount of money and a 75 percent federal match. That's how the
Emergency Committee started. And many of those child care
agencies had been started and funded by the San Francisco
Foundation and the Zellerbach Family Fund. The thesis was, with
United Way's investment and the investment of foundations, would
it be useful to keep those agencies going until the government
decided how they were going to rewrite the child care
regulations. If they rewrote them so those agencies would not
qualify, we would all have to bow out, because there was no way
we could fund them in total.

185

Morris: Pick up that three-quarters.

Luttgens: That's correct. But there was $500,000, I think it was $531,000
that United Way had committed to those agencies that year, and
so that was up front as money that was going to the agencies
that wouldn't be going to them any longer if the regulations
were rewritten. They were not rewritten, the agencies still
qualified over that period, but in the meantime we began to look
at other kinds of crises like mental health and some of the
other programs that were seen as shifting funding arrangements
from government. And that was the genesis of the Emergency
Fund, and gradually it shook down. It was both grants and loans
originally. It's now developed into funding more loans, rather
than grants, so that it's a pool of money that's constantly
recycled.

Morris: And the way that works is that the foundations who choose to
participate put in so much money but the actual checks are
written by Northern California Grantmakers?

Luttgens: Yes. Originally, it was United Way. And the United Way staff
worked with us. It was Steve Brooks who staffed the committee
for United Way. We used the budget panel chairman -- the
relevant budget panel chairman. If it was the child care budget
panel, he or she would sit in with us, when we were making
decisions, to add another dimension as to the crisis -- how
serious was it? It was another resource that the community was
providing for social agencies. Again we pioneered. I can
remember Melinda Marble wanting to make a presentation at the
Council on Foundation's annual meeting about the need for
emergency funds across the country, and again people in other
regions said, "Oh, well we don't need that," or "We have
something like that already," but very few of them were as
sophisticated as ours was.

Wells Fargo, the bank, played a lead role, because they
came in with a fund that would be available for low- interest
loans for agencies of this sort. The committee did the
screening, and if the committee, the Emergency Committee, with a
representative from Wells Fargo sitting there, felt that it was
a project that Wells could comfortably fund, that perhaps was
larger than what we normally could do or qualified for a loan,
we would recommend it to Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo invariably
funded it if we recommended it, and the money would come back to
Wells Fargo with this very small interest which the agency would
have to pay. And Wells Fargo is still doing that, and is the
only bank --we had thought maybe we could work out a whole
network of banks that would help on this. But you see, it saved
them a lot of work. They didn't have to investigate the agency.

186

Morris :

Luttgens

Morris :

Luttgens

Morris :
Luttgens

Morris :

Luttgens

The agency developed an ongoing relationship with the local
Wells Fargo bank in their area, so it was a plus for the bank.

Was it Wells Fargo banks in other areas than just San Francisco
and the Bay Area?

There were some programs that were statewide for Wells Fargo,
and we stayed out of the statewideness of it, because we felt
our funding was only appropriate for Northern California. A
similar group started in Southern California, and Wells Fargo
participated in that as well.

When I was doing my time in the PTA and such organizations, I
remember that the local Wells Fargo used to carry the accounts
of non-profit organizations like PTA without cost. Is that
something about Wells Fargo?

I don't know whether that's still true or not. I just was very
impressed with the fact that they would step up with this kind
of facility for loans for nonprofits at very low interest.

Anybody in particular at Wells Fargo?

Well, Elisa Boone was the person who worked on it. She's not
the director of the Wells Fargo Foundation, but she's the top
person after Ron Eadie , who is an executive vice-president of
Wells Fargo who oversees the whole foundation area. But she's
the visible person. She has other people in her department as
well.

Did any of the Rosenberg trustees or any other foundation
trustees have any concerns about what putting money into an
emergency fund over which the foundation, in effect, didn't
really have all that much control -- whether that might have an
effect on the foundation's overall granting program?

No, but it was a departure for all the foundations that were
involved, to put some money into a pool that they would not have
jurisdiction over. Fortunately, Kirke Wilson worked with the
Emergency Fund and was chair of the Emergency Fund committee at
one point, so he had a close relationship. I was involved from
the beginning. The money was made available when it was needed.
In other words, as long as it was being recycled and coming back
in and there wasn't a need for it, we didn't put in any
additional money.

I think it was $10,000 at a time that we put in, which
isn't a lot of money. It was based on the foundation's assets,
as I recall, or granting, probably the granting. So that San

187

Morris :
Luttgens
Morris:
Luttgens

Morris :

Luttgens

Francisco Foundation would put in more than the Rosenberg
Foundation. Purely voluntary.

Like 10 percent, or 5 percent?

I don't remember the exact amount.

But the same percentage for each participating foundation?

That's correct. And we had some Peninsula foundations involved,
originally. The Hancock Foundation was involved. That
Emergency Fund committee has become a wonderful learning
experience for young foundation officers.

One of the reasons that I got off it a few years ago--
about four years ago, or five, I went off --was that I was so
familiar with it that I found myself pushing decisions, saying,
"Yes, that's a good program. Let's do it," where some of the
young program officers needed to have the experience of talking
about the program, learning about the requests that were made,
and I began to feel that my service on the committee was
counterproductive, because I was jumping ahead, and they were
hearing me say, "Yes, we ought to do that," and saying, "Fine,
let's do it," without really going through that exploratory
period. So I got off of the committee, and as I said, it's been
going now since about '74, so that's fourteen years.

Has it leveled out at an optimum quantity of funding- -both
requests and funding?

I think so. I really haven't studied their annual reports
recently. The interesting thing was it moved from United Way,
which had been the shelter organization, the fiscal agent. It
moved from United Way to a separate committee that was funded
from all of the foundations.

Growth of Northern California Grantmakers

Luttgens: Then when Northern California Grantmakers became the umbrella
organization, which was a period of development for them, they
brought in the Emergency Fund, the Arts Loan Fund, which was a
separate fund that was doing the same thing in the field of the
arts, and brought them all in under the shelter of Northern
California Grantmakers, and hired staff separately so that there
was a separate program person for the Emergency Fund, and so on.

188

Morris: Why did that evolution take place?

Luttgens: Partly because it was a peripheral program for United Way, and
there also was a concern about the United Way board wanting to
play a closer role. They didn't understand that it was
foundation money. There was a need for a direct relationship
for the foundations to keep that separate from United Way.

Until last year, United Way provided in-kind services; I
guess until about two years ago. They did all the mailing for
us. They did a lot of clerical work, for which they did not pay
dues to the Northern California Grantmakers, but because it was
in-kind, you could look at an in-kind number that qualified them
for membership. As of this year, all of those activities- -the
accounting activities, the audit activities, and all of those
things --have been brought in-house by Northern California
Grantmakers. And for the first time next year, United Way will
pay dues to belong to the Northern California Grantmakers as
opposed to in-kind services. That evolution was interesting.

I would have to review my thinking on the merger of the
Northern California Grantmakers because that was a period where
program and educational activities were being taken care of by
the Northern California Grantmakers. The Emergency Fund was a
free-standing committee, with its own staff, its own books, and
so forth. I was on the committee that negotiated the merger of
those, and that was a ticklish merger. Martin Paley, as I
recall, was involved, and there were a number of grantmakers
that you would know. I'd have to look back to see who was on it
and how long ago it was.

It's my impression that it's about six years ago that that
happened. But it was not easy. Because each of the groups
wanted to keep their autonomy. They were very concerned that a
bureaucracy would develop and that there had to be equal
decisionmaking powers for the Emergency Fund as well as Northern
California Grantmakers. So finally working out one structure
for the two was a real achievement.

Morris: How was that done?

Luttgens: It was negotiated. By committee.

Morris: What were the final points on it?

Luttgens: Well, it started out with sort of a two-pronged monster. Part

being education, part being Emergency Fund. And finally, people
became more comfortable with the two organizations working--!
mean, we were the same people, we were both serving on both--

189

and eventually it just seemed to make more sense to have it be
one group with one board and equal time for all of those
activities.

Morris: Has it continued to cause some internal problems for NCG?

Luttgens : It's been very, very successful. Very successful. Steve

Lieberman was the first person we hired. He was chairing the
Emergency Fund, and I was on the committee to make the decision
about who we should hire for the head of Northern California
Grantmakers, what the relationship of that person would be with
the Emergency Fund, and we ended up with Steve Lieberman heading
the whole thing.

Morris: As the first full-time executive for NCG?

Luttgens: Yes. We had an interim executive- -somebody who filled in
because she'd been involved with the Northern California
Grantmakers on an interim basis, but we did make the decision to
go with one person, who was Steve, so he stepped up from the
Emergency Fund to oversee all of the whole program and, I think,
was very good during the period he was there. Caroline Tower,
as you know, is now the director.

Morris: Right, and she was Steve's assistant director.

Luttgens: Steve brought her in. Before that, she'd been head of the
Foundation Center library here in San Francisco.

Morris: Did the choice of Mr. Lieberman reflect the fact that the

Emergency Fund would be a large part of the administration of
NCG?

Luttgens: Well, that was part of it. We were looking for somebody who was
an administrator, there's no question about it; somebody who
could manage a large organization, and Steve was a known
quantity, because we'd seen him on the other assignment. So it
worked out very well, I think, for the first few years, and now
we're at a period where Caroline is just giving immense
leadership .

We really are now at the point in the Northern California
Grantmakers that is similar to an activity that I observed with
the Council on Foundations, where a group of foundations within
the umbrella group has a special interest: AIDS, homelessness ,
arts, whatever, and wants to get together and talk about it.
The problem is that all of those activities take housekeeping,
take staff, and we're now at the point in NCG where we really
are thinking about how much can Northern California Grantmakers

190

Morris :

do. We have a brand-new task force on AIDS, a brand-new task
force on homelessness . They both have hired people to do some
background work for them, which means that they have to raise
money within their group for that.

Again, it's voluntary- -those foundations that are
interested in those subjects. But you begin to get a --not a
monster, exactly- -but something for which you have to have
ground rules. And we've been talking about that this year and
making sure that we don't develop an organization which then
becomes a screening group for all proposals in that given field,
which is one of the things we do not want to happen. That, we
feel, would be counterproductive.

That it might be, at some point, that foundations would not make
a grant unless something had been screened by one of these task
forces?

Luttgens : That's correct. It could be inhibiting to both the freedom of
the individual foundations to grant what they want in a general
field. Or it could be a signal to the agencies that the only
way to get money is to go through a central screening group, and
that's not the message we want to send.

I observed that at the Council on Foundations, same thing,
where a group of foundations very enthusiastically would decide
to talk about international granting, for example. Pretty soon
you'd have a group that was meeting regularly that wanted the
status of the Council on Foundations to say, "This is one of our
committees." And that presents a problem, because that means
that you have to enlarge staff and representation. It's the
decentralization vs. centralization issue again. Who makes the
ground rules: whether it's United Way with county committees or
the Council on Foundations with committees dealing in a
particular field or the Northern California Grantmakers doing
the same thing. One has to think carefully about that
structure, I believe.

Morris: United Way still provides some kind of in-kind administrative
service, don't they?

Luttgens: To the Northern California Grantmakers? They're finishing that
up this year. Joe Valentine is a member of the board of
directors. Adele Corvin, who is involved in the foundation but
was recently president of the United Way, has been on the board
for quite a long time- -I think just about five years. The terms
are two three -year terms. I think she's probably got a year
more to go on her term. So United Way has been a part- -you see,
that's why the name Northern California Grantmakers. The Junior

191

Leagues are members of the Northern California Grantmakers . San
Francisco, San Jose, and the Palo Alto Junior Leagues are all
members .

Morris: Because of the quantity of funding assistance that the Junior
Leagues provide?

Luttgens : That's correct. Because they have granting programs that meet
the criteria for membership. I'd have to pull out those
criteria, even though I chaired the [NCG] membership committee,
I'm ashamed to say. We've just revised those rules so that we
could bring in some of the newly emerging community foundations
who will take a while to be able to raise enough money to make
enough grants. For any agency, whether it be a for-profit, that
has a foundation or corporate contribution program, there is a
qualification that they have to meet as to the amount of money
that is spent on grants .

Resource Exchange: CEOs and Young Activists##

Morris: I'm really interested in the kinds of specialized activities

that have developed around the foundations world. Another one
is --you mentioned Melinda Marble- -didn' t she come out of the San
Francisco Study Center originally?

Luttgens: That's correct. Yes.

Morris: I'm not quite clear how the Study Center fits into the nonprofit
picture in the Bay Area.

Luttgens: They were called upon to do some studies by the San Francisco
Foundation originally. That was my first connection with them.
And Melinda staffed a couple of organizations. As I recall, she
staffed the Resource Exchange which, I may have mentioned
earlier, was started by John D. Rockefeller III across the
country. I don't remember whether we talked about this or not,
but it was something that Caroline Charles served on originally.
It was made up of several CEO's of corporations and young people
from a variety of ethnic backgrounds, and Melinda was one of
those young people and did some staffing for that group.

J.D. Rockefeller III envisioned a resource exchange where
there could be a direct relationship between CEO's who would
offer really concrete and physical equipment to young people for
their agencies. San Francisco was the last group to continue
across the country; the rest all petered out at one time or

192

Morris :
Luttgens

Morris :
Luttgens
Morris :

Luttgens

another. When Caroline became quite ill, I was asked to serve
in her place; that was sort of an amorphous role of being in
between the corporate leadership and the agencies. The young
people were not so young anymore. One of them was Claude
Everhart, who now is one of Mayor [Arthur] Agnos's deputy
mayors. Another was somebody from the Hispanic community.
There were a couple from the Asian community. Claude, of
course, is black. I think there was another black member.

It evolved into a discussion group, and the dinners that we
had every couple of months were paid for by the CEO's in a
relatively nice restaurant, where we would have a subject
designated to discuss. At one point, the young people felt that
we needed to see a different part of San Francisco. Melinda set
up a tour of the Tenderloin, for example, where we were toured
around the Tenderloin. We saw the Cadillac Hotel and a lot of
the hotels that were being redone, at that time, for poor
people, because there weren't that many immigrants. Tom Clausen
was a member, Dick Cooley when he was at Wells Fargo Bank, Bob
DiGiorgio, Brooks Walker, who was very involved with the San
Francisco Foundation, of course, at that time. They asked me to
invite Reg Murphy. The young people thought he would be useful,
and I knew him. He was the publisher of the [San Francisco]
Examiner .

And what did he say?

He joined the group. It was a very lively group, with a lot of
exchange, back and forth. The group eventually broke up. One
of my memories is going to dinner in Chinatown at the home of
one of the young men in the group, whose mother put on the
dinner for us. We ate in their living room, and course after
course of absolutely wonderful food kept appearing. We went up
in the elevator at Ping Yuen [housing project] where somebody
had been killed the week before, and we had toured Chinatown
prior to dinner. It was a warm evening, and I remember walking
down the street and seeing Tom Clausen's bodyguard across the
street, following and watching us to make sure we were all
right.

Mr. Clausen regularly had a bodyguard?

Yes. Well, certainly on an occasion like that, he did.

Do bank officials routinely feel the need for bodyguards when
they're doing their civic duties?

I don't know. That's the only occasion that I saw. Most of
them brought along an assistant, somebody who worked with them,

193

who could implement anything that was discussed that needed
implementation afterwards. It's where I first met Lee Cox, who
was working with Gordon Hough, who was the chair of Pacific
Telephone .

Lee is now the president of one of the major subsidiaries
of Pacific Telesis. He's in charge of the unregulated part that
oversees cellular and all of those agencies, but at that time he
was Gordon's administrative assistant. It's a long time ago.
He's worked his way throughout the company and now is one of the
four top executives at Pacific Telesis. It's where I came to
know a number of those people who were serving at that time.

The young people, the Resource Exchange group here, finally
broke up because there were some challenges from the young
people. They had been very comfortable. They had been there
for a long time- -four or five years.

Morris: The younger contingent?

Luttgens: Yes. Meeting with many of the same CEOs. Some of them came and
went. Dick Cooley went off to Seattle and so forth. And his
replacement did not enter in. But the young people were very
comfortable with challenging the CEOs. Having invited Reg
Murphy to come on, they were very critical of some of his
newspaper's positions, which were editorial decisions. And one
of them, instead of talking to Reg face to face, wrote him a
long, scathing letter, saying that he was taking one stance in
the discussions and another in his editorial positions. It was
in connection with an election or proposition, I've forgotten
what it was. Reg was furious, as were the rest of the CEOs.
They felt that the trust relationship was being abused when a
letter of that sort went in a very cold, challenging way. And
as Reg said, "If you'd called me, I would have been happy to
talk to you about it, but you sent me a letter that is not
something that I'm going to reply to in writing. We can
certainly discuss it."

And there became a feeling of deterioration in the purpose
of the group. They then challenged Tom Clausen about something
at one of our last dinners, which as I recall was at the Nikko
restaurant on Van Ness. And challenged him about some of the
things that he was very enthusiastic about, having just come
back from a trip. It began to be not a helpful feeling.

And I can remember talking to Melinda, who called me and
said, "I think we really need to reassess where we are." I said
I thought maybe we needed to take a breather, that it might be a
good idea just to let it go. So it just sort of petered out.

194

Morris:
Luttgens

It's too bad, because it started out with such high hopes, but I
can see why similar programs across the country probably folded
as well, without a clear purpose of what they were supposed to
do.

Were there any additions to the younger contingent?

They brought in people from time to time, who were never quite
as strong as the original group.

San Francisco Study Center

Morris: Had the Study Center originally been started with the idea from
the foundations that there was a need for more skills amongst
volunteer managers and leadership?

Luttgens: You know, I really can't tell you what the original purpose of
the Study Center was. All I know is that I saw them being
called upon to do in-depth studies for a variety of projects
they contracted for.

Morris: So it was primarily sort of a freestanding, social science
research outfit?

Luttgens: That's my understanding, and staffed by very enthusiastic young
people, who did a good job, I believe. Melinda did some of the
staff work for the Mayor's Fiscal Advisory Committee, when it
was first started. And then they evolved into a different kind
of staffing. But originally she did some of the work there.
Martin brought her in because some of these things were being
funded by the San Francisco Foundation.

Morris: So that's a kind of a logical career path in the nonprofit
world?

Luttgens: Yes. And, of course she ended up as program officer at the San
Francisco Foundation before she went off to work at Tufts.

Morris: At Tufts?

Luttgens: Yes, she's back at Tufts now. She helped them set up their

public policy department where students are working in public
policy areas. She's still on the staff there. She has academic
status, which is great. She left just before the Buck Estate
question went to trial, so she was not involved in any of that,
although she thought she might have to come back.

195

XIV RESPONSE TO SAN FRANCISCO SCHOOL NEEDS, 1975-1985

Riles-Roth Schools Commission

Morris: When did education become a major interest of yours and how did
you get involved in the Ed Fund? Was that a matter of
Proposition 13 and other public funding questions?

Luttgens: Well, that grew out of the [California Superintendent of Public
Instruction Wilson] Riles- [William Matson] Roth School
Commission. I had become interested in education first of all
with the private schools, Katherine Delmar Burke School, here in
San Francisco, where my daughter had gone to school-- and had
gone on that board, I think we'd talked about that before. And
out of that came a lot more knowledge on my part about what
works in education.

Then I was asked to go on the Riles-Roth School Commission,
and I said at the time that I didn't think I qualified because
my daughter had not gone to public school. They said it didn't
make any difference; they were anxious to have sort of a blue-
ribbon committee. So I agreed to go on and learned a lot about
the public schools very quickly.

One of the main things that we learned was that decisions
needed to be made at the school site and that teachers were
being excluded from that. So the genesis of the San Francisco
Education Fund was that after we had completed our period, which
was about two years, of serving on the Riles-Roth School
Commission- -that was '75 to '77 and I've noted here that I co-
chaired the finance committee which was chaired by Jerry Hull of
Pacific Telephone, who was also a member of the commission- -we
discovered that the school department really wasn't projecting
what their financial situation was at all.

196

They didn't have a clue as to how much money they were
going to need for the next year to carry out their programs, and
that made them very vulnerable to the unions, who would say, "We
think you've got a pocket of money sort of squirreled away here
somewhere, and so let's raise teachers' salaries." We decided
what we had to find out was really what financial shape the
schools were in. We were not looking at curriculum; we were
looking at the administrative and financial state of the
schools. We found they were in pretty poor shape.

Morris: Was it specifically some problems in San Francisco?

Luttgens: Absolutely. It was to look at the San Francisco schools. And
Wilson Riles and I have talked about it since, because he sits
next to me, or I sit next to him, at the PG&E board meetings.
He's a member of that board. Recently he said he was interested
in going back and looking at the recommendations that we made.
We made a series of about eleven studies on a variety of things
for the schools. As a matter of fact, about two years ago,
which would have been ten years after we were through in '77,
Henry Der raised the question of whether some of us would like
to look again and see what had been accomplished since those
reports were done. And we talked for a while, Bill Roth and I
and Ruth Chance and Yori Wada, several other people- -Bernice
Brown- -all of whom had been involved in that commission.

Morris: Bernice Brown who was at the San Francisco Foundation?

Luttgens: Yes. She went on to the San Francisco Foundation after she had
been a member of the Riles-Roth School Commission. She then
became staff at the school commission, and from there she went
to the San Francisco Foundation as a program officer. But we
talked about whether it would be useful to go back and look at
what had been accomplished. We decided we really didn't have
any auspices to do that.

Morris: Like the superintendent?

Luttgens: That's right. We'd not been asked by [California Superintendent
of Schools Bill] Honig. We'd not been asked by [Superintendent
of Schools Robert] Alioto. The school board was in a mess,
because they were trying to get rid of Alioto, and so we just
let the whole thing drop. But it would be useful. There are
still some of the same problems there, there's no question about
that, but that is how I got involved. Out of that came this
sense that decisions at the school site are very important, that
teachers play a leading role but need community support, both
financial and moral, in what they're trying to do. And yet so
much of the school budget is tied up with personnel. It's

197

Morris :

Luttgens

Morris :
Luttgens
Morris :

Luttgens

something like 80 percent of the budget, and there is no
discretion at the school site for things that teachers and
principals see are necessary there. So that was a very clear
feeling that we came out of that with.

Is it customary for the state superintendent of schools to
intervene in that way in a local school district?

I was not familiar with the fact that it was, but the school
district was in a real turmoil, there's no question about it.
And he felt strongly about-- Actually, it was instigated by
people like Lucille Abrahamson, who was president of the San
Francisco school board at that time.

Would she have gone to Dr. Riles and said, "We need some help"?
She did. Yes, I believe she did.

Then how come Mr. Roth was chairman of it, rather than Ms.
Abrahamson?

We were examining the school board, so there was no way that a
school board member could chair or be a member of the group.

Genesis of the San Francisco Education Fund. 1977

Luttgens: Anyway, out of that came the San Francisco Education Fund. And
really the genesis of that was that Harold King, a board member
at the Cowell Foundation, spoke to me after an Emergency Fund
meeting and said, "You were a member of the Riles -Roth School
Commission (this was about '77, when we finished with that), and
just recently we put about $300,000 a year into private
education, but we wonder if you came across some projects that
would be useful for public education." And I said that, if he
didn't mind, I'd like to talk to Ruth Chance and see if the two
of us could come up with some suggestions for him.

He said he didn't want to have the San Francisco
superintendent, Bob Alioto at that point, know what foundation
was interested. But he said, "We would like to fund some
project in the San Francisco public schools." So Ruth was the
liaison with Bob Alioto and talked to his office and said,
"Could you come up with three or four ideas? There is a
possibility that someone may fund them—but things that are
really important to you." They came up with about four projects
that they wrote up, and very superficially, because we assumed

198

that a lot more work was going to be done before any actual
funding was received.

Morris: From the superintendent's office?

Luttgens: From the superintendent's office. There was one in particular
that we thought was very good. It was at Woodrow Wilson High
School, which was a very disadvantaged high school. It was
about $100,000, and it was an upgrading of faculty there, as I
recall, and morale, and so forth. We turned all of them, all
four of them, over to Hal King and the Cowell Foundation. They
did not do any investigation, as far as I can figure out.

They looked at them, they liked the same one we did, and
Hal King called me and said, "Would you please tell the
superintendent that we'd like to fund this particular project at
Woodrow Wilson, and would you call him and tell him that I'd
like to talk to him today or tomorrow?" So I called, and Alioto
was in the middle of labor negotiations, and oh, Hal also said,
"Are you familiar with the Marcus Foster Institute in the East
Bay?" And I said, "No, I really am not." He said, "Well, do
you think the superintendent would be interested in having
something like that in the West Bay?" And I said, "Well, I can
certainly alert him to the fact that you're interested in it."

I called Alioto 's office. I went through three
secretaries, and finally I said, "Just tell him I've got some
money for him." I immediately got a call back (we were on very
good terms because he had been very supportive of what the
commission had done). I told him about it, told him that it was
the Cowell Foundation and that Harold King wanted to meet with
him today or tomorrow. And Alioto said, "Well, I'm in the
middle of these negotiations, but boy, I'll certainly make
time." And I said, "Also, do you know anything about the Marcus
Foster Institute?" He said, "No, I really don't." I said,
"Have somebody on your staff investigate it, because I think you
will be asked if that's something you want to do, and you want
to be able to say yes or no."

So I forgot about all of this. The project went ahead. I
had nothing more to do with it. It was very successful, I
believe, and about, oh, maybe eight months later, somebody
called me and said would I meet with a group of people who were
talking about something as far as the schools were concerned.
And in that group were Yori Wada, Adele Corvin, Ruth Chance,
Glady Thacher, who'd been doing a project for the schools in

*„

Glady" is what her friends call Gladys [Mrs. James] Thacher.

199

counseling, and I think that was about it. Lucille Abrahamson
was off the board, I believe, at that point. Maybe she was
still on. The project was, should we start an educational
foundation similar to the Marcus Foster Institute that would
raise money and designate money for particular projects in the
San Francisco schools. The Cowell Foundation was interested in
funding it.

We explored- -well, how will the school board feel about
that, won't that be taking some decisionmaking away from them,
won't that be resented? Alioto asked us to include a man named
Dr. Allen Calvin in our little planning group which met at
United Way, as I recall, because of Adele's involvement. She
made space available there, and we must have met five or six
times. Alioto was very supportive of Calvin, who had been dean
of the School of Education at USF and had also been very
involved in the New York City school situation.

Luttgens : So Allen Calvin joined our little planning group, and he had
much impatience with planning groups. He felt very strongly
that if a group like this were started, sure, he'd be happy to
be part of it. He was not an organization person. He was a
person of ideas, but he had set up a corporate-support group at
the University of San Francisco when he was dean of education
there. As we moved on into this, he felt very strongly that all
the funding should go to sites, that teachers should have the
decision. And he wasn't going to be involved in this if we
didn't do it that way. We said we were enthusiastic about it,
too, but we had this group that was meeting, and we had to do
some planning. Bill Roth was involved in this, as well.

Fundraising Successes

Luttgens: The next thing that happened was that Cowell was about to give
us $48,000 for staff to get us off the ground, so we had to
become an instant board. We started out with the people we
already had that had been planning. The school board said,
"Fine, go ahead," Alioto was very enthusiastic. Alioto really
gave up some of his power to this group. He said, "If you come
up with some projects, I'll see that they get through the
board." They had to be approved by the school board. But he
said, "Anything we can raise in the way of money that will help
the schools, I'm for." So he was extremely supportive of what
we were doing.

200

I chaired the first meeting of this group, and I ended up
being the president, and so for seven years, I was either the
president or the chairman. I was really pulled, kicking and
screaming, into it, because I didn't feel that it was my highest
priority. But I must say I became fascinated with what we were
able to do. It was very good for me. I ended up with an
honorary degree from the University of San Francisco as a result
of that, because Allen Calvin nominated me for it; but Allen was
a problem for us, because he really didn't want to hold still.
He kept saying, over and over again, "I'm not going to play with
you. I'm not going to be part of your group unless all of the
projects start at the school site. That's what has to be done."

Morris: Was this what he was pushing in the School of Education at USF?

Luttgens: I don't know what he was pushing there, but I think he learned
it in the New York schools. That unless you support teachers
and give them status, anything that is brought down from above
isn't going to fly. There's a lot of tension between the
administrative staff and teachers, and the teachers are the ones
that need to be empowered. I believe that's very true.

Morris: That was kind of the way educational problems were stated ten
years ago.

Luttgens: That's correct. Anyway, I finally said to Allen, would he have
lunch with me after one of these stormy sessions where he was
saying, "I'm not going to be part of it." So we went over to
lunch, and I said, "Listen, Allen, we have a very fragile
situation. We are trying to put together a board, we're trying
to set up guidelines, we're trying to get going, and if you keep
rocking the boat like this, we aren't going to have any
organization at all."

So he said, "Okay." I said, "You know we're going to do
what you're suggesting. It's just taking us time to get there.
Everybody's got to put their two cents worth in. They've all
got to be on board." He said, "Okay, I'll be quiet, as long as
you're doing that." And he was a terrific board member.

He then said, "I'm going to raise a million dollars for
this organization." He started going around to his contacts
from USF. He'd call them up and ask them to put $50,000 from
their corporation into this new program. He would have a board
member go with him, and he was very polite. But there was no
monkey business about it. This is what he was asking for.
Well, we were lucky if we got $5,000 or $10,000, but at least we
were getting some money. I went on a number of these sessions
with him.

201

Morris: He took on the fundraising for the group? Very noble.

Luttgens: That's correct. It was. He was very persuasive, I mean, there
were no two ways about it. This was an important organization.
It was going to make a lot of difference, and you had to believe
him when you listened to him. He was really marvelous.

The thing that really got us going was that Bill Roth, who
tried to be anonymous, but we all knew what was going on, made
us a gift of about $3,000 in a particular area of interest for
him and asked that we match it. Can't remember whether it was
two -to -one or three- to -one , to get us off the ground. I think
we would have spent another six months during this planning
period if Bill hadn't seen that it was important to move us
along. That's typical of Bill Roth. He did the same thing on
the Riles-Roth School Commission, where he was always
anticipating the next step and bringing the group along into it,
not letting us just plod or drift along.

Morris: Could you recall an instance of that, maybe?
Luttgens: With the Riles-Roth School Commission?
Morris: Right. That's a useful observation.

Luttgens: Well, one of the things that he felt very strongly about, we
stayed in business six months longer than we should have. We
should have been through in about a year and a half, eighteen
months as I recall. But the school board elections were coming
up, and it was terribly important that the issues that we had
discovered be addressed by both the incumbents and those who
were challenging the incumbents. So we stayed in business for
an extra six months, all the time raising the questions that we
had found were essential to improving the schools. And I think
it made an enormous amount of difference. They ended up with a
very good school board, during that election. I think because
there was credibility in the commission and the commission was
suggesting that these were issues that needed to be addressed,
it worked.

Morris: And it was Bill Roth who requested that the commission remain?

Luttgens: Yes, and we had to raise the money to keep going for an extra
six months, as well. But that was the kind of thing. When we
found out something, we needed to move to the next step, and
Bill was always anticipating, for example, the financials. He
asked Gwin Follis, who was a member of the Riles-Roth School
Commission, if Gwin would ask a number of corporate leaders to
give us some pro bono time from their corporations to give some

202

legitimacy to the financials that were being worked on within
the school department.

Morris: To help with some of the actual analysis of the budget problems?

Luttgens : Exactly. So that by the time the next budget was developed by
the superintendent of schools, by Alioto, there had been some
corporate people that had been sitting in the office of Anton
Jungherr, who was the man that Alioto had brought out from
Yonkers, who was a very reputable person, and his system. And
had been looking over their shoulders to make sure that
everything they were doing was accurate. So that when the
budget was presented, they couldn't say, "Yes, it's correct,"
down to the last dollar; but they could say the process was what
should have gone through. If there's a one percent error,
that's not very serious. But it's the process that's
appropriate. That was what made an enormous amount of
difference. Because there was no money there, the unions
couldn't say, "You've got money squirreled away," as I mentioned
earlier, because the process had been appropriate. It was that
kind of credibility that was brought into the schools.

Morris: Did the process, I assume from what you're saying, indicate that
there were no slush funds that could be tapped for teacher
salaries?

Luttgens: Yes, there had been in the past. There had been one particular
officer who was moved someplace else. He was civil service. He
was moved elsewhere. But it was quite clear that he was playing
quite a game and hiding away some little bits of things, well,
fairly legally, but not openly. So that that money could then
be brought out for a particular project. So everything was now
out on the table.

Seeking Grant Balance: Evaluation and Brokering##

Luttgens: Lyle Eichert, one of Alioto 's chief people, had what was almost
a nervous breakdown during the earlier process because the whole
school administration was under such strain, as far as the
public was concerned. They had no credibility at all. So
having the Riles -Roth School Commission, which could bring some
resources to bear to show that things were being done correctly,
was terribly important.

So, where were we? Oh, San Francisco Education Fund and
Bill's really directing us. Then, into some actual granting,

203

which we then had to do. So we had our initial requests for
proposals and at first the teachers were a little loath to make
requests. I mean, they really didn't understand whether
somebody was really going to give them some money or not. And
of course, once we did fund a couple of projects, then what we
set out to do was to be balanced about it, so that it wasn't one
bright teacher in one school who was getting grant after grant.
We actually put on workshops.

By this time we had hired Glady Thacher as our executive
director. We did not make a search. Glady had been involved
from the beginning. She turned out to be an absolutely superb
executive. Not only did she know the schools and know where to
go and who to talk to, she turned out to be a fanatic
fundraiser. Every party that she went to, and she went to a
lot, she would raise the subject of the San Francisco Education
Fund. She would get people enthusiastic. She would invite them
to come in and help, and then we set up an allocations
committee .

All of us were recruiting board members, so that we had a
balanced board. I spoke to Phoebe Galgiani, who turned out to
be a president later on and was very enthusiastic, who started
out in the allocations committee. We brought on a number of
people who were extremely helpful. Dick Rosenberg, who then was
a vice-chair of Wells Fargo, joined us and was just a joy. He
moved south with Wells Fargo. He was vice chair of Wells Fargo
when he joined. He went to live in Southern California to be in
charge of their operations there. He came back to Crocker Bank
in San Francisco. He came on our Rosenberg Foundation board.
He then left Crocker and went to SeaFirst, and now he is back in
San Francisco as vice chairman of BankAmerica. But he was an
absolutely marvelous board member, who chaired our finance
committee. That's where I first got to know him and thought
he'd be good for the Rosenberg Foundation. He was marvelous
with the Rosenberg Foundation.

Morris: I wondered where he came from. It really sounds like a

fascinating endeavor you put together, with the group. Is the
model for the Ed Fund more similar to United Way or to a
foundation in the way it operates?

Luttgens : Well, it is a public foundation, as you know. It has to raise
money, and Ed Nathan was extremely helpful to us in the
beginning. Ed was a member of that group that met and talked,
and a member of the first board, as a matter of fact. He ran a
number of his grants to the schools through the San Francisco
Education Fund, so we were his fiscal agent, which gave us more

204

Morris :

Luttgens

Morris:
Luttgens

Morris :
Luttgens

Morris :

funding status, and he still continues to run some of his
education projects through it. [interruption from doorbell]

We were talking about Ed Nathan using the Ed Fund as a funding
agent. This would be applications that came to him that the
Zellerbach Family Foundation decided to fund?

That's correct. There was one on Talespinners , or something.
Isn't it a storytelling program?

Absolutely. I have a friend who is a Talespinner.

There were a number of things like that that went through to the
schools, and Ed used the San Francisco Education Fund, which
gave us some legitimacy to start out with.

It would give him some accountability, too.
closer focus.

It would be a

That's correct. And that's been one of the hallmarks of the Ed
Fund all along, that evaluation was built in, which is a very
tricky business. I think the Ed Fund has done a good job about
all of these projects, so that really what we evolved into was
in many ways a brokering organization.

If, for example, Wells Fargo wanted to do a program in
schools, didn't know^ what to do, we could match among our
projects something they were interested in. We could evaluate
it and let them know. So that in a way, as an intermediary, we
played the role of finding projects, of brokering projects, of
evaluating the results which meant that the Wells Fargo staff
didn't have do it. I use them as an example, just because they
come to mind. Ron Eadie has been very supportive of the Ed Fund
from the beginning.

That role of intermediaries is something that interests me
in the whole nonprofit world, because I see intermediaries, if
they are well done, as playing a significant role, rather than
the funding organizations having to hire large numbers of staff.
If the intermediary is good, a very small amount goes into
paying for the overhead. It's maybe 10 percent, and for that,
you get good staffing.

What does it do to the timeline for a superintendent or a
principal if he or she has to go through a separate,
freestanding organization rather than just going out on their
own?

205

Luttgens : Well, it's interesting, because [Ray] Cortines is very much a

hands-on kind of superintendent, and he wants to have his direct
relationship with foundations, and that has been something that
we've talked about quite a bit. He sees the value of the Ed
Fund, just as he sees the value of the San Francisco School
Volunteers. Did you notice the big article yesterday? He
wanted an Adopt-a-School program. Let me try to answer your
question first of all, but then introduce something else that
has a relationship to this. He does not want to give up his own
relationship with foundations, but he wants to bring in as much
money as anybody else can do.

iH
•H
M

•H

<jj

£3

5-i

•l-l

<4-<

4-1

^r"

•~3

4_l

S-i

(-;

T-Q

.,_!

C§

i-i

(-1

^35

3 *H )-i CU

PH IS CO O

^ eQ

U-( •> o

O O S^ '"O

u cu

cu co • M

•P -H > 4-1

3 O CU iH

•u C oi <

•H CO

4J 5-i

co r T < * * ^j

C «w
CO CU •>

CO rH CO

o C E

•H »H O GO

>-i M 4-1

CU CO Cu 4-1

E CU 3 •

< 0) (J C

t^ O ^ • C

r~- C 'H CO GO

C^ O 3 H

iH X CO

206

XV BUSINESS INTEREST IN COMMUNITY PROJECTS

Committee for Economic Development School Support

Luttgens : I'm going to step back now a little bit. I think that hiring
Cortines was one of the best things the school board ever did.
I think he's absolutely superb. He's just right for this
particular time, and he's doing a terrific job. There was a
meeting in San Francisco, and I'll have to think back. It must
be almost two and a half years ago, put on by the Committee for
Economic Development, the national organization, called,
"Investing in our Children." The CED is a national group that's
made up of business people, it was discussing the relationships
of what business could do for the schools. It's a very good
report, and there was a regional meeting here in San Francisco.
Glady and I were both involved in the planning of this regional
meeting, and I think there were six regional meetings across the
country.

Morris: I see they agreed with you on the "Bottom Up Strategy." Page
seven- - there' s a headline.

Luttgens: Yes. The meeting here was co-chaired by George Keller of

Chevron and Ruthmary Cordon, a teacher here. It was to be a
dialogue between business people and teachers. Fortunately,
there was some sort of a school board meeting in Washington,
D.C., so most school board members were away. It was really
teachers. What we heard in the dialogue between teachers and
business people was about the deplorable conditions in the
schools- -physical deterioration of schools — and the need for
more help, just cleaning up, repairing windows, providing a
stable environment.

It was quite a moving day, as I recall, and Dr. Michael
Kirst of Stanford was to do the closing remarks. Ruthmary, who

207

was representing the teachers, said that the teachers did not
want somebody from Stanford University coming in and telling
them what to do at the end of this day. They wanted somebody
from the community, so they asked me if I'd do the closing
remarks, which I did. I was very fortunate, because I had Tom
Chmura from Stanford Research International sitting with me all
day. I asked him if he'd do that, because he's their
educational specialist. So he took notes, because I said, "I'm
going to be so busy. I'm going to take notes, too, but I need
somebody that will take the time to organize them. So if you
can give me an outline of some key points, then I can talk from
that, but I'm not going to have time to do that." So Tom did,
and he was marvelous. He ended up with certain key points.

Business Leaders Task Force: Jobs Compact

Luttgens : At that time, I was doing the Business Leadership Task Force,
which is where Tom and I had been working together. Education
had been something that we were interested in, so it was an
appropriate use of his time, and I pledged that we would have a
continuing dialogue after the meeting on the subject with the
Business Leadership Task Force. We did have, and we called it
the--

Morris: "We" the Ed Fund and the teachers?

Luttgens: Well, we met at the Ed Fund, and Glady was a part of it, but it
was broader than that. We had somebody from the BankAmerica
Foundation. We had somebody from McKesson Foundation. We had
Ted Lobman from the Stuart Foundations. We had a representative
from the schools, who started out being Tom Sammon, because it
was before Cortines had been hired. We had Ruthmary from the
schools. We had Sandra Treacy from the School Volunteers and
from the corporate action group, which at that point was
freestanding, but the Ed Fund had started it. It is now part of
the San Francisco School Volunteers. Lynn Ishihara, who else
did we have? Ron Eadie from Wells.

We called ourselves the CED Follow-On Committee, and what
we did was to talk about the needs of the schools and how
foundations and business could be of help, and we were helpful
to the superintendent when he arrived, because what we had for
him was a matrix of the problems, as we saw them, across the
top, and the resource agencies down the side. It wasn't totally
complete, a beginning only. It was from our pooled knowledge,
but we could go in to him and we could say, "This is what we

208

see. You may have other problems that you want to address.
There may be other organizations that we don't know, but this is
a beginning for you to be able to work with."

Morris: With the background of ten years of information in content.

Luttgens: And we said to him, "We want you to tell us what your first
priorities are." And of course I brought up the idea of a
Boston Compact because I thought we could do a San Francisco
Compact that would be useful for the San Francisco schools. He
was not much interested in that, in particular. Ron Eadie and I
had a meeting with him, just the three of us, before he really
took over and was beginning to spend some time here. He said,
"Well, I know about it. It's farther down the 'line for me." He
liked the idea of Adopt -a- School; he liked a couple of other
things .

We continued to meet, and he very clearly wanted to be in
control. Glady was planning a conference between the School
Volunteers and the Ed Fund and some other people over at Mills
College on a Saturday morning, and he just literally called it
off. He didn't see any need for it. He didn't want to raise
expectations or spend a lot of time spinning wheels. Well,
neither did I. I didn't want to have any more meetings than we
had to. But I also felt the responsibility to continue.

We also brought in Judy Dellamonica, the head of the
teachers' union, because we thought it was important that she be
involved. She came to about two meetings, and then we sort of
folded tent. I said to the superintendent, "We're not going to
continue to meet just to meet, and if you have something that
you want us to work on, let us know, and we'll be glad to pull
everything back together again." We were also using a lot of
Tom Chmura's time, which was expensive, and we really hadn't
raised any money to pay for him. Tom Chmura from SRI. So if we
were to continue to do this, we needed to raise money, have a
clear program, and so forth, and it was just too mushy. So the
thing kind of petered out. The superintendent and I continued
to talk.

Again, at meetings, the Boston Compact has been raised.
Eunice Elton and I had talked about trying to get a Boston
Compact started here, and she had gone back to Boston. She had
a reason to go back for the Private Industry Council on another
subject, and as long as she was in Boston, she went to talk to
the people there about the Boston Compact. I had come across
the Boston Compact serving in my capacity as a member of the
Major Awards Advisory Committee to the Gulf and Western
Foundation, which I did for five years. One year was on youth

209

Morris:
Luttgens :

employment, and I remember it was the very last proposal I read.
They were giving half a million a year to two or three agencies
that had started a good program that could be either expanded or
replicated, and the subject was different each year.

The first year it was gerontology. They had seven hundred
and fifty proposals, which they screened down to about thirty-
five for us to look at; there were six of us. We met twice a
year in the East, once for an interim review, and then once for
the final decisionmaking. Most of the work we did, we read at
home, we mailed back a screening recommendation, and so forth.
Another year it was services for families with chronically ill
children. Another year it was parenting, and this youth
employment was the subject and the Boston Compact was the very
last proposal that year. There were thirty-one proposals, and I
read it with interest. I was serving on the Private Industry
Council. I had been involved with the CED committee, and so my
exposure had been fairly broad in youth employment and what was
needed, and I came across this proposal for an expansion of the
Boston Compact to community agencies that would train the truly
disadvantaged in literacy, as I recall.

And the old electric light went on, and I thought, "Boy, if
we just had something like that here," so I asked for reports on
it. I mentioned it in my closing remarks at the CED Regional
Conference. I guess it was before the CED meeting, because I
was interested in it at that point, and there was somebody in
the audience from the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation that day,
who had done the evaluation of the Boston Compact, and she sent
it to me afterwards. That, as you know, is a compact between
businesses in Boston and the Boston school system, that business
would hire graduates of the Boston educational system if the
system would raise the grade -point average and decrease the
dropouts. The unions got involved in it, as part of the
compact. The universities in the area got involved, to say that
they would take a certain number of students in the universities
if these conditions were fulfilled. And the genesis was that
there had been court orders about segregation in Boston schools,
so that they were under fire. There was a labor market, as far
as the businesses were concerned. They needed people to fill
jobs--

--that would fill their requirements.

That's right. And they had a dynamic new superintendent who
could speak to business on their own terms. He wasn't a fuzzy
academic . He was somebody who could see the need for this .

210

It seemed to us that some of those conditions were
operative here. Not the possibility of jobs. That was going to
be a real problem. But that we did have a dynamic new
superintendent. We did have an enormous need to improve grade -
point average and decrease dropouts . We had some interest in
the academic community, and I don't know about unions, but
anyway, it just seemed to me that there was a possibility there.
So I talked about it quite a bit. Interestingly enough, within
the last six months, Steve Trippe, who works part-time for New
Ways to Work, as well as at the state level, says that there now
is a big move, from the state standpoint, to set up compacts
across the state.

In the meantime, the superintendent and I have talked very
cold turkey about a Boston Compact here, and he doesn't want it.
He thinks that it would be much too ambitious to be sustained.
He doesn't want to set up anything that can't continue. I have
changed my views. I believe that it won't work unless it's
something that he's very enthusiastic about, and he has offered
instead a project which I have helped him with and have taken to
Pacific Telesis. Telesis is taking it to other corporations,
where a pact will be entered into by some of the businesses here
to underwrite scholarships for minority students, if they will
go through teacher training and stay in the school system; so
that it starts in high school and goes through the teacher-
training period at a thousand dollars a year per student, which
has been done successfully in two or three other areas. That's
something that the superintendent thinks is doable and will
raise morale and will bring in a new crop of minority teachers,
and that businesses are enthusiastic about. So that's what
they're doing. It's a very modified kind of pact.

Private Industrv Council Concerns

Morris: This kind of really fascinating, intricate experience — does that
then feed back into your thinking about the Rosenberg Foundation
and then your work with the Council on Foundations?

Luttgens: Absolutely. The Rosenberg Foundation funded a project last year
that I voted against. I very seldom vote against something, but
it was a grass-roots jobs organization that wanted to force the
Private Industry Council to monitor job requirements for every
construction site in the city. Number one, my experience with
the Private Industry Council is they don't have the staff to do
that sort of thing, and number two, there are some other moves
that are being made to get jobs for people. But this, to my

211

mind, is counterproductive,
constructive.

It's destructive instead of being

Morris: To monitor what's going on in the workplace?

Luttgens: To monitor businesses to make sure that they are hiring local

people for every job. To my mind, it wasn't appropriate, and I
spoke out in the board for my reasons for voting against it.
The board did adopt the project and funded it for a second year.
I'm not sure how successful it is. The PIC simply doesn't have
the staff to do it, so the group is spinning wheels --spending
money- -trying to accomplish something, which I think could be
done in another way.

But yes, it does interrelate with other activities, and I'm
in a unique position of being able to see what's going on in the
corporate sector, as well as the foundation sector, as well as
the nonprofit sector. And it takes a little delicacy, because I
don't want to abuse any of those relationships, but I think I've
been pretty open about indicating where there seems to be any
conflict of interest.

Legislative Mandate for Student Volunteering

Morris: But as you mentioned a few minutes ago, you're also in a
position to be an intermediary between them. Are those
interactions of interest to the Council on Foundations, and did
you speak out on those kinds of questions when you were chairing
the committees and presiding over the Council on Foundations?

Luttgens: I don't know. I don't know whether it is of interest or not.
It was never discussed. I think, right now, my current thing
that I have to try to do something about tomorrow- -there' s an
operation called Operation Civic Serve. Two years ago, John
Vasconcellos introduced a bill that would require students
receiving their education through the UC Berkeley system or the
state college system, that would require them to put in a
certain amount of community service work before they could
graduate .

My friend, Bob Choate, who started a student volunteer
project and spent a lot of time- -he's a Harvard graduate and
engineer, and so forth- -working with student volunteers both in
Arizona and then in San Diego, where he brought the schools, the
volunteer agencies, and then all of the post-secondary level
together. Bob monitored that bill with Vasconcellos and got the

212

Morris :
Luttgens :

mandation out, because he didn't think that was appropriate.
You don't want to mandate that students put in x number of
hours. That's not very appropriate, but he does believe in the
value of students learning about their communities by
volunteering to tutor or anything that they are particularly
interested in. And also that schools --the colleges and
universities — could have an office where students can go to find
out what kinds of volunteer opportunities there are and then be
placed and followed.

Stanford has a superb program, because Don Kennedy is very
interested in it. Absolutely terrific. It's the Cadillac of
public service programs for students. Anyway, Bob moved up here
from San Diego and monitored the Vasconcellos bill.
Unfortunately, the governor [George Deukmej ian] - -although he
signed it and the mandation was out-- the governor took out the
money, which was a small amount of money. I think it was like
$140,000, which would have helped establish those offices at the
various schools.

We put on a conference. I was Bob's keynote speaker a year
ago, in August, down at Stanford, and the people from Stanford
were extremely helpful in talking about their program. We had
attendance from all over the state — people from a lot of
agencies and foundations. He's raised money from the Hewlett
Foundation, from the Ford Foundation. (I happened to be in the
East when he went to talk to the Ford Foundation people, who he
was familiar with from other things that he'd done.) So they've
given him some money. He has an office in San Francisco.

This is for the Vasconcellos program to happen.

That's right, and it is happening. The problem is that the
agencies want control. He believes, and I think he's right,
that the students have to have control. It has to be a student-
initiated thing on the campuses, working with the nonprofits.
And that's where the rub comes. The administration of the
universities --some of them are dragging their feet. San
Francisco State has a very good program.

Anyway, he has an office down here on Buchanan Street, and
he asked me if I would assist him in talking to a CEO here who
would be willing to write a letter about the importance of
employees having had some sort of community service experience.
He did this in Arizona and made up a booklet. The CEOs were
just thrilled. They were pleased to do it, because it's a win-
win situation. It doesn't require any money on their part.
It's a statement of support, so what I'm trying to do is to
figure out who the lead CEO might be, and I've got an idea of

213

who I'm going to approach to see if he would be willing to mount
this sort of campaign, to write a letter to other CEOs to ask
them if they'd be willing to write a letter endorsing the
concept of community service for employees. So I'm wearing
several hats. I'm wearing my corporate director's hat, I'm
wearing my community hat, and I'm wearing my interest- in-
education hat.

Morris: Is this the kind of multipronged, cooperative effort that the

Rosenberg Foundation might be interested in at some point, since
it's relating to--?

Luttgens: I don't know. I mean, I don't quite see their role. Bob is a

friend of Kirke Wilson's. He's known him for a long time, since
the time that Bob was involved in the poverty program and Kirke
was working at the state level. So they've talked a lot. I
don't see a project there for Rosenberg right now. Rosenberg is
interested in, certainly, education of young people, but more
from the poverty standpoint and multicultural aspect. So I
don't quite see it there. I think that the project should be a
multiethnic project. It should not be all white yuppie kids.

Morris: I heard [UC Berkeley Chancellor] Mike Heyman the other day
saying that, according to a recent study, there is now no
majority ethnic group in the California school population; and
that he expects that the Berkeley campus will shortly be the
same kind of mix, so that any program will be multiethnic
because that's what the campus is.

Luttgens: That's right. Well, that's one of the things that Bob Choate

has been very interested in, and he's made up a board which has
Aileen Hernandez on it for this Operation Civic Serve. It is a
statewide organization. He met Mitchell Wilke, who is a
California Public Utilities Commissioner, because I took Bob to
a dinner that PG&E put on for the community when they lit the
lights on the Bay Bridge. We sat at dinner with Mitch Wilke,
and Mitch Wilke got so enthusiastic that he joined Bob's board.

So there are a lot of little fringe kinds of things, and
Bob is using me, to a certain extent, to introduce him to some
of the people that are useful to his program. That's all right,
as far as I'm concerned. I think it's a good program. I
wouldn't have gone down and spoken for him if I didn't think so.
And actually, some time ago, Don Kennedy had a meeting of a few
of us. Dianne Feinstein was there, about five other people at
the Pacific Union Club about a year ago, and one of the things
that he was talking about was this program down at Stanford, so
he's very enthusiastic about a public service program for

214

students. John Gardner, who I quoted extensively in my opening
address for the conference that we put on at Stanford--! had
just gotten his leadership paper in which he talked about
students becoming more and more specialized, because colleges
see that they need to know more and more about a small thing,
and the problem is we have too many specialists and not enough
generalists. Therefore, the specialists don't understand broad
systems. The generalists need to see the whole system so they
could see how it needs to be changed, but specialists can only
see a little piece of the system.

Luttgens : I flip from one thing to another.
Morris: Large chapter headings.

Luttgens: [laughing] It really is terrible, but everything- -You know,
I've got so many fingers in so many pies, and they all relate
either forward or backward or sideways.

Morris: I think it's fascinating. That's, I think, what we're getting

--is how these things do interrelate and how one person can keep
all these things moving forward. It's marvelous.

Luttgens: Well, at any rate, that's an example of interrelationships and I
will try it out this week on somebody. I've tried it out early
this morning. Someone called me from one of the corporations
about something, and I tried out this person to see whether he
thought it might be appropriate for his CEO to write the key
letter, and we discussed it a little bit. And very comfortably,
he said he didn't think it was the right time for that CEO. But
I said, "I have a thought of somebody else," and he said, "Well,
that person might be very good because of his association with
the UC system." So I'll try it out on him during the week and
see if he thinks it's something he wants to do. He probably
will want somebody to investigate it for him on his staff, which
is perfectly appropriate, and if that person thinks it's good,
then maybe it'll go. We'll see. I don't know.

215

XVI COUNCIL ON FOUNDATIONS, 1976-1982

Organizational Challenges and Changes

Morris: Could we take a few minutes and talk a little bit about the
Council on Foundations, which was backwards in time a little
bit, but from what I've read, it looks like there were some
similar delicate matters of organizational negotiation that you
were involved in when you were on the executive committee.

Luttgens: Yes, there certainly were, and I'm just looking to see the years
that I was on that. I must have gone on- -the terms are six
years, so six years from 1982 would have been about 1976 that I
went on that board. At that time, their structure was a paid
chairman and a paid president, both of whom were getting fairly
large salaries, and that structural arrangement had come about
because they brought in Bob Goheen to be chairman, to be the
outside spokesperson. Bob was the person who went to Congress
when something needed to be said. He was the person that
represented the council outside. David Freeman was the
president, and he didn't like the outside part but was very good
at the nuts and bolts on the inside. So they ended up with
these two people. Then there was a big gap down to the middle -
management people, and those salaries were, in most cases, half,
or less than half, of what the two top people were getting.

When I came on, the council was still in New York City and
was talking about the possibility of moving to Washington, D.C.
to be closer to the seat of power. The New York foundations had
an absolute fit. We were going to be corrupted. We were going
to go to Washington and be lackeys of the government, which is
what foundations never stand for. They always stand outside
that. I happened to be convinced by what I heard on the board
that it was a good idea to move to Washington, D.C., and to be
able to speak with legislators before legislation was set, to
advise them and be able to give them some information so that it

216

was more appropriate for foundations. The rest of what they
did, they could do in Washington just as easily as in New York.
But that was quite a bloody battle.

It was a very interesting situation. I went on the board.
I would fly from San Francisco to New York City, stay in a hotel
the night before, so that I could be at the meeting at nine
o'clock the next morning. The meeting would go till four
o'clock in the afternoon. The staff would go back into their
offices, the doors would all shut, and everybody would go home.
There was absolutely no feeling of anything but a rubber-stamp
board that came in to listen to what was being said, approve or
disapprove, and go home again.

Morris: No interaction.

Luttgens: Very little interaction, and I found it very sterile. Bob

Goheen was offered the presidency of the Edna McConnell Clark
Foundation, as I recall. What he really wanted to do was to be
ambassador to India, but that came later. So he went off to
Edna McConnell Clark. What was going to happen? How were we
going to fill that position? So immediately, we were plunged
into a search for a new chairman. The volunteer position on the
board was the position of chairman of the executive committee,
and it had to be held by a trustee. It could not be held by a
board member who was a foundation director. So that immediately
limited the choices of the number of trustees on the board.

The board had also gone through a very traumatic period
before I came on, where they were challenged by the black
executives, a group of black foundation executives, that there
was not enough minority representation on the board. Therefore,
they had created some public board-member slots. One of the
people who was very involved in that challenge, which I believe
was at the annual conference in Montreal, Canada, was Jim
Joseph, who at that point was the executive at the Cummins
Engine Company Foundation. Jim was on the board, which is where
I first met him, and he challenged everything that went on in
the board. The interesting part is that he subsequently became
president of the Council on Foundations, but a lot of years and
a lot of water under the bridge and a lot of seasoning had gone
on in between.

When I came on, it was a board that had public members who
were challenging other board members, pretty much rubber-stamp.
You had the feeling the staff didn't want you to stick around.
I mean, as far as I was concerned, my plane wasn't going to go
for another couple of hours, so I'd end up going out and sitting
back at the airport thinking, you know, why am I bothering? So

217

there were several things going on. I was very vocal in
speaking for the move to Washington, and I was appointed to the
committee that was to work out how that was to be done. My
experience always was to do a lot of talking with a lot of
people and let everybody get everything out on the table, and
that worked fairly well. There were still a few diehards. I
remember—well, we don't need to go into it, but there are some
people in New York that I leaned over backwards to try to
convince .

Morris: Well, New York always has seen itself as a seat of power, too.

Luttgens: Exactly. And that's why they couldn't imagine that we would

want to move from New York, even though these were foundations
that hadn't played a particularly active role. There also was a
lot of ambiguity about the local-regional associations. Council
staff was scared to death of them. Although they started out
sort of from a grass-roots standpoint, the council was very
cautious not to extend too much direction to them- -that they
were to be representative of the local foundations and not be a
creature--! mean, blessed by, but not directed by, the council.

Morris: That would be like NCG?

Luttgens: That's right. So there was that. We had to fill the slot for
chairman. And I must say, Ruth Chance was extremely helpful to
me, because before my first board meeting, she went over the
list of who was on the board. She knew all of them. She'd been
on the board herself and had gone off the board to make room for
a minority number on the board, actually.

Morris: Isn't that like Ruth.

Luttgens: Yes, exactly like Ruth. She filled me in on each member that
she knew—there were two or three she didn't know, but most of
them she knew- -where they were, where they were coming from, so
that I came onto the board, with people I've never seen before,
feeling at least I knew something about where they were coming
from. Jean Hennessey [director of the Charles Butcher
Foundation in New Hampshire] said to somebody shortly after I
came on the board, "You watch,. she's going to be on the
executive committee in another year." Well, sure enough, I was
appointed to the executive committee. And again, it was because
I did my homework, and I read, and so forth.

218

Executive Committee Chair: Consolidation of President and
Executive

Luttgens: Eventually, I became chairman of the executive committee

because, again, it had to be a trustee. I followed somebody
from Nebraska- -from Lincoln, Nebraska—who wasn't very dynamic.
There was a man from Texas, Gilbert Denman, from San Antonio,
who was vice chairman, and he really didn't want to be chairman.
So we headed into some structural problems- -the move, a new
chairman. We ended up asking Landrum Boiling, who was a board
member and the head of the Eli Lilly Foundation, if he would be
chairman, which he took on as his responsibility. I guess I was
on the nominating committee, too. So Landrum and I were working
together. David Freeman went off. He didn't want to move to
Washington. He stayed in New York, so that meant we had to have
a president, and the next in line was Eugene Struckhoff who had
written a book on community foundations and was absolutely
terrific on community foundations, wonderful in the field,
staffed the program committee, but a terrible administrator.
Landrum was not a good administrator, either, so we ended up
with these two people.

Landrum and I talked a lot. He's a Quaker, somebody who
was close to the Carters and the [Jimmy] Carter administration,
very interested in the Middle East situation, was shuttling back
and forth doing a lot of discussions in the Middle East during
the hostage thing, trying to be of help. He understood that
field- -knew it very well. But he and I talked a lot, and
finally at the annual conference in Seattle two or three years
after that, (I served two three -year terms and then had to go
off) I said to him, "You know, Landrum, it really would be so
much better if we had one executive and one chairman, who was
the volunteer, and it shouldn't have to be a trustee. It should
be a director of a foundation if that seems appropriate."

And we tried all kinds of things. Landrum, as I say, was a
Quaker and believed in moving when there was consensus, which
absolutely drove me up the wall, because we'd be sitting in the
meeting, we wouldn't have adequate materials to begin with to
know what to do, and we'd have to come to a consensus on what we
were going to do next. I tried chairing one of the board
meetings, even though I wasn't supposed to. We tried that. It
didn't work too well, because I was too directive. So finally,
I said, "It just seems to me that we really have to make a
change, as far as the structure's concerned." By this time, I
had a board that was looking to me for leadership.

Morris: And you had talked with them to express your concerns?

219

Luttgens

Morris :

The board was with me. We started having executive committee
meetings, which we hadn't had before, which included the staff,
but at least it gave a feeling of a closer nucleus of board
members. And to make a long story short, Landrum decided to
resign, not under duress necessarily, but because he was going
to go on and do some other things. He'd also been president of
Earlham College. A perfectly lovely man, but just not a good
administrator. Somebody who could give wonderful speeches about
the foundation world.

It must have been a very frustrating situation to have two
executives, in effect.

Luttgens: Well, it was, and so Landrum was going to resign with the

thought that there would then be just a president. Well, Struck
really wanted the title. So, we said, "All right. We'll give
it some time. We'll let you be the one person in charge."

Morris: And that person will be the chairman.

Luttgens: And that person will be chairman, and I was chairman of the

executive committee. I was running the meetings, at this point,
and I had my board behind me. I had Russ Mawby, Kellogg
Foundation. I had David Rogers of Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation. David used to look to me to see which way to go.
We'd do the eyes meeting across the table, and I'd try to
elucidate some. We had Steve Minter from the Cleveland
Foundation. We had really a superb person in Jim Shannon, who
then was with General Mills Foundation. We had some battles
about whether corporate contributions people should be full
members of the council, which Dave Rogers was very opposed to,
but we fought 'em all out. We had Ken Albrecht, who at that
time was head of contributions for Equitable and was one of the
founding members of Independent Sector and now is head of NCIB
[National Charitable Information Bureau] after having left
Equitable .

We had a very good board. We had some outstanding women on
the board. We had Jean Fairfax, a trustee with the Hazen
Foundation. Anyway, we had a good board. We had Raoul
Izaguirre .

Morris: Did you find some strong minority people to serve?

Luttgens: Yes, we did. We found some good, strong minority people. Jean
Fairfax. Very effective, Legal and Educational Defense Fund.
She was not an attorney but was a very outspoken person for
minorities. I'm looking for the rest of it. Bill Bondurant,

220

executive director, Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation; Jane
Dustan, Foundation for Child Development, who I made a really
wonderful friend. Booth Gardner of the Medina Foundation and
now governor of the state of Washington.

Morris: Really? Now that's an unusual career path.

Luttgens : Very interesting. He was a jogger and somebody who has a cousin
in Berkeley, Betty Helmholtz. Betty is a cousin of Booth
Gardner's, and they have the Medina Foundation and also the
Laird Norton [Foundation] . He was a board member of the Puget
Sound National Bank, the Weyerhauser Company, a trustee of the
University of Puget Sound and Washington Mutual Savings Bank.
An interesting fellow, very quiet, and very crisp, I would say,
when he said anything. We had Patricia Jacobs, who was
[reading] American Association of Minority Enterprise Small
Business Investment.

We had a very conservative member, Breene Kerr, who was the
son of Senator Robert Kerr, who I became a great friend of,
because the first night that he came on, nobody was paying any
attention to him, and we were all staying at a New York hotel.
Homer Wadsworth [Cleveland Foundation] and I were together, and
I said, "Homer, let's ask Breene Kerr to have a drink with us."
So we sat down and had a drink with him. He was always my pal
after that.

We had Ernie Osborne . Ernie became president of the
Greater Hartford Process, but he was the former deputy
undersecretary of intergovernmental affairs for HEW- -black. We
had Norman Francis, who was the president of Xavier University
in New Orleans- -black. We had Julian Samora. Julian was
wonderful- -professor of sociology at the University of Notre
Dame and just a giant in the field of Mexican American
relations .

Let's see, who else did we have? Well, we had a lot of
traditional types, too. Val [Valleau] Wilkie, who is the
executive vice president of Sid Richardson Foundation, who was a
former headmaster. Very conservative, who changed his mind
after he'd been exposed to some things. Was not nearly as
conservative. Obie Benz .

Morris: Who had helped found Vanguard Foundation here in San Francisco?

Luttgens: Obie and Bob Glaser and I were the three members from the Bay

Area when I first went on. Bob went off fairly quickly when he
completed his term. Obie went off, too. I don't know where
Obie is now, but he was really more interested in film.

221

Morris :
Luttgens :

The last I heard he was making movies in southern California.

Obie was a true breath of fresh air. I mean, that was one of
the attempts --the council had to reach out and get somebody
younger. Dottie Johnson, who was head of the Council of
Michigan Foundations and is just, again, outstanding. Howard
Dressier, who was with Ford Foundation.

It was a good board, but it was the sort of board that
didn't really know what it was doing until it began to have to
zero in on somebody. First of all, we gave Struck a period of
time. His administrative abilities were zilch. His staff was
in just a terrible uproar. Charles Rooks, who was senior vice
president at that point--! was hearing from Charlie about the
problems within.

Charlie was letting me know that things were not going well
internally, and we were to have a summer retreat, something
which had started about four years before. The feeling was it
would be useful for the council board members to come together
with a few staff, not very many, at a place that was away from
Washington, D.C. and talk about long- range --

You've moved to Washington by now?

We had moved to Washington. We did that within two years of
when I went on the board. We were having a meeting in Colorado
Springs at a private club, which a friend of Struck' s had
arranged for us. It was "Camel something" - -there were two
camels, something to do with a camel.

I talked to the board members before, and I said, "You
know, I just don't know how much longer we can go on. I have
the feeling we've really got to make a decision pretty soon.
Struck has not demonstrated his ability to be a good
administrator, and as I understand it, the staff is in great
turmoil." We had the meeting, and Struck left the meeting with
a promise of a consulting position with the council.

We appointed a search committee, chaired by Russ Mawby and
composed of a broad spectrum; Martin Paley was on it, we hired a
search firm. I had no part with the search committee. They
operated separately. They ended up with three candidates, one
of whom was Jim Joseph. The only place I interfered was that
one of the final candidates was somebody who I clearly believed
was only using the position as a steppingstone and would not
give the council the best.

Morris: He wanted a political position?

Morris :

Luttgens

222

Luttgens : Yes. And I simply indicated that that was something I thought

that the committee should look at very carefully, and they ended
up with Jim Joseph. When I think back on Jim as being the
person who challenged the council originally, when I first knew
it- -he has been a superb chairman, as far as I'm concerned.

There are still some very diehard conservative foundations
who do not think he is a proper representative of the Council on
Foundations. Here is a man who has been a minister, who has
been a foundation executive, who has lectured in theology at
Yale, and held a position in theology at one of the southern
California universities, and yet the conservatives continue to
feel that he is much too liberal.

Neoconservative Views

Morris: Because of his challenges to the board originally or because
he's black?

Luttgens: I can't say whether it's because he's black. I think it's

because he has some liberal views, personally, on this country.
He was an undersecretary, you know, with [Cecil] Andrus of the
[Department of the] Interior and so tends to be more liberal,
perhaps, than some others. The conservatives, I think, would
like to have a superconservative person in that position
representing foundations. I happen to think Jim is very
appropriate for our time.

Morris: Is that kind of a tension within the Council on Foundations

between liberal or forward-looking, innovative and conservative
grantmaking?

Luttgens: There has been a very strong movement, I would say, within the
last ten years of neoconservatives in the country. Certainly
we've seen it in other arenas, and it is true within the
foundation world as well. There are some foundations who have
dropped out of the Council on Foundations because they feel it's
much too liberal and does not represent them. There is a group
of neoconservative foundations .that have formed their own little
group. I can't tell you the name of it. I've seen some of
their writings, which are, I think, very dangerous, for this
country from the standpoint of being very limited in their
viewpoint. I think it's a fact of life. They're there, just as
we have very liberal groups, too.

223

I do not feel uncomfortable about the council taking too
liberal a stand. I think they're in tune with the times. I
think they have a good board, but every once in a while, Jim, in
particular, is challenged by this group. As a matter of fact,
Breene Kerr called me after he had gone off the board to tell 'me
about some of these things that were going on and what did I
think about them, and I told him I thought they were very wrong.

Morris: Some of the challenges to Jim himself?

Luttgens: To Jim personally and to the council as well. And the council,
in some writings, and I'd have to dig them out, has been
attacked by some very conservative organizations.

Morris: That's an interesting shift from ten years ago. They were being
challenged by young activists who said the council was not
taking enough interest in the needs of humanity.

Luttgens: That's right. It's fascinating, because I had been involved
since that early time to now, and I continue to be very
interested in it. But at any rate, we did have a total change
in leadership then, and Charles Rooks held the fort until the
search committee had completed its deliberations. Jim came in
as president, Russ Mawby became chair, following me, and after
Russ, Dave Rogers, and after Dave, Jim Shannon and then Val
Wilkie--all people who had served on my board who had been
through this. Everybody who was on my board has now left the
board, I believe, so there's no need to refresh anybody's memory
on that period. It's over, as far as I'm concerned.

Increasing Western Presence

Luttgens: But I think it was an important time for the council, because
what I was hearing here --that's when I started attending the
Northern California Grantmakers meetings, because as chairman of
the council, I wanted to know how the local group was thinking.
So I started going and was one of the few trustees who went to
the NCG meetings regularly and, of course, went on the board
eventually and am now, you know, secretary of the board and
chairman of the membership committee.

It's interesting to see what's happening now. We have
three very good board members from here who are now on the
council board- -we have Tom Layton, Gerbode Foundation, Susan
Silk, Columbia Foundation, Hugh [Burroughs of Henry J. Kaiser
Family Foundation). So for the first time, there really- -well,

224

not the first time — but they're really recognizing the West. In
the early days, it was as if everything was focused on the East,
possibly as far west as Chicago. But there's a real effort to
have a western perspective, and there are three. Lucile Packard
had been a member of the board and vice chairman of the board,
actually.

Morris: Of the Council on Foundations.

Luttgens : Yes, and was a strong, good member of the board.

Morris: Is it just California or is there an increasing presence from
other western states?

Luttgens: There's a strong presence from Seattle- -the head of the Seattle
Community Foundation now. Charles Rooks now heads up the Fred
Meyer Charitable Trust in Portland, Oregon. I don't know
whether there's anybody from Portland on the board of the
council. They've never been able to do a good job of recruiting
from southern California, and I don't know why it is. But I
tried very hard, when I was on the nominating committee, to
bring somebody from southern California. There isn't enough
interest to get them started on committees so that they can then
naturally come onto the board, and we had asked a couple of
people who really had had no relationship to the council. And
it just didn't fly. They couldn't see the value for themselves
or for their foundation. It really should be developed, because
southern California is an important part.

Southern California Association for Philanthropy fSCAPI

Morris: Is there that much contact between northern California

foundations and southern California foundations, within the
state?

Luttgens: They're quite different. The Northern California Grantmakers is
quite different from SCAP, the Southern California Association
for Philanthropy. SCAP is much more corporate foundation-
oriented. We're a lot more informal up here. We tend to brown-
bag it and gather around a particular subject that we want to do
something about, whereas they're quite formal. They meet at
regular times. I'm on their mailing list for their annual
report and so forth. They do a super job, I think, of their
annual meeting. They get important people, and they get
important people turned out for it. But it's just a different
cup of tea.

225

Morris: It sounds like there might be more visibility to the general
public, maybe, than NCG.

Luttgens : I can't answer that, because I don't know. It would be a

different kind of visibility. It would be a Phil Hawley serving
on the board of the Haynes Foundation or other people who are
CEOs who are serving. The Irvine Foundation is on that model.
We talked about Dennis Collins, who's the executive of Irvine
now, who replaced Ken Cuthbertson. Dennis is on the board of
NCG and SCAP also.

We talked about more trustee involvement for some of our
sessions here. And Dennis, pulling no punches, said, "You know,
my trustees aren't interested. They come to the meetings, they
make their decision about granting, but they aren't interested
in coming to a lot of meetings around a particular subject."
There are people like Sam Armacost and Myron DuBain- - they' re
CEOs. Those are the kinds of foundation people that are members
of the Southern California Association for Philanthropy, whereas
here there are people who want to learn more. They're eager to
learn more, so that they can be more actively involved. It's
quite different.

Morris: Fascinating. You said you had a lunch date, so maybe we should
stop now, and then I have my first question all ready for when
we meet next week.

226

XVII LEGAL AND MORAL MATTERS
[Interview 7: September 28, 1988 ]//#

Legislation and Regulatory Committees

Luttgens

Morris :
Luttgens

Morris :
Luttgens :
Morris :

Luttgens

I've given up going upstairs and trying to go through files,
Gaby, because I find that I get so engrossed in minutiae, that
it would take me days.

I think that is wise.

So I just am going to do it off the top of my head, and what I
remember- -

Particularly in view of the fact that we may convince you to
deposit some of your boxes in the Bancroft.

Oh, listen, they're all poised and ready to go up there,
[laughter]

We talked a little bit earlier about the impact of the '69 tax
reform legislation, but then more recently, there has been a
recurring public concern about foundations. And I wondered if
there was any contact with state legislators or with Fortney
Stark or other congressmen?

There is a legislation and regulation committee at the Council
on Foundations level. There is also one at the regional
association level. The regional association one here, with
Northern California Grantmakers , Kirke Wilson chairs, so he does
bring items that he thinks are of interest to either the NCG
board, to their attention, or to the Rosenberg Foundation board.

Now we had a meeting of the Rosenberg Foundation yesterday,
and nothing specifically was said about what was going on right

227

Morris :

Luttgens

now, but we had a lot of grant business to do, so it may well be
that he just didn't think whatever was going on was appropriate.
He does fill us in with what's happening with the immigration
bill, of course, because that's an area of our granting, and
he's very good about keeping the board up to date, the Rosenberg
board and the NCG board as well.

And there has been discussion at the NCG board level about
how flexible is that committee, the legislation and regulation
committee, to either speak to an issue or muster support among
other foundations. How independent can it be, is what I'm
saying, or do they have to go back and clear through the
Northern California Grantmakers board. And I think the feeling
is as long as they clear with the president and the executive,
if there's need to move quickly, that if they get approval they
can try to testify, whatever, which I think is the way it has to
be. You just can't always go through a ponderous procedure.

How about some of the state ballot measures that have had an
effect on government spending in some of the areas philanthropy
is interested in.

Unless those committees that we set up, like the Prop. 13 and
the Follow-Up Committee, which I think was Prop. 9 --unless
there's a formal committee, foundations as a whole don't take a
stand. Of course, they're awfully gun-shy, too, as far as
advocacy is concerned. You know, as long as they're educating
the legislature, they're in good shape. But if they're
advocating, or if agencies that they're funding are advocating
as a major part of their program, I think foundations are very
gun-shy. They have to be careful.

Buck Trust Litigation. 1986

Morris: How about the attorney general's office?

Luttgens: Well, yes, I believe that a lot of that interest has come about
as a result of the Buck Trust, where the assistant attorney
general, Carol Kornblum, has become very interested in how
foundations operate. I think the Buck Trust case, to my mind,
really opened up a whole area that the attorney general's office
hadn't paid much attention to before, and they began to feel as
if they needed to regulate. That was one of the things that we
were very concerned about on our little committee that was
studying the implications of the Buck Trust, was that it was an

228

Morris :

Luttgens

Morris :
Luttgens

Morris :

Luttgens

Morris :

Luttgens

area to be watched because there could be a lot more regulation
that could come out of it.

In what sense --in terms of payout or in terms of reviewing the
documents when the foundations first started?

Well, as far as the Buck Trust was concerned, there was, as you
recall, a review of some of the grants. That was a very sticky
part of the testimony, where actually program officers of the
San Francisco Foundation were called to discuss the grants that
they had made, and were they really based on need or were they
just based on the fact that the money had to be spent in Marin
County. It put the foundation, I think, in a very vulnerable
state, because for the first time, somebody was looking over the
shoulder of the foundation program officer saying, "You should
not have made that grant, perhaps."

That was the judge rather than the attorney general's office.

That's correct. But the attorney general piggybacked on a lot
of that, as you recall, and started talking about that there
certainly is a lot of need in Marin County. As I recall, some
of John Van de Kamp's statements were: there are lots of
potholes that can be filled and welfare people that can be
helped, and so forth, in Marin County. So I believe that he
latched onto some of that.

I know Carol Kornblum is concerned about good practice.
That's what I have gathered, through what I have heard that
she's done. And she did call me at one point. She called a
number of foundation people and asked them generally about their
sense of foundation procedures. It was a learning curve for
them, to find out how these mysterious foundations operated.

Even though the attorney general's office has a standing unit
that is responsible for looking after charitable activities.

Well, I think that unit could become a lot more active, was what
I was sensing.

When did the NCG set up the committee to watchdog the Buck Trust
proceedings?

It was February, 1984. I've given my files all away. I didn't
join the committee at its original inception. I think it was
Kirke and Ruth and Tom Layton and Donna Terman, from the Johnson
Foundation. Claude Hogan from Van Loben Sels. Cole Wilbur from
Packard. There were a number of people on it, because they were
interested and because their foundations put up a little bit of

229

money to start talking. Rosenberg did not put any money into
it. It wasn't in our granting area, but the others did, as I
recall.

Morris: They put up some funding for a formal committee?

Luttgens : They put up a little funding. I don't know at what point they
hired Tom Silk as an attorney to take a look at what was going
on in this case. I believe that was further on, and I think
that's when they went to Hewlett for some money. After Gerbode
had put some up, and Johnson Foundation put some money up. But
that was a little later on.

When they first started, it was to study and analyze the
potential impact on philanthropy. Martin, I believe, felt that
it was not necessary to have a committee of that sort, that
there was going to be plenty going on that would be reported.
He was at that time a member of the NCG board, as was I, and
when the proposal came to the NCG board, to establish a task
force --this is a group of foundations that are looking at this
--the board balked.

When they came back a second time, it was agreed that a
limited survey could be undertaken in the name of NCG. But they
were very concerned about NCG's role in this. They really
wanted to hold back from it. They didn't have any problems if a
small group of foundations wanted to look at it, but when they
wanted to be named a committee of NCG, then there were problems.
Long story short: the NCG board did finally agree to have a
limited situation and even agreed to file as friend of the
court, so that Tom Silk could get the information that was going
on in the trial. The expenses of the committee were totally
Tom's expenses, in taking his time to monitor what was going on
and meet with the committee and report it, and send copies of
the briefs, and so forth, to us. They added me to the committee
because I was an NCG board member, and NCG felt that they should
have a board member on the committee. So I became very
involved, but the committee had been meeting for several months
before I joined them.

Morris: Before the matter went to trial?

Luttgens: That's correct. We were watching before that, and I was hearing
about it, but I was not a part of it. Then Kirke dropped off
the committee, because he was asked to testify. So he prepared
testimony and dropped off of the committee and I don't believe
was ever called to testify, but he prepared for it. There were
frantic arrangements being made to bring people in from

230

Washington and everywhere, who had been involved in the
discussions which preceded the action of the San Francisco
Foundation.

Morris: In asking the court to review the original will?
Luttgens : That's correct.

Morris :
Luttgens

Morris :

Luttgens :

Now these people were called by the court.

No, they were called by Martin for a meeting that was held in
San Francisco prior to the [San Francisco Foundation] board's
decision to do that. I would really want the files at hand
before I tried to review all of the aspects of the case. There
was a gap, as you recall, between the time that the initial San
Francisco Foundation board said, "Yes, we think we should file
to review the status." Some board members went off the board.
When the final decision was made sometime later to do it, the
complexion of the board had changed somewhat. Some new members
had come on who weren't part of the original decision, as you
recall. Plus the fact that there was a lot of heating up as
far as Mar in County was concerned, as Mar in saw this money might
be spread over other counties, although the San Francisco
Foundation was not asking that the total amount be taken away
from Mar in, only shared with other counties. They would still
continue to give most of it to Marin, but to add some of it to
other counties that were in great need.

And so, the Buck Trust committee continued to be in touch
with what was going on; to see all of the clippings from the San
Rafael Independent Journal, which were sent on to us; to meet
every three weeks or a month with Tom Silk; and to keep
informed, to report back to the board. The thought was that
some sort of a meeting or paper would be done at the end of that
period to review, again, the implications of the Buck Trust for
philanthropy, which was the key thing. The committee also very
early on, before I joined it, made a statement to the Northern
California Grantmakers board that their best opinion was that
the San Francisco Foundation should settle out of court before
it ever came to court. That was not accepted by the NCG board
as a position for the NCG board. Therefore, that part never
went forward, although in hindsight, it was obviously a very
good recommendation.

Was contact maintained with Martin Paley, or did he distance
himself?

It was informal. Martin, I think, was very hurt that the
foundation community didn't rally to the San Francisco

231

Foundation and say, "What you are doing is absolutely right."
Also, he felt that an aspect that should be investigated was how
the trustees arrived at their decision and why they arrived at
their decision, and that was never part of our committee's
deliberations, although, as you recall, several trustees were
interviewed by the court.

Morris: This is the original board?

Luttgens: Yes, and I think in their discovery they even went back to talk
to board members who had been on the board prior to the time
that the decision was made, because I remember being called by
somebody. I don't think it was Carol Kornblum, because she
assumed that I had been on the board at one time, and I said no,
I never had.

Morris: One spot you missed.
Luttgens: Yes, that's right, (laughter)

Morris: The will from whence all the controversy arose had been written
some years previously.

Luttgens: That was the San Francisco Foundation's point, plus the fact

that they had no idea that the magnitude of the amount left was
going to be so great. It's very interesting, because one person
in particular, who was an officer of an oil company, mentioned
to me that he had negotiated for those holdings that eventually
became property of Shell, I think. The Belridge Oil Company
holdings. And that the family had no clue that they were that
valuable .

Morris: This is somebody from another oil company who tried to acquire
it?

Luttgens: Correct, and he was never asked to testify, and he never did.
He just mentioned this to me when we were having lunch one day
about a whole other subject. That was never brought out in
court, of course, but it would have been an interesting facet,
that in the original purchase of those shares, that the people
that were selling them had no intimation that they were worth
that much money.

Morris: The person you talked to, as an oil company official, presumably
had an idea of their potential.

Luttgens: No, he was looking back. I mean, they wanted them because they
thought they had some potential, but they didn't know how much
either.

232

Morris :
Luttgens
Morris :
Luttgens

Why didn't the foundation community rally behind Martin?
I think, again, they were afraid of taking a position.
Did the Rosenberg board, for instance, discuss it?

We never discussed it, and we deliberately never discussed it,
because a member of our board is Cruz Reynoso, and if it should
have gone to the [California] Supreme Court, he would have had
to disqualify himself. We never discussed the committee. We
never discussed the suit. Deliberately. Originally, many of us
thought it would go to the supreme court, and I think, again
looking back, that that is probably the reason why a lot of the
things were done, legally, that were done by the attorneys that
were representing the San Francisco Foundation.

To move on to why we never did anything about a paper or
about a meeting: We struggled for months on the committee,
trying to design a program that would be useful. And we went
backwards and forwards. We changed our minds. Members of the
committee changed their minds. Another member who was involved
in the beginning was Cole Wilbur from Packard, and Packard put
some money into it. There was a feeling, by some members, that
it was terribly important to call people together nationally
from the foundation community and to discuss it.

It made the trustees of the San Francisco Foundation very
uncomfortable, although I must say that Sue Metcalf, a member of
their distribution committee and a member of the NCG board, who
was invited to join the committee toward the end of our
deliberations, when we thought we were planning something, was
absolutely marvelous. She was not happy about what we were
doing, but she sat in on the deliberations, and she participated
in the planning.

When we finally decided not to do it, after going backward
and forwards, it was because even though you brought in somebody
of national stature to discuss the implications, it still was
pointing the finger at the San Francisco Foundation. It was our
feeling that once the trial was over, what they really needed to
do, and the best thing we could do to help them, was to help
them develop a credibility again so that they could become a
viable entity. They were being looked at as the bad guys, the
greedy guys, and so we finally decided that it just wasn't going
to serve anybody's purposes.

Now, the American Bar Association had a session which Ruth
was able to attend, in which Jim Gaither and somebody else, I

233

believe Jim was a part of that, discussed the implications from
a legal standpoint. So there had been several other- -

Morris: Before he was a member of the Rosenberg board?

Luttgens: Oh, long after. And as a matter of fact, I don't think he had

agreed to chair the new Marin Community Foundation board at that
point. I think it was still just at the end of the court
settlement, but I could be wrong, and that was one of the other
things we talked about, should we get Bob Fisher and Douglas
Patino as part of this, to talk about implications now for their
foundations?

It just was too messy, the whole thing, and after much
deliberation, it was decided that we wouldn't do anything. We
would make a report to the NCG board. Now to my knowledge, that
report still hasn't been written, because I haven't seen it.
But that's a good question, and I think I will remind myself to
go back and see. We do at least owe that to the board and to
the foundation community, if anybody wants it. In other words,
to the Northern California Grantmakers or beyond. A report of
what the committee did.

Morris: Would you have talked with Martin, or were there more formal

discussions with the San Francisco Foundation board, about the
matter of whether to pursue it in higher courts?

Luttgens: When the decision was made to settle, eventually, and when

Martin left the foundation, we certainly were not in a position
to suggest to them they try to pursue it.

Morris: And having decided on a settlement, then that sort of precludes
going to the higher court.

Luttgens: That's correct.

Morris: What were the discussions in the committee about what the
implications were?

Luttgens: Some of the discussions centered around the trustee role, which
is the thing that Martin had wanted us to spend more time on.
Part of it was, should trustees also serve, or have their firms
serve, as professional assistance to the foundation. As you
recall, and I may cut this out when we redo it, Bob Harris's
firm was the legal firm that served the foundation and actually
was the legal counsel for the trial. Bob was president of the

'Buck Trust Final Report distributed October 17, 1989.

234

foundation when the discussions first started. The question
about trustees' role is, did they have good legal advice when
they undertook opening up the will? Had an objective legal
source identified for them the implications of what it would
mean for them and for the foundation? We rather had the
feeling that they had not had as complete legal advice as they
might have.

Morris: Was the sense that the idea of taking up the issue originally
came from the distribution committee or came from staff?

Luttgens: That was a question that we never resolved. It was certainly
discussed. I think it was Martin's feeling that it was a
trustee decision after having participated in this gathering of
people from across the country who he pulled together. I think
others felt that it was something that staff was recommending,
and as I recall, what came into court were also sort of mixed
messages .

Morris: Would John Van de Kamp have been part of that group that was
pulled together to talk about it before?

Luttgens: No. They were people that were involved in foundations across
the country.

Morris: Because there's a persistent rumor, for want of a better word,
that the attorney general was encouraging this action.

Luttgens: Oh, he did. That's absolutely documented. He was encouraging

it originally, and then when he turned a total flip-flop further
along, it was a terrible shock to the foundation, because they
were under the impression that they were operating in a way that
he thought would be beneficial.

Morris: Did he ever talk to any of the foundation people about why he
flip-flopped?

Luttgens: Not to my knowledge. There may have been something. I don't

remember anything in the newspaper clippings, either, but it was

certainly brought out in court that he had originally encouraged
them.

Morris: It was an election year, and he was up for re-election.

Luttgens: Yes, I guess the more experienced I become, the more cynical I
become about political positions being taken, in terms of
seeking a new candidacy or being re-elected, or whatever. You
see it in the business world, you see it in the nonprofit world.

235

And he might very well decide to take this as a major area to
get into.

I was asked to do the luncheon talk for a Council on
Foundations trustees meeting in San Diego just before this went
to trial, and I debated about whether I should say something
about the implications of this. The fact that we had a
committee, that it was meeting and that the matter was going to
trial, that I thought it would have great implications for
foundations. And debated and debated, and I spoke to Tom Silk
about it and said, "Do you think this is inappropriate for me to
do so?" And he said no, and I spoke to the chairs of the
committee, and they said no, they thought it was fine. I was
just going to put a little piece on the end of my talk, because
I was supposed to be talking about trustee responsibility.

And I did mention it, and I did say- -this was in January,
as I recall- -and I said that this trial was going to start in
February and that I was surprised by the vehemence of the people
in Marin County, who were very offended that this was their
money that was being taken away from them. I was also realizing
the depth of lack of understanding that the general populace has
of foundations. The fact that they operate privately, behind
closed doors, make decisions based upon their best knowledge,
but as far as the man on the street is concerned, he sees other
needs and he wonders why that foundation is able to operate with
money that is tax-exempt and so forth. So it really brought a
lot of that to the fore, and also the fact that trustees have a
real responsibility in taking actions such as these.

It was very interesting, because after I finished my talk,
a fellow from Pennsylvania came up to me. He said, "You know,
you've really made me think. I'm a member of a hospital
foundation, and we were about to challenge the will of somebody
who said the money had to go to two hospitals. We were going to
challenge it and say it should only go to our hospital. I'm
beginning to wonder whether we ought to do that." And I said,
"Well, if I were you, I would work out an arrangement with the
other hospital, who was expecting continuing money, before you
ever went into court about it, and make sure that your trustees
understood that they might have a battle royal on their hands.
Because once you've started that sort of funding and you try to
diminish it or take it away totally, you would be in the same
situation, it would seem to me."

Morris: What about the implications, for a foundation, of accepting a
bequest?

236

Luttgens: That's a very, very good point. I would think that foundations
would want to be very careful about the kinds of inclusions,
exclusions that were put on a bequest, to make sure that it 'was
going to be feasible to administer and not just feel, "Yes, we
need that money. We'll take it."

Did Tom Silk look into this aspect of it at all?

I don't believe so. I'm sure it's something that occurred to
him, but--

Yes, because I remember John May, years ago, telling me about
the ancient doctrine of cy pres , that, in general, in terms of
philanthropy, there is precedent for challenging a previous
decision when the situation has changed.

Luttgens: I'm trying to remember the actual words.
Morris: The dead hand of the past?

Luttgens: Well, no, it's like "impossible," but there's a word that is
close to "impossible" which was the whole basis of asking the
court to rule on the intent of the will.

Morris :
Luttgens

Morris :

Luttgens: "Illegal, impossible, or impracticable" is the phrase used for
cy pres doctrine. And that was the whole basis of the case, of
course, that the situation had changed. And what Marin County
was insisting was that there still was plenty of opportunity and
need and the other thing that happened was that the whole Marin
Council of Social Agencies then were paraded onto the witness
stand to say, "Oh, yes, we could use so much more funding," or
whatever. And all of those people who had been partners and who
had worked with the San Francisco Foundation to administer
programs, suddenly were enemies. It was a very traumatic
period, I think, for both the staff and the trustees of the San
Francisco Foundation. And I do believe that some of the newer
trustees found themselves in a situation that was not of their
designing and wanted to finish it up as quickly as possible.

237

Principles. Practices, and Ethics Committees. Council on
Foundations and NCG

Morris: Do you see any change in trustee attitudes or foundation

behavior in the succeeding couple of years , as a result of the
Buck Trust suit?

Luttgens: Well, we also had a committee of the Northern California

Grantmakers , which has been meeting for about four years on
principles, practices, and ethics. It is based on a committee
that was established when I was chairing the Council on
Foundations, which came out of some discussion at the board
level of the council, saying shouldn't we have some standards
which foundations need to live up to: for example, publish an
annual report, make sure that you get back to the people who
send you proposals.

Morris: That hasn't existed in the foundation world?

Luttgens: It had not. The statement has since been published, and it's
got ten parts to it. Martin Paley served on that Council on
Foundations committee. It had on it representatives of the most
conservative and the most liberal foundations. I attended one
meeting, when I was chairing the council, and I thought they
would never be able to resolve anything. They were poles apart.
What they finally came out with was something that they all
subscribed to. For some in the foundation world, it is not
enough. It should have gone further. For others, it's too
much.

It's now a document which foundations, when they join the
council, are asked to subscribe to. As a result, there are a
few foundations who have dropped out, because they feel they are
independent entities, and they are not going to be dictated to
by anybody. They don't wish to belong to an organization which
has membership- -I use the word "standard," and they're minimal
standards. "Principles and practices."

Morris: Goals and guidelines.

Luttgens: Exactly, yes. And there are others who say, "Well, that never
went far enough." Our committee, and the Northern California
Grantmakers, started with the feeling that those ten precepts
didn't go far enough, so we would see what we could do to beef
them up. The committee has been going on, as I say, for about
four years, from my recollection. Martin was the original chair
of the committee, as I recall, and it's about to publish a
document about which there's a lot of quibbling still, about how

238

it will go. There are people on the committee that feel it
should be stronger and some that are a little hesitant to be too
strong. But I think it will embellish the council document.

Many of the same people who served on the Buck Trust
committee are now serving on the Principles, Practices and
Ethics Committee. As a result, you can't help but have some of
the things that were discussed in the Buck committee come into
the thinking of the second committee. As a matter of fact, when
we finished the Buck Trust committee, the feeling was, well, a
good place to carry on that discussion is in Principles,
Practices, and Ethics.

Morris: Removed from any specific situations.

Luttgens: Exactly. That's what we were trying to do, not to point the

finger at a particular situation, but to pick out of it some of
the things that were important in good foundation performance.
Being open with colleagues, you know, that kind of statement.
Keeping your board well-informed. That's just sort of good
housekeeping behavior.

Morris: What's your sense as to whether there's a sizable number of

foundations and company giving programs that are reluctant to
consider those principles, and operate on them?

Luttgens: We actually did a survey. We had, I've forgotten how many,

representative foundations from each of those categories, and
Caroline Tower did it before, she was the director of Northern
California Grantmakers. She was not the executive director, but
she interviewed foundation representatives from all those
categories. And I think, generally, foundation behavior is
pretty good. We're trying to raise some questions that we think
foundations should be thinking about, whether they actually
subscribe to them or not.

Trustee Compensation Questions

Luttgens: One of the hot subjects is trustee compensation. Should

trustees be compensated for their service on the board? The
Council on Foundations, as part of their survey of foundations,
has found that 57 percent of their membership do not compensate
trustees, but it's increasing. Some do not compensate all
trustees; maybe if it's a family foundation they only compensate
the non- family members. Family members waive their fees. I
happen to not believe in trustee compensation, mostly because I

239

consider foundations nonprofits, and the National Charities
Information Bureau Standards Committee- -which I've served on the
last year and a half and has just completed their standards
about six months ago- -made a statement that nonprofits should
not compensate board members except for reasonable expense, if
you have a board member who has to travel a distance or needs
child care to participate.

Now when we discussed this (there were a number of
foundation people on that NCIB advisory committee) , and one of
the foundation representatives said, "We're talking about two
tiers here. We're talking about some foundations, which do
compensate their trustees, and we're saying to the nonprofits
that the foundations fund, "You shouldn't compensate your
trustees." So who's right?" And I happen to believe that
trustees should not be compensated.

Now I hasten to say that the Johnson Foundation, where I
agreed to serve as the only non- family board member, compensates
trustees for meetings, and when I found that out I said, "You
know, I don't believe in that." I'm going off that board. I
had my last meeting in October. One of the calls I'm going to
make today is going to the executive, because I see on the
docket is a discussion of increasing trustees' compensation, and
I at least have to say what I feel, even though I'm not going to
be affected.

Morris: What about the carryover in people's minds, specifically

trustees from the business world who are familiar with being
compensated as a corporate director?

Luttgens : It's the business model, and I think that's what they were
trying to do to attract some corporate leadership. In some
cases, foundation trustees are compensated very handsomely. The
trustee chair of one local foundation receives fifty thousand
dollars a year. Granted, his responsibilities have been major
over time. Number one, I don't agree that it is a good
practice. Number two, I think you have to look at the
circumstances that brought it about. In talking with the
secretary of the Carnegie board, who was a member of the
Standards Review Committee for NCIB [National Charities
Information Bureau] , she mentioned that her trustees received
quite a bit of money for participating. They had corporate
members on the board. They started out compensating because
they were trying to attract members who were going to have to
take a day off from work, and it would be a problem for them to
do that. In other words, they were looking for working people
of minority background, ethnic background.

240

Morris: A broader representation than they had had before.

Luttgens : That's right. So there are two reasons. There is the corporate
model, where to attract the corporate person you think you need
to compensate. There is the reason of bringing on people who
are going to have to give up a day of work, which would be a
hardship for them. There might be a third reason, which we also
discussed, as you bring non- family members on for reasons of
their professional expertise. If you bring an attorney on and
you expect him to provide legal services, in the beginning days
of the foundation- -not later, as I've already mentioned, but in
the early days --where you do call on the CPA and the attorney
and perhaps the public relations person, or whatever the
professional expertise is, I can see how that might have
started, but then once the foundation gets big enough to employ
people who do that, they continue and so do the fees.

Now a second area, and this is one of the areas the
attorney general is interested in, is that that money, of
course, is money that then is not going to the public good,
necessarily. It's not going to direct service. There is a
second area to this, and that is the discretionary pool of money
which some foundations allow trustees to designate to a charity
of their choice, a certain amount of money. That is a common
practice at a number of foundations.

Morris :

Luttgens

Morris :

Luttgens

Not the executive's discretionary money,
discretionary money?

It's trustee

Right. In other words, if I'm particularly interested in the
ballet, my allocation for the year is two thousand, five
thousand dollars, whatever, and I can say to the foundation,
"I'd like that money to go to the ballet or the United Way," or
whatever. I also take a dim view of that, but it's my
understanding that when Carnegie got involved in that, they did
that as an either/or, but then somehow it turned out to be an
add-on. The Koret Foundation has both of those features, and
it's one of the things that the attorney general is very
interested in.

Does that relate to why Koret has had, I gather, some internal
difficulties?

I think there are some other reasons as well, like a BMW that
was purchased for the use of the chairman of the board, and that

Since discontinued,

241

sort of thing. It tends to get into self -dealing, and I guess
in my mind, it is better to lean totally the other way, so
there's not even any perception of perks or anything of that
sort.

Morris: Is this, the appearance of self -dealing, something that is
discussed amongst foundation trustees at all?

Luttgens : Well, it certainly is in John Nason's book, and it certainly is
in any discussion that I'm asked to do with trustees.

Morris: And in general, what do trustees respond as individuals?

Luttgens: Well, one response that I've heard secondhand—I've not heard it
directly- -is that if it hadn't been for the chairman of this
particular board, that the foundation would never have come into
existence. Therefore, he advised the donor and drew the plans,
and so forth. I somehow suspect he was paid for those
professional efforts, and it shouldn't be extended. In another
case, I think that family members who are not direct
beneficiaries of the will may see this as a way to share in a
legacy that has been left to a foundation. I think that that is
sincere on the part of the grandchildren or whoever is one step
removed, but I don't think it's right.

Morris: Those were issues that were very much in the fore of the

hearings and the discussion about the 1969 Tax Reform Act.

Luttgens: That's my concern, Gaby, that it's going to reopen all of those
questions again, and if a decision is going to be made by the
foundation, it needs to be made against the backdrop of that
possibility. If they're going to go ahead and do it, then
they're going to go ahead and do it, because it's a private
entity. But I think they have to realize that those are the
kinds of things- -well, they were written about recently by David
Dietz in the San Francisco Chronicle Sunday article, and he
named some foundations. I think that's there, and I think it's
a real concern.

Morris: To have the same issues still around twenty years later is

startling. There's been so much change in so many other areas,
I would have expected- -

Luttgens: I think part of it is the philosophical discussion of private

money for public good. How far does the private money authority

John W. Nason, Trustees and the Future of Foundations, New York:
Council on Foundations, 1977.

242

breach into the public good area? If you're a purist, and you
think as much money as possible should go to the public good
because of the tax-exempt status of the money, then you say no
compensation, the smallest possible administrative budget to get
the work done, no perks.

If you think, well, by God, it's my money, my family's
money, as Irving Kristol continues to say and said publicly at
a speech in one of the Council on Foundations meetings, "Don't
ever forget it's your money." As long as that philosophy is
there, then there are going to be people that say, "It is my
money, and I'll spend it any way I want, and I'm going to do
granting the way I want."

And then there's a lot of in-between. I mean, the Packard
Foundation, to my mind, I don't even know whether they
compensate their trustees, but my guess is they do not, and my
guess is that although it's their money, it's above reproach. I
don't know whether they went through the foundation on the
Monterey Bay Aquarium. It's my impression that that was a
separate giving program with some augmentation from the
foundation, and I could be wrong about that. There could be
people who say, "Why did you put an aquarium in Monterey Bay?"
and question that decision. I think that was their decision,
because they thought it was a good thing to do . I happen to
think it's a magnificent facility.

243

PRESIDENT'S TASK FORCE ON PRIVATE SECTOR INITIATIVES, 1982

Aspen Conference. 1981

Morris :

Luttgens

Morris :

Are these kinds of ethical questions discussed at some of the
other forums that you've been involved in- -I thought we might
get to today- -like the Business Leadership Task Force, the
Private Industry Council, and the President's Task Force?

No, those sorts of issues have not been. The President's Task
Force on Private Sector Initiatives was very much an attempt, as
you know, to get the private sector more involved in giving, and
that was the major discussion there. It really did not evolve
around foundation behavior. It was very much an effort to get
private citizens more involved in giving and in volunteering,
and also businesses.

How was that set up and how did you happen to get involved in
it?

Luttgens: Well, I got involved in it, because in 1981, when I was chairing
the Council on Foundations, I got an invitation to attend a
meeting at Aspen, Colorado, discussing the future of
foundations. It was co-chaired by John Gardner and Wally
Nielsen. I thought it was a good thing to do.

Morris: That was sort of the first team.

Luttgens: That's right. I went to it, and it was a broad spectrum of

foundations across the country: private community, corporate. I
remember Gene Wilson was there from Arco. A lot of leadership
that I had known through my involvement on the council.
Interestingly enough, too, Kitty Teltsch from the New York Times
was there, and Kitty was allowed to sit in on our sessions. She
was not allowed to write about them. If she could buttonhole

244

somebody for an interview and they were willing to be
interviewed, she could write about that.

Morris: Tough ground rules.

Luttgens : Awfully tough, but I think she enjoyed it, because it gave her a
lot of insight. About the first day, we were seated
alphabetically, as I remember, because I was seated next to
Reynold Levy, who at that time was with the Ninety-Sixth Street
YHCA, the Jewish organization in New York, and has since gone on
to be the chief contributions officer for AT&T. But I was
seated next to him, and he was less known to me. There weren't
then a lot of people there, so he was designated to take a lot
of notes.

Morris: For his own organization, or was he the recorder for the
meeting?

Luttgens: Well, he wasn't officially the recorder, but he'd been asked by
John and Wally to keep track of what was going on. It was
really a fascinating session, because about a day and a half
into it, they had some White House people there. There was
somebody there from the Heritage Council and the director of
ACTION, the domestic Peace Corps: Tom Pauken. There was a
sociologist from Boston. I looked across the table at him. He
had a shaved head, black shirt, black pants, black boots, black
glasses, and he looked like he was straight out of the SS.

It was the first time I had heard about mediating
structures. The thing from this Boston professor with the
shaved head was that if you just cut back on federal funding,
mediating structures would occur- -that families, neighborhoods
would all come to the fore, help out these people who were in
need. And therefore, it was just a matter of time, and people
would be taken care of. This was reiterated by a young black
man, Robert Woodson, who was involved in some neighborhood
activities, and he's still involved in some government programs,
still pushing his thesis that neighborhoods will take care of
people .

Morris: That's sort of the conservative social viewpoint.

Luttgens: Those of us who had come from the, we thought, middle ground in
foundations were absolutely shocked at this, and I can remember
we gathered in somebody's room. I can remember saying to John
Gardner, "This is a shambles. You're going to have to get
everybody back on track. Everybody is totally shocked by what
they're hearing from the White House. Yes, there are going to
be enormous budget cuts in rhe social agency area, and yes,

245

somebody's going to pick up on it- -we don't know who, but
mediating structures won't take over." And so they asked Reyn
Levy to put down all the good things that people had said, not
the bad things .

Morris: Was this an invitation gathering?

Luttgens: Oh, yes, it was very, very invitational. So, the next morning,
Reyn started putting up on the board all the good things. John
Gardner was really the one that pulled this thing back together
again, and we began trying to move on the positives, as opposed
to this enormous sense of shock that we had. But out of that,
it was quite clear that the Reagan administration was embarking
on some very large budget cuts.

Morris: Was this meeting put together with the idea of making the
acquaintance of some of these new White House people?

Luttgens: You know, I never asked John why they did put that together. I
think it was an opportunity to identify what was going to be
happening very quickly.

Morris: With a new administration coming in. Interesting idea.
Luttgens: Well, I'm trying to think. I was about to pursue something.
Morris: Oh. Mr. Levy had put the key points on the board.

Luttgens: Well, yes, he put it up, and we tried to move into what was

constructive about it. Well, I've lost whatever it was I was
going to tag onto that, but the idea was that we jolly well had
better start thinking about the future, as far as foundations
were concerned. Number one, were foundations going to start to
pick up on a lot of these services?

Oh, I know what it was. Les Salamon was there, and it was
at that meeting, I believe, that he got the idea that it would
be useful to document what the cuts were and what the effects
were. Of course, his studies then followed up on that and were
extremely useful. But I spent some time with him, I like him
very much, and Brian O'Connell was there from Independent Sector
and Elizabeth McCormack from the Rockefeller Family Association.
I think she was seated on the other side of me, because it went
L, M. I can't remember the name of the fellow who was head of
the domestic programs, who was very negative about things and
seemed to think that there wouldn't be any problem about- -

Morris: It wouldn't have been Robert Carlson, would it?

246

Luttgens: No, it was a Tom, Tom Pauken, he was the director of ACTION. He
was somebody who tried to block my serving on the Private Sector
Initiatives, because I was rather short-tempered with him in
some of the things that he had to say. I knew quite a bit about
education, having been involved in the Education Fund, and I
said quite a bit about education, some of the things that this
was going to result in, as far as education was concerned. And
I think that's how he decided that he didn't want to see me
anymore. Anyway, we caucused with Kitty Teltsch one night, and
we said, "Kitty, you know, what's your impression from a
journalist's standpoint?" And she agreed. She said, "This is
shocking. I mean, it's really going to be something to watch."

White House Briefing

Luttgens: Anyway, we all went home from that, and about August- -this was
June or July- -I had a call from James Rosebush, who was the
person that had been designated to put together a task force to
look at this for President Reagan. And naive as I am, never
having been asked to serve on a presidential committee, he
mentioned a date when the president was going to be in southern
California and suggested that I meet with some other people who
were going to be discussing this. And I said, "Oh, you know, I
can't do that. I have something on my calendar for that day."
[laughter] I remember, I was out to lunch and I remember taking
the call in a telephone booth in a restaurant- -and he was sort
of shocked. You know, why wasn't I going to drop everything?
And he tried to talk me into it, and I said, "Well, I suppose I
could rearrange something."

Then they called back, and the date wasn't going to work
out. It was when the Libyan thing was going on, and the
president was much more involved in figuring out what was
happening in Libya than meeting with a bunch of people who might
serve on a sort of a PR task force for him. Then they
established another date, and that one got washed out, and I
kept having the same experience over and over again. I mean,
"We just want you to get together and talk about this," but it
was always three days before, and I was always in the position
of saying, "I'm not sure I can do that." My husband, Bill,
needed a lot of attention at that time, and to arrange
additional help for him, so that I could just pick up and go to
Washington or southern California, really wasn't that easy for
me. I could schedule ahead, but to do it at the drop of a hat
didn't work that well.

247

But on the other hand, I certainly wanted to be part of it.
I didn't want the council to be left out. We finally had a
meeting in December. I think it was the first week in December
of 1981. And there were sixteen of us. Have I discussed this
on tape?

Morris: No. I've been waiting with bated breath until we got there.

Luttgens: Okay. Well, it's an interesting story. I was briefed the night
before by the attorney for the Council on Foundations and the
president of the Council on Foundations, who came to my hotel in
Washington. The meeting was to be at eight o'clock the next
morning, and it was a breakfast meeting in the White House. We
were each to have five minutes to speak about the things that we
thought were important, concerning this administration and the
private sector. I was briefed on the need for Treasury to be
more responsive and to be more in line with what was happening,
as far as Congress was concerned, and to have an understanding
of foundations' worth in rounding out resources that were
available and not continuously trying to set up more difficult
regulations. I mean, that was really the thing, as far we were
concerned. That we had proved ourselves, and so on. It was
very well -documented with specifics.

I woke up the next morning. I thought, "I think I will
just have breakfast before I go, because my guess is that it
will not be the most relaxing of sessions." So we gathered, and
there were a number of people that I knew there and a number
that I did not know. There were sixteen of us. In addition to
the president, James Baker, David Gergen, who never showed up.
We had place cards, and I was seated between Baker and Gergen.
Jim Rosebush, who had put the thing together. This was before
he went off to be Nancy Reagan's staff. Michael Deaver, Ed
Meese, Elizabeth Dole. It was pretty full-court press. After
being served some fruit juice, we went into the dining room.

And Mr. Reagan, too, took time to have breakfast before he
came. We were served breakfast by white -gloved waiters, who
were handing us little quarter-sized blueberry muffins and
scrambled eggs, with all of this coming over the appropriate
shoulder. Jim Baker was a delightful breakfast companion. I
chatted with him, liked him. I've liked him ever since. I just
liked his openness, his interest in people- -didn' t like the way
Deaver and Meese were behaving themselves, particularly, and had
an opportunity to sit with Deaver later at a White House lunch,
which only confirmed the feeling.

248

At the appropriate time, breakfast pretty much being
dispensed with and coffee being sipped- -the president came in,
and right behind him, as he sat down on the same side of the
rectangular table where I was seated, so that I had to peer
forward to see him-- Across from him was the only other woman,
besides Elizabeth Dole, who was the secretary of human resources
for the state of Virginia [Dr. Jean Harris], a black, who had
announced early on that she was going to have to leave, because
she had a meeting that she had to get back to in Virginia. So
she was anxious to speak first. We weren't going to go in any
particular sort of order.

And when the president came in, the door was opened and the
press erupted into the room with cameras, lights, microphones,
just in a violent eruption. And the president said a few words
about how it's always been the American way to help your
neighbors, and if the barn burns down, the neighbors come around
and help, and we have seen the example of the television program
where the child is hurt and people send money to help the child,
and so on. So it's the American way, and so our meeting today
is exploring what the private sector can do to assist people,
and so forth, in view of the fact that he was going to be making
some recommendations, and the administration would be making
some cutbacks in social programs. And the press asked a few
questions, it was very brief, and out they went.

Seated next to the president was a man who had been
chairman of the United States Chamber of Commerce, was still the
CEO of a major corporation. When the press had left, he said to
the president, "Mr. President, don't worry. The corporations
simply haven't known where to put their money, and they will
make up the budget cuts." Well, I did an audible gasp, and Jim
Baker said, "Move around the table where he can see you. I
suspect you have something to say." And I said, "I do." And so
Dr. Jean Harris, instead of our going around in orderly fashion
to give our five -minute presentation or whatever, leapt in with
some of her comments.

Several things struck me about that meeting. Number one,
there was enormous respect for the office of the President of
the United States, however much they might disagree, because
there were two or three people there who violently disagreed
with what they saw happening. There was an Hispanic from
Arizona, who saw the UDAG funds being cut and made a pitch about
how useful they had been, how Arizona never would have been able
to have moved into some of things they had done if it hadn't
been for the government funds. John Jacob, who at that time was
the assistant director of the Urban League, was very poignant, I
thought. I've thought about it a lot. When he was able to

249

attract the president's attention, he said, "Mr. President, we
understand what you are trying to do, but it's in the meantime
that we're worried about." And I've thought about that a lot,
and I was finally able to catch the president's attention, and I
said, - -

Morris: There wasn't a coordinator saying, "Now you, now you." It was
everybody by themselves?

Luttgens: No. There was supposed to be, but Dr. Harris started it off in
an informal manner, and it just continued that way. The
president listened very carefully whenever anybody spoke, smiled
very nicely. When I had an opportunity to attract his
attention, I said, "Mr. President, I'm afraid I differ with Mr.
So -and- So. There is absolutely no way that the private sector
can pick up the budget cuts that are being proposed." But I
said, "We're going to have to make some very hard choices, and
we will make those choices." And I went back to the discussion
of the Treasury and foundations, and so forth. He was with us
for about an hour, I would say, listening. Not very much
response, but there was plenty coming from those of us that were
there .

Morris: What about Baker, Meese, and Deaver?

Luttgens: Well, they all sat and listened. Nobody said anything, and

finally Baker, I realize, sent the eye message to Deaver, who
sent the eye message to Rosebush, and the president very
charmingly said, "I see I'm getting the message that it's time
for me to move on to my next appointment," and stood up and went
around the room and shook everybody's hands. When he got to me,
I said, "Mr. President, I've had the pleasure of knowing William
French Smith for a long time," and he looked at me as if, "Who
in the world is William French Smith?" And he said, "Oh." I
thought, that was my first reaction experience, "Gosh, he's
going through the motions, but I'm not sure he's really
hearing. "

Morris: Tracking what's being said.

Luttgens: Yes. And so we all marched out, and it was like ten o'clock in
the morning, and I went over to the council office and reported
on the meeting.

250

Public Relations Aspects

Luttgens : He was announcing that day that he was going to put together a

task force on private sector issues. And as I understand it, my
name was in the pool. I was told this from somebody inside, and
it was only by some real pushing by some people that I was
appointed to that, because this Tom Pauken really didn't think
it was a great idea. I was anxious, because I really thought
the council should be represented, as I said earlier, and also I
thought it would be very interesting. Now I started out being
very naive. I thought that the task force could do something.
I've since, from my experience, felt that one year is not enough
time for a commission to do very much but simply dip into what
the facts were.

Morris: This was set up as a one-year task force.

Luttgens: Set up as a one-year task force. It was chaired by somebody who
had not been present at that meeting, Bill Verity, who was the
retired chairman of Armco Steel, and who had an association with
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It had on it John Gardner, Leon
Sullivan, Dick Lyman. It had Cardinal Terence Cooke , assisted
by Archbishop O'Connor, who was not archbishop at that time. He
was a monsignor. It had two or three other church
representatives of different persuasions. I think it had one
Hispanic, several blacks, no Asians, as I recall. It was
geographically pretty well-distributed. Again, we were always
seated alphabetically, so I was always seated next to Dick
Lyman, which was great, as I was able to discuss with him.

Morris: Who were the White House liaison or staff?

Luttgens: That's a very good question, and looking back on it, I think it
was set up entirely as a PR operation. Jim Rosebush was our
original person, and I gather Bill Verity said, "I don't like
working with him. Get me somebody else." So he was moved over
to serve Nancy Reagan, and Bill Verity eventually brought in
somebody from Armco, who worked as head of the staff. They
hired people like Renee Berger, who had done some work for CED,
who wrote a very good paper later, which you might be interested
in seeing, as a matter of fact, or maybe you should have in your
files. It's a rather gentle paper, but it very clearly makes

"Private-Sector Initiatives in the Reagan Era: New Actors Rework an
Old Theme," in The Reagan Presidency and Che Governing of America, Urban
Institute, Washington, D.C., 1985. Copy in supporting documents.

251

Morris :
Luttgens

the point that this was an idea that Rob Mosbacher thought would
be useful, Rob being from Texas.

Rob has been a member of the initial task force and of
every continuing advisory group. I think Rob sincerely thought
that it could be a useful opportunity, but I think he also has
political ambitions and saw that it would be a way that he could
get some visibility with the administration, and may still be
running for something. I'm not sure. The staff was hired and
paid for by donations to the task force. There was never any
government money given to it, and as far as I'm concerned, the
liaison was pretty loose. It was sort of Deaver and Meese, and
Vice President Bush swore us in.

Bush swore you in? You were sworn in?

Oh, yes. I'll show you, in my guest bedroom I have this great
framed document that says, "I, Ronald Reagan, appoint Leslie
Luttgens for the time being--" It's a great thing.

Final Report Problems: Enterprise Zones

Luttgens: Anyway, the lines were never very clearly drawn, about was there
to be consensus on everything, were we to make a report to the
president and so on? I was assigned to a subcommittee that was
chaired by Bill Norris of Control Data, and Bill Norris was
wonderful. Crusty fellow, but really sincerely interested in
enterprise zones, trying to do something about making jobs for
people. As a matter of fact, he did so much of this with
Control Data that when he went out of off ice --it was his
company, he had started it—when he left as chairman of the
board, they were in trouble financially. They were coming back,
but they had extended the kinds of programs that they did too
far. They established a bookbinding effort in Toledo, Ohio, in
a ghetto area. They were doing that kind of thing and were
being pointed at across the country as a really innovative
company, as far as community service was concerned, but it was a
drain on the company.

Morris: On the basic purpose of the company.

Luttgens: Yes, but I became very fond of him. The executive of the

Stewart Mott Foundation in Flint, Michigan [William White] was a
member of that task force, along with Ellen Sulzberger [Straus],
who was from New York, who started Call for Action. And the
last person was Jim Henry, who had established a nonprofit in

252

New York City, and because we were so scattered with Michigan,
Florida, New York City, Minneapolis, and I on the West Coast, we
had most of our meetings by conference call. And they'd be
three hours long, which I found very difficult. We tried to
piggyback meetings onto the regular meetings of the commission,
which were about every other month. And they were either in
Washington, or Baltimore, one in Wichita. Bill Verity decided
we should go to Wichita, Kansas for one of the meetings. And I
said, "Wichita?!" And he said, "Leslie, you will love Wichita."
Well, it turned out Wichita was fascinating, really, because the
people in Wichita had pulled themselves together as a city and
were doing terrific things. They had a food bank that was
working well. They had all kinds of neighborhood support, and
it was a very depressed area, because there wasn't much going on
as far as the aircraft-building is concerned.

Morris: They had done this before the Reagan administration?

Luttgens : No, during. They were in the process of doing it. One of the
meetings was in Baltimore, which I was not able to attend. Jim
Rouse was also a member of the Private Sector Initiatives Task
Force, and to see what he had done in Baltimore with leveraging
private funds and really redoing that whole Baltimore harbor and
so forth-- Our meetings were either in the Red Cross in
Washington, D.C. with a lunch to follow in the White House. We
never graduated to having dinner in the White House. Lots of
lunches .

The task forces were meeting, and we had really quite an
ambitious set of things that we wanted to recommend that we were
very much in favor of on our subcommittee, which was the
Incentives Committee. Really initiatives, how to get things
going, how to move them from somebody's idea into a sheltered
sort of greenhouse which business could assist on and into a
viable business, mostly based in the small business area. And
Bill Norris had a film made — a video — which he made available.
It could have been sent throughout the country. It was never
used. He used it internally, but it could have been used
nationally to show the kinds of things that could be done. I've
tried to push it here with the Business Leadership Task Force,
because I thought it would be of interest to businesses here to
see the methods that can be undertaken in entrepreneurship.

Some of the other subcommittees- -Dick Lyman served on one
chaired by Arthur Levitt, head of the American Stock Exchange,
to recommend ways to increase the effectiveness of private
contributions of human and financial resources. In their
recommendations was something which now Independent Sector has
embarked on, which is to give 5 percent of income and volunteer

253

five hours a week. I remember that meeting very vividly when
Dick brought in his recommendations. We were in the American
Red Cross in Washington, in the boardroom. Incidentally, they
had fleas in their rug, because the rug extended just under my
feet, and I began to realize that something was biting. I
looked down, and there they were. Anyway, it didn't add to the
meeting and made me feel sorry for the Red Cross, as if they
needed to have an exterminator.

But at any rate, Dick was making a report about his
committee. It was the first time I realized that either Verity
had gotten the word that nothing was to come out of this
committee or he personally wasn't comfortable in presiding over
what might be a discussion of varying views. When Dick had made
his report, which had these two pieces in it, I said to Dick,
"If you'll move those two things, I will second them," and just
as I was saying it to Dick, Bill Verity said, "Now, we aren't
going to make any motions today. We aren't going to have any
decisions made today. We're going to talk about this sort of
thing for a while." This was halfway through the year, and we
very definitely got the message that here was a committee that
had worked, thought they brought something in, and the chairman
was saying, "No, fellas, we aren't going to do that."

The next meeting that we had, as I recall, was in Wichita.
It was not in Washington. And Leon Sullivan and John Gardner
and Dick Lyman and I, and several other people, although I was
not part of the initial group because they had physically met
someplace on the East Coast, were taking a stand. Verity had
hired somebody who was going to write a report to give to the
president, and what we were saying was, "What's going to be in
the report? Is it just going to be a nice story about what's
gone on for the year, because no action is being recommended."

The only action that came out was a recommendation that the
president should appoint an advisory group on private sector
initiatives and that that group should continue to function with
liaison to the White House. Another committee had to do with
government divisions. For example, HEW should make an effort to
involve more private sector liaisons. Those government people
weren't very happy to hear about that sort of thing. They had
enough of a job to do. They didn't want to have to go out and
have volunteers come in and talk with them or begin to tell them
what ought to be happening.

But a lot of the recommendations were really quite good.
There was a media group. Ellen Sulzberger Straus was on that
subcommittee. She was recommending that there be an ongoing
media attempt to talk about volunteerism and how important it

254

was. There was a volunteer committee, which had to do with
awards , and out of that has come an annual award that the
president has made to those corporations, individuals, and so
forth. There even was a flag that was made up for those
corporations that were doing a better job of involving
volunteers .

Morris: Like the old E- flags during World War II?

Luttgens : I think they had a "P" on it, for private sector initiatives.

Morris: Not "V" for volunteers?

Luttgens: No, I think it was the same thing, that they had a "P" on it for
private sector initiatives.

Morris: Was Mr. Verity elected by the members of the task force, or was
he given to you?

Luttgens: No, he was appointed by the president.

Morris: He was given to you. Did you have a sense that he was close to,
or had access to, Mr. Reagan?

Luttgens: Well he's now our Secretary of Commerce, and I think, again, he
was somebody who was loyal to the president, who had supported
him. I don't believe he was a crony. I think he was looked at
as being somebody that the business community could look to and
say, "He's one of ours." He did have a track record for having
been involved in United Way and that sort of thing. Frank Pace
was on that group, he was head of the National Executive Service
Corps .

It was a fascinating group, but at the meeting where we
discussed the report, Bill Verity had a mutiny on his hands,
because the committee was saying, "You haven't given us time to
bring in recommendations and approve them as a group.
Therefore, we have no report to make." What was finally decided
was that there was the one point about having an ongoing group
to advise the president, and then each subcommittee would turn
in its report. Each subcommittee did turn in its report. It
was available to everybody on the committee. It was not
approved by the total committee. I'm not sure anybody in the
White House ever read it.

255

Continuing Presidential Advisory Group

Luttgens: I know that the ongoing staff person for the next go-around- -

which I was not a part of, but Mosbacher, Verity, and there was
probably one other person, were part of the next go -around. It
was not Gardner or Sullivan or Lyman, or any of those people. I
guess Bill Aramony was a part of that, too, from United Way, of
the first group.

The staff liaison who I met with, because he came out here
for an open meeting that was put on in San Francisco, was a
former congressman from Pennsylvania, who was not re-elected,
and the president appointed him to be this White House liaison
to the ongoing group. He turned out to be a friend, a
classmate, of Art Kern, general manager of KPIX. Art put on a
luncheon at noontime for some of us to meet with him and talk
with him about private sector initiatives.

I said to him, during the course of the lunch, "I'm sure
that all of your presidential advisory group have read our
report." And he looked at me in a sort of stunned fashion, and
he said, "No, no." So there was very little carryover. Now,
Renee Berger's paper, which I will try to dig out for you if I
can find it, very much indicates that this was an idea that, I
think, Michael Deaver had. That it would be a good way to make
things look as if somebody was there to assist with the safety
net and so forth, and a good way of getting people involved.
She reiterated the same thing, because she had been staff to the
task force, that when it came up to a decision time, no
decisions were made. It was window-dressing, which is really
too bad. I don't blame that on the president so much. I blame
that on the people that are around him, that thought that both
the volunteer community, the private community, and so forth
could be conned into this. That advisory group went on, from
year to year, with different people added.

Morris: The advisory committee?

Luttgens: Yes, on private sector initiatives. And two years ago a former
classmate of mine from Stanford was appointed to it, Malcolm
MacKillop, who was the senior vice president for corporate
relations at PG&E. He and I met several times around it,
because he wanted to be filled in. By that time, it had gotten
to be sort of a lot of fun. They went to Paris for their
meeting, and they talked to people internationally about what a
swell job we were doing over here. I said to him, "Mac, I hope
you paid your own way," and he said, "Oh yes, the administration
still isn't paying for anything." People brought spouses and

256

Morris:
Luttgens :

met with all kinds of people in France, and it was an
international private sector initiatives meeting.

As a matter of fact, somebody came over here from
Mitterand's government to talk to a small group of us. We had a
little luncheon that I was invited to about how Mitterand could
retreat from some of his responsibilities for child care and get
the private sector to pick it up. And it was my reaction that
that was never going to fly, because of the whole history of how
the efforts in France had occurred. It was because the flower
of French manhood had been killed in the first world war, and
the government had to help. To now say everything's hunky dory,
and we want you, the private sector, to pick up- -I just didn't
think it was going to fly, because of the cultural history. It
had ramifications, there was no question.

There is still a private sector initiatives advisory group.
I was invited to a meeting last fall at the Queen Mary in Long
Beach. It was to be a regional meeting. Rob Mosbacher called
me up, asked me if I'd be on the sponsoring committee and help
get people there. I said, "I can't help get people there,
because I don't really know what you're doing. I'd be happy,
you know, if you want to use my name as a former member of the
Private Sector Initiatives Task Force." I didn't ever get there
myself, and I understand they had very small attendance. So I
really don't know what they're doing now, but it's still going
on.

One last thing- -our final meeting with the president.
Again, our committee met at the Red Cross, and as I recall, the
rug had been de-fleaed at that point, so it was okay. And we
were to go over to the White House for lunch, and this was to be
our, maybe, third lunch at the White House, and it was going to
be upstairs in the state dining room, as I recall. It was the
day that a man decided to take over the Washington Monument. Do
you remember that?

Yes , yes .

Well, again I was seated next to Jim Baker at lunch, and Jim
Baker had his earphone on, and this man was in the Washington
Monument. They were trying to talk him down. We had been moved
downstairs, in the lower level of the White House. They were
very concerned that any bombs that were put off would harm the
White House. So we were totally rescheduled. We were half an
hour late in starting lunch. The president seemed quite calm,
although rather pink-cheeked, I thought. Jim Baker would tell
me, "Well, they've got all the hostages out;" he was keeping me
informed. A lot of security. The thing was pulled off all

257

right. We were through. We shook the president's hand. We all
had our pictures taken shaking his hand, and I tried to get out
of Washington, D.C. to get home to San Francisco. There were
barricades on all the main highways. It was absolutely nutty.
You couldn't get a cab. It was a city that was under siege. It
was absolutely amazing. I can understand why. I mean, there
was real effort.

Morris: The guy was driving around in a pick-up truck or a van, or
something like that.

Luttgens : That's right. Well, I finally got out to the airport and got on
my plane, and I didn't know anymore until I got home at about
nine o'clock that night and turned on the radio or the
television and realized he had been killed. I must say that I
had some sympathy with Washington on that because of the state
that the capital was in, and so whoever was saying this was a
terrible thing to do. Yes, it was, but on the other hand, one
man had kept that whole city at bay for eight hours, nine hours.
It was quite an experience.

So that was the end of the task force. We all received
letters thanking us so much for having served and our great
contributions, and so forth. I was called upon from time to
time, to meet with, for example, regional heads of
administration, Region IX, which I did, and would explain to
them what our thoughts had been.

Morris: The regional heads?

Luttgens: Well, HEW, housing, all those --the whole Region IX

administrative structure that represented the federal
government. I was asked to talk at a number of places about
what the Private Sector Initiatives was about, and I gave my
speeches, and so on. Really still hoping that there would be
some things that would come out of it. It's only looking back
on it now, much later- -

National Data Bank

Luttgens

Oh, I know, the other thing they voted to do. There were two
recommendations that came out- -one was to establish a national
data bank, which I was not in favor of, and I'll tell you why.
Because what they were doing without any evaluation was asking
nonprofits across the country to send in projects that they had
done, which would be put into a national data bank. So if we

258

had done a project in education in San Francisco- -we could
register it with the data bank. As a matter of fact, I had
urged Glady Thacher to send in the Education Fund as a project,
and she did.

Morris:
Luttgens :

There was another meeting during that year that was of
interest, and that was one that was held in July that I went
back especially for. It was for middle-sized business leaders
from across the country, and again there was a meeting in the
White House and a lunch someplace else. But a few of us from
the task force were invited to come. That was a very
substantive meeting, I must say. It was with people who had
middle-sized, small businesses across the country, and they had
good panel members who talked about the kinds of things that
they were doing in smaller communities. The people that came
really were fired up. They went back to their communities
wanting to be involved and wanting to do something. And I must
say, that was probably the most worthwhile, because it had a
purpose. It was very clearly delineated. It was exciting for
people to meet the president and get his blessing, and for him
to say, "I really want you to go back there and get involved in
your communities and do something about the needs of the
community. "

Back to the data bank: the problem I had with the data bank
was, as I said, that there was no evaluation of the projects.
We did send in our San Francisco Education Fund, and we knew
here that was a good project. But somebody could send in a
project from anywhere across the country, and nobody would know
whether it had worked, how well it was run, and I was very leery
of it. But one of the things that came out of the committee was
that there should be an ongoing data bank, and I think I voted
against it. It meant that money had to be raised for it. It
meant no way of really making sure they were good projects and
sending this list out. To me, it becomes obsolete the day you
set it up, because it's not kept up to date or complete.

The idea was that somebody in--

Podunk, Iowa, could say, "I want to see what is happening in
education." And they'd get a readout on all the projects in
education, and then Podunk, Iowa, would write to San Francisco
or wherever and say, "Send me your material." In other words,
it was going to be this great national exchange of projects.
Well, things don't really work that way, unless you've got good
evaluation and you've got a tight organization that has quite a
bit, in the way of criteria, established. That's my experience.

259

Morris : So did the data bank ever happen?

Luttgens : It happened. I think it went on for a while. I think it

finally petered out. I thought, as a good test, we should call
in once a year and see if the Ed Fund was still in it. You
know, because I think maybe they just sort of recycled projects
I don't know. But anyway, that was a negative, as far as I was
concerned. Now, some of the positives that occurred. One was
the Business Leadership Task Force.

260

XIX BUSINESS LEADERSHIP TASK FORCE

Bay Area Response to Government Spending Cutbacks

Luttgens: And that [the Business Leadership Task Force] came about because
Cornell Maier and I- -Cornell at that time was the chair of
Kaiser Aluminum- -were on the Private Sector Initiatives Task
Force, along with the other local person, who I don't mention
too often. He was a black dentist, who is from the very
conservative wing- -a kind of Hoover Institution type, who was a
member of the task force and never contributed anything, as far
as I could figure out. He came to meetings, and he did try to
sell me on some of his views, going back and forth across the
country, but I never budged much, and he didn't either.

Morris: Would that be Daniel Collins?

Luttgens: No. This fellow is really neo- conservative , much younger than
Dan Collins. No, I wouldn't say Dan was conservative.

Morris: I didn't think so.

Luttgens: No, I'd never met him before. He's on Lawrie [A. Lawrence]

Chickering's board, as I recall, whatever they call that group.
The Institute for Contemporary Studies [Dr. Henry Lucas, Jr.].

Morris: You do know everybody in town, don't you? That's wonderful.

Luttgens: Well, I know Lawrie because I interviewed him for the KQED
board, and I must say, I was very impressed.

Morris: Very bright.

Luttgens: Very bright. I don't have any problems in people having

differing views than I do, as long as you can discuss back and
forth, which you could do with Lawrie. I didn't ever feel I

261

Morris :
Luttgens :

could do that with Dr. Lucas. So I never mention him when
people say, "Who was on the task force from San Francisco?"
because I never really got to know him very well. I just knew
that his views were very different than mine.

I said to Cornell, "You know, given what we see happening,
this is an opportunity for the business community to step up and
take a look at some issues that are important to them and to
their communities, and to leverage, not by throwing more money
at them, but to take a look at ways that businesses can solve
problems in a new way, see if it's possible. Do you think
there's anything in that?" And Cornell said, "Well, it sounds
good to me . I'll get the CEOs together if you'll work on the
program. "

The SRI person who I was working with on Mayor Feinstein's
Fiscal Advisory Committee, Steve Waldhorn, head of their public
policy department, said, "Let's see what we can design." As a
matter of fact, it really started because Steve and I had lunch
one day while the president's task force was going on, and he
said, "What's going to happen after the end of the year?" And I
said, "I haven't a clue. I can't tell you." And he said, "It's
really a shame that that's all wasted."

Very high-powered bunch of people.

That's right. Anyway, we just started out then locally, and we
had a meeting one evening between five and six. Cornell brought
the wine. We were up at the top of the Bank of America.
Cornell had just gone on the B of A board, and Sam Armacost was
the host. And we had Jack Grey from Chevron and Tom Drohan from
McKesson and Ben Biaggini from Southern Pacific, and I've
forgotten who else we had. I think we had Don Guinn from
Telesis. Maybe Don couldn't come. I think we had Fred Mielke
from PG&E.

It was a group of about seven people, and Steve and I went
through our dog- and- pony show, which was that it seemed to us
that there was a need to take a look at some issues that were of
importance, and so forth. We got the normal response, the
business response, which is, "Aren't there organizations there
that can do this? What about United Way? What about the Bay
Area Council?

Our response was, "Well, not quite in the way we want to.
We want to look at new systems, to see if there are some new
ways we can approach problems. We're all going to be hit with
requests for major contributions, and we need to be looking at

262

ways to solve some of these problems that aren't just throwing
more money at them."

Sam Armacost, I remember, said, "Well, you know, I'd have
to know what the needs and the issues are and what the resources
are before I could really make a decision on that."

We said, "We aren't talking about a lot of money. We're
talking about just if you would each appoint somebody from your
organization who's high enough up in the organization to have
access to you, who could keep you informed, and who has also
access to resources within the corporation to try and bring some
expertise to bear in these various areas that we may be talking
about . "

Public Policy Deputies Group: Regional Approach

Morris: That was asking for a kind of in-kind brainpower and computer
time, and things like that?

Luttgens: That's right. "If you would be willing to let us explore that
with a group, which we will call the deputies, and come back to
you in a month and tell you what they come up with, as far as
the kinds of issues are concerned, are you willing to give it a
try?" And I said, "Either we can just fold up tent right now,
or if you think there's some value in this, let us know, and
we'll go to work on it, if you'll appoint somebody in each of
your organizations . "

So they all said, "Yes. It's worth a try." Jack Grey
called me two days later and said, "I would like to play a
leadership role in this," which, of course, was just wonderful.
I've known Jack for a long time. Actually, he was head hasher
when I was a freshman at Roble Hall at Stanford, and I had known
him through United Way and some other activities. He gave me an
office down at Chevron and an identification badge so that I
could get in and out without having to go through the security
all the time — one of those picture things. He assigned Barry
Lastra, who was head of contributions, to work with Steve and
me.

Well, Barry turned out to be absolutely marvelous. He and
Steve and I kicked off the design of the first meeting. Jack
sent out letters more broadly, to see if there were additional
corporations that would like to be involved, asking them to
appoint a deputy. We ended up with fourteen corporations, here

263

and in the East Bay. We decided to be regional. We did not go
down the Peninsula, because we thought that would be difficult.
This is in 1982, early in 1982.

Morris: And Steve Waldhorn had some time that he could give to this?

Luttgens: Well, it's part of his job. It's public policy for SRI, and of
course, what he got out of it was a contract for sixty thousand
dollars a year. Each corporation put in five thousand dollars,
that's all it cost them, except for their staff time that they
assigned, and Steve provided all kinds of resources, because
they've got so many people. You know, they've got three
thousand people down there at SRI, so if we wanted to know about
demography, we'd get one person. If we wanted to know about
child care, we'd get somebody else- -health, somebody else.

What we designed was the first meeting of the deputies.
Each CEO appointed a deputy. No money had been discussed yet.
We're still in the pro bono stage, you see, until we pass the
first month's muster to see whether anything' s going to fly or
not. The people who were appointed were all over the lot.
There were some foundation executives- -Ed Truschke from the B of
A and Marcia Argyris from McKesson. Malcolm MacKillop, who I
mentioned earlier, who was senior vice president of corporate
relations at PG&E. We had Barry, who was head of contributions
for Chevron. From Telesis, we had Lee Cox.

We had Ira Hirschfield from Levi Strauss. We had
TransAmerica after a while. We didn't get TransAmerica
originally, because Jim Harvey was chairing the chamber of
commerce, and the chamber was very threatened. The chamber
thought we were trying to take over their turf, as did Joe
Valentine, as did Angelo Siracusa. So I interviewed Joe, and
Joe said, "Well, you know, we ought to be doing this." And I
said, "Joe, you ought to be, but you can't. You aren't ready to
do it yet. Come on and join with us at the deputy level, be
part of it, and pick up what you want out of the projects.
We're not going to administer projects."

Morris: Did you hear that these guys were feeling threatened, or did you
sense it and go see them?

Luttgens: We sensed it and went and talked to them. We did the same thing
with Angie Siracusa, head of Bay Area Council. Angie took a
very dim view of the thing, originally. They turned out to be
our biggest boosters in the end, both Angie and Joe. They were
the only two additional people who joined the deputies' group.
They didn't have representation on the CEO group. Our first
very tricky meeting, I've forgotten where we met, probably

264

Chevron, because Barry supplied most of the meeting spaces.
Barry was wonderful to work with. He got into his office early,
and I'm available from seven o'clock on if I'm really working on
a project, so we would talk at seven- thirty in the morning about
whatever had to be done. I really didn't have to do much but
lead, which was terrific. We found we didn't use the office at
Chevron very much. It was right around the corner from the
executive offices, but I ' d go there from time to time. We
didn't use it regularly. I'd worked out of here, really,
because of the time factor. Once in a while we would have a
small meeting there.

Morris: Before-business-hours and after-business-hours kind of thing.
And lunch.

Luttgens : Yes, that's right. And lunch. The first meeting of the

deputies was to look at issues, and we asked them all to put
their issues out- -what they thought was most important for their
community and their businesses. They ranged all over the lot.
Education was one; aging was one. Child care was another.
Health, particularly health care for employees with costs
getting totally out of hand. Summer youth employment was
recommended.

We had a very bright young woman, Sandra Puncsak, who was
Cornell Maier's administrative assistant. She was very good.
She made such an impression on the people from Pac Bell that
they hired her away from Kaiser Aluminum. It was the first time
that she had been let out into the community, so to speak, and
she had a ball. Sandra married somebody at Kaiser, who was head
of their human resources during this time. They're both now in
Dallas, where he's working for a bank and she's working for
DART, which is the Dallas equivalent of BART. I hear from her
once in a while, because they want to come back to the Bay Area,
both of them. So there were connections made. There was a
camaraderie around the table with people who hadn't worked
together collaboratively before.

We put all these issues up, and my job, which I'm pretty
good at, was to sense who seemed to be most interested in each
one of these areas. So when we took a ten-minute break in the
middle of the morning, I politicked around, and I said to Mac
MacKillop, "Mac, would you chair the group on aging? That
sounded like something you really were interested in." And
somebody else, "Would you chair the regional youth employment
one," and somebody else-- You see, we were talking about summer
youth employment. We knew there were entities already there --
mayors' committees from each one of the communities. But what
was needed was a regional approach to it, because everything

265

that was going to happen in the media was going out regionally,
over television, over radio, and in print. What we needed was
to get the local mayors' summer youth programs to work together
so they could maximize what they were doing in their own
community and plug into a broader push.

Setting Priorities: Media Support

Morris: When you say what was going out through the media, you mean that
this task force developed a media program?

Luttgens : Everybody was trying to get media support for summer youth

employment, to get the jobs developed and the kids in. But they
weren't getting it, because it was targeted for San Francisco or
San Jose or East Bay, and what the media wanted was something
they could talk about that was regional. The companies are
regional: PG&E, Chevron, and so forth. They don't just operate
in Alameda and San Francisco. So it was a win-win for both
situations .

Child care was something that we all thought was fairly
important. Health care cost containment, we knew, was tough,
but we thought it belonged there. Anyway, the deputies were
assigned in groups of two or three. They were asked, with the
help of SRI, to develop what they thought we might be able to
do, that was doable in each one of these areas. And also to
take the temperature of what was out there already. In doing
that, we found, for example, that there were so many groups
working in education that they didn't need us. There was a
statewide task force that Cornell was very involved in, and
there were local groups like the Ed Fund, and so forth. So we
put that very low on our priorities.

We had another meeting- -the deputies—just before the CEO
meeting, where we put down what we thought, in our priorities,
were most important for the corporations, for the community. We
had health care cost containment at the top of the list. We had
regional summer youth employment partway down. We had child
care fairly high up. I've forgotten what else was there. We
had six or seven items. I have the reports from our first year,
second year, and so forth.

We took it to the CEOs. Jack Grey, Barry, and I met before
the meeting, so we knew pretty much how that meeting was going
to go. The CEOs met from five to six p.m. atop the Chevron
building, got everybody there, served coffee and cookies, as I

266

recall, and that turned out to be our best pattern- -to meet
between five and six. Each CEO was briefed by his deputy before
he came to the meeting, so he knew what was on the agenda, knew
what we were going to suggest. And they came in ready to act,
and what they did very wisely, I think, was say, "Health care
cost containment is such a big ball of wax. Keep working on it,
but put it further down on the priority list. What you need is
something that's win-win to begin with. Regional youth
employment is the thing to go with now. Go with it."

We got KPIX interested. They did awards for the
corporations, large, medium, and small, who did the best job of
developing jobs and bringing students in and training them, and
so forth. We had instant media. Len Schlosser' was absolutely
wonderful. He got interested in it as a project. National
Alliance of Business, NAB, was doing something along these
lines, and they were nattering around on the fringes. We
eventually tried to turn youth employment over to them, because
we did not see ourselves as an action group, but as a catalyst
group that would draw attention to an area, point out some of
the possibilities, and then turn it over to somebody who could
do something about it.

NAB never really came through for us. Marcia Argyris of
McKesson was particularly interested. She got tired of waiting
for something to happen, so she just took some money from her
foundation budget and paid for some young people to be trained
to work in nonprof its . So McKesson trained them and turned them
over to the nonprof its. Chevron said, "Boy, that's a great
idea. We really need to do something like that." So they put
about three times as much money into doing the same thing in
Richmond, doing three times as many people.

Morris: Training high school kids for summer jobs?

Luttgens : For jobs. A lot of it was early work experience: how you get a
job, how you turn up for the interview. It was super. It was
absolutely great. San Jose got interested, although we were
only East Bay and San Francisco. They said, "Listen, you're
beaming down to the Peninsula." So we put on a workshop and had
San Jose people there and San Mateo people there, about the
advantages of some of the federal legislation which would give
corporations a break if the young person was from a
disadvantaged family, which a lot of them didn't know about.
That was a plus. The only problem was, we had somebody from one
of the big accounting firms who was duller than dishwater. So
when they did it the second year, they got somebody who was more
lively. But it had a big attendance. PG&E gave the auditorium
space for it.

267

Morris: Now this is to recruit youngsters to take the program or to do
the training?

Luttgens: To recruit jobs and to recruit kids, and to match them.

Morris: And this, am I right, was a summer training program?

Luttgens: Summer training program. Summer internship.

Morris: That sort of hits a whole row of bases all at once.

Luttgens: No question about it. The PICs [Private Industry Councils] are
involved in this . I always have trouble knowing where the PIC
responsibility started and the BLTF responsibility ended. There
was some overlap, and Eunice Elton, PIC president in San
Francisco, and I talked about it a lot. It's too complicated to
go into, but we worked fairly well together. We served as sort
of an enhancer to everything else that was going on. Dianne
Feins tein and [Oakland mayor Lionel] Wilson got together for the
first time to kick off the summer youth program. I mean, that
had never happened before. Now, I think [San Francisco mayor]
Art Agnos has quite a different view. There was a committee
from each one of these areas that started planning for the
following year. They had never done this regionally.

Morris: In other words, it was never a vote that the month was up, we

need to decide to go on, it just continued to build up momentum?

Luttgens: It would start out about June of each year from ground zero

again, and 'what we established was a committee that was headed
by Cornell's assistant, Sandra, who had pulled these people
together as soon as the one year was over and said, "Okay, how
do we proceed for next year?" So there was some continuity to
the program, which was great. Anyway, that was a big plus.

Now, President Reagan was giving out awards for good
programs, and the fellow who was working the Private Sector
Initiatives from the White House, who was out here for the
meeting that I mentioned earlier, when he heard about the summer
youth employment that BLTF had done, and that KPIX had been
involved in, because this was his former classmate, Art Kern
said, "I think the president would like to have something
special on KPIX about that, telling you what a good job you
did." And we said, "Fine, can you pull it off?" And he said,
"Yup, I can pull it off."

So it turned out to be a canned message, but it was for the
Bay Area, and it was targeted for here. Art called me, since he
was not a part of BLTF, and said, "How do we describe BLTF?"

268

And I said, "You don't. BLTF was only the factor that was able
to get the thing moving. What you have- -you have a mayor's
committee in San Francisco, you have a mayor's committee in
Oakland, you have a mayor's committee in San Jose. They're the
ones that need to get the credit, because they're the ones that
are going to be there next year doing the same thing." So
that's what they did. And the president came on. It was a very
nice video and gave the mayors' committees all kinds of credit
and did a little plug for KPIX. So again, it was an example of
several interrelationships working for something positive.

Catalyst for Health Care and Child Care

Luttgens: Anyway, we continued our groups on other activities. We had

looked at child care originally and then aging. It was hard to
get a handle on the aging thing, but Hadley Hall, who was at
Home Health Services, called me and said he wondered if BLTF and
I in particular, because of my foundation hat, my United Way
hat, would call some people together to take a look at adult day
health care. He felt there was an opportunity with adult day
health care. There was a receptivity from the agencies that
were already there, and there was some Sacramento money that
could be expanded comfortably without people feeling something
was being taken away from them. And I said, "Hadley, there is
no way with what we're doing with BLTF (because I was spending
quite a bit of time on it) that we can develop that for you.
But the person that ought to do it is Adele Corvin who has a
foundation hat, who has a United Way hat, and can use their
auspices. "

So I really feel a little instrumental in directing that to
Adele, who has done an absolutely superb job, and we have a
whole new resource for the San Francisco area that is just
something to be really looked at, and of course, United Way has
gotten a lot of credit for it, too. But it came about because
Hadley had heard about BLTF and heard that one of our areas of
interest was aging, and he probably would have found United Way
anyhow, but I like to think that BLTF had a little something to
do with that.

We had looked at that originally, and the CEOs said, "Oh,
we're not going to get into that. That means a certain segment
of the employee population would get something, and the others
wouldn't." Jack Grey at Chevron, in particular, didn't think
that that was an area they wanted to get into.

After we'd been in business for about six months, John
Place, who was chairman of Crocker at the time, had a son who
became interested in running a proprietary child care agency in

269

the East. And John raised the question again. He said, "I
think this is going to be a major issue, certainly from the
bank's standpoint. We have tellers who have children, families,
and so forth. I think it's a major issue, and we ought to look
at it."

So, the rest of the fellows, said, "Well, okay, you can
look at it." We put on a conference at PG&E, and we used part
of the Bechtel meeting space across the street to shuttle back
and forth, because we had so many sessions. We had people from
IBM in New York. It was not really a national conference, but
we did bring in some people who had had experience. It was for
business people. We invited all the local businesses up and
down the peninsula and the Bay Area to come. We had a terrific
turnout. We had a super meeting. We had good materials for
them, and the task force got really interested in it. The
Business Leadership Task Force.

Out of that, three years later, has come this committee,
which United Way picked up on, that I served on, that I didn't
want to serve on, but John Place at that point was president of
the United Way and was appointing the task force. They got Carl
Leonard from Morrison and Foerster to chair it. They have Julie
Krevans, Chancellor of UCSF, Lucile Packard from the Packard
Foundation, the postmaster general from Alameda County, the head
of the union that services the airport. Janet Brown, who is a
small business representative on the Chamber of
Commerce/Supervisor board. Nancy Walker, who you know feels
strongly about child care. It is very interesting group. I was
sort of bored during the first part of the committee sessions,
because they started out where BLTF started out. We had all the
same materials. It was a consensus -building kind of thing.

But they have ended up forming a Business Child Care
Coalition. Carl Leonard chaired the effort until this last
year, when Gary Thompson at Ketchum Advertising has taken over
as chair. Gary's been quite taken with the whole thing, from a
media standpoint. They've just reconstituted the steering
committee, so I've gone off, because I said, "Number one, the
Business Leadership Task Force really isn't viable at this
point, and you need to spread out and bring some people who are
really in business onto the board." Which is what they've done.
They've got the personnel director from KRON, who's very
interested. She wants to give some media support to it. And
they now have sixty businesses that have enrolled, and what
they're doing is they're raising consciousness. They are
asking, if you're doing so much- -if you're providing information
and referral, can you do a little bit more? If you're not doing
anything, can you do information and referral? If you're doing

270

a lot, like Levi Strauss is, what's the next thing? So they're
not pointing the finger at anybody and saying, "You aren't doing
anything." They're telling them what the options are.

Morris: And offering an incremental approach.

Luttgens : Yes, and it's great. They're very enthusiastic, and it's a
major issue. It's a political issue.

271

XX FURTHER THOUGHTS ON FAMILY FOUNDATIONS; COUNCIL ON
FOUNDATIONS

[Interview 8: October 4, 1988 ]////

Morris :

Luttgens

Morris :

Luttgens

Morris :

Luttgens

Last week, you mentioned Michael Deaver's general attitude
towards the President's Task Force on Private Sector
Initiatives. You also said Ed Meese was present at most of the
meetings , and you had some concerns about what he thought about
the task force. Could you say a little bit more about that?

Well, they didn't ever contribute anything, and they were not
present at meetings of the task force. They were present at
luncheons that followed the task force, and the initial
breakfast, they were a part of, but I wouldn't say they had much
of an impact as far as the task force was concerned. I believe
that, and I think you'll see from the Renee Berger paper, there
was a feeling of not taking the task force very seriously, but
using it as, I would say, window-dressing for the president's
sincere desire to have stronger relationships with the private
sector.

You also said that you mentioned your acquaintance with William
French Smith, and the president did not respond. Do you suppose
that would be because he didn't hear? There have been recurring
comments that he might be deaf.

Could have been. You're absolutely right, Gaby, and I had not
thought of that before. It could very well be that he simply
saw me mouthing something, and it wasn't that it didn't
register. He didn't hear it. I think that's very possible.

How had you gotten to know William French Smith?
southern California fellow.

He's a

Well, he married a friend of mine, Jean Webb, later Jean Vaughan
and lived here in San Francisco. She had been the national
president of the Association of Junior Leagues, and I had seen

272

her during that period, and then again when she and George
Vaughan lived in San Francisco. He had been, I believe,
Undersecretary of the Army—I've forgotten which administration
-•and died very suddenly of a massive coronary, I believe. She
had stayed on here in San Francisco, and had been a friend and
advisor to the Junior League when I was president, and then
later married William French Smith. She was from southern
California originally. When Jean and Bill were married, she
went to live in southern California; but Bill served on the
Pacific Telephone board and serves there again, now that he's
returned from being attorney general. He also served on the
Crocker Bank board, but he had gone by the time I went on that
board. I would see them at official telephone company
functions.

Morris: Was he interested in some of the same social concerns and
initiatives as you were?

Luttgens: I don't believe so. I think he was one of a number of cabinet
officers who was asked by the president to try to develop
private sector relationships as a result of the task force, but
I really have never discussed it with him.

Morris: I was thinking about on the Pacific Telephone board.
Luttgens: I don't think that was a particular interest of his.

Morris: The other person that we mentioned, that you speak of with
affection, is Lucile Packard, and since we were not able to
interview her, could you tell us a little bit more about her
ideas on philanthropy and things you may have worked on
together.

Luttgens: Well, I first met Lucile when we were putting together a trustee
committee. Actually, I met her years and years ago up at Fallen
Leaf Lake. She and David Packard had a house up there, and
Caroline Charles had introduced me to them, and to her in
particular, because I would see her when I would go up there for
the summer occasionally.

When I put together a trustee committee here in San
Francisco and the Bay Area, for the Northern California
Grantmakers, which I did about eight years ago, it was the first
time we had ever had a trustee committee. Lucile was a member
of that group. We put on one function a year, for trustees
only. The first function we put on was John Nason talking to us
about his book, which he had just completed.

Morris: On trustee responsibilities?

273

Luttgens: On trustees, yes, Trustees and the Future of Foundations. As

you know, he has just revised that. I haven't seen the revised
version yet, but it is available this year, I guess, is just now
available. Anyway, Lucile served as a member of that group, and
each of us on the trustee committee came back the following
year, and the following year, and the following year. We did a
series of panel workshops, and she was very gracious in agreeing
to serve on the panels. A couple of times I was with her on a
panel discussing trustee responsibilities, and she was very
articulate in a quiet way.

We did differ on a couple of things, one being that, as a
major donor to her own foundation, she liked to have very hands-
on experience with the grantees, and, of course, I, coming from
a quite different situation at the Rosenberg Foundation, where
everything was filtered through staff, felt it was not necessary
for trustees to have that face -to- face meeting with donees. So
we would differ on that, when called upon, in panels, and it was
appropriate in her situation. I believe it was appropriate in
mine , too .

Then, when I was going off the Council on Foundations
board, Lucile was invited to come on as a board member, and I
was asked to call her and urge her to undertake that
responsibility. The feeling within the staff at her foundation
was that she wouldn't do it. She would turn it down unless
somebody particularly felt that she could make a contribution.
So I did call her, and again, she was very modest. She was
always very modest about what she did, and yet she was a real
leader. There was no question about it. She did go on the
council board. She became vice chair of the board, actually,
and was a good spokesperson for family foundations, for her own
viewpoints. She always did it in a very modest and unassuming
way, but behind it, you knew, was real conviction, and so I just
was very fond of her and everything she stood for.

Once I joined the Walter S. Johnson Foundation, which is a
family foundation as well, as a trustee — I'm the only non-
family trustee, except for Joe DiMaria, who had been so close to
Mr. Johnson that I always felt he was like family--! could
understand some of the differences between a family foundation,
and how it operates, and an independent foundation. So I just
was very touched by Lucile, and what she did, and how she did
it, and the magnitude of what they accomplished. She was the
main driving force at the David and Lucile Packard Foundation,
as I understand it.

Morris: In getting the decision made to start a foundation?

274

Luttgens: I don't know about that, because I'm not close to that. I think
Cole Wilbur, or somebody else, or David Packard himself would be
much more appropriate to comment on that, but in the style of
the foundation- -how it operated, their fields of interests--!
think all of those things were greatly influenced by Lucile.

Morris: Did she talk at all with you about the feelings about a family
foundation?

Luttgens: No. She didn't. The kinds of things that she would say, in

these panel workshops, are what contribute to my impression of
how everything worked.

Morris: On the business that she was reluctant to join the Council on

Foundations board: was that because it was a national scope, and
she thought of herself primarily with more regional interests?

Luttgens: No, I don't think it was that as much, because she was on the
board of Wolf Trap at that time. I think it was, was it going
to be the best use of her time to undertake being involved in an
organization like this? The council seems very remote to those
of us here in a local jurisdiction. It isn't until you get
involved in the workings of the council that you realize the
kinds of leadership it presents for local foundations.

Morris: That's an interesting point, I think. Has that been something
that the Council on Foundations has worked on in recent years?

Luttgens: I think they've downplayed it. They've worked on their impact
in Washington, as far as possible legislation is concerned, and
they have offered to be of help to local regional associations,
but, to my mind, they have not played up the real leadership
role I think they provide across the country for foundations.

Morris: Is that an area of some tension?

Luttgens: Well, yes, I think they've always been cautious that they

weren't seen as directing the regional associations. They were
very much grassroots developments in almost every area where
regional associations have grown up, and the council has tiptoed
around that a bit.

--.

Morris: In some organizations, the national body has felt that it was a
positive thing to encourage regional organizations to develop.

Luttgens: I think it is, and I know of just a couple more regional

associations forming, so I think, given time, that will not be
as tense. It's not that tense any more. It's just that there
is a little caution in not acting. I mean, even the title

275

"Council on Foundations" says something. It says it is a
council for foundations coming together. The foundation people
are very independent, as you know. They're very proud, and they
don't want to feel as if they are directed by a central body or
that they are an auxiliary of a central body. I think those
things are in the mix.

276

XXI CORPORATE VIS-A-VIS NONPROFIT BOARDS

Changes in Corporate Givine Programs

Morris :

Luttgens :

Morris:

Luttgens :

The other thing we wanted to talk about this morning was your
work on corporate boards. We've talked about it on tape, but I
don't think that we got into too much detail.

I think it depends on what you're interested in, Gaby, because,
you know, I don't know how you see that it pertains to what the
oral history is about.

Well, from the outside it looks as if it was your position as a
community leader that interested corporations in inviting you to
come on their board. And where I would go with that is, any
changes you observed as a corporate director, in corporate
community policies and giving policies and things of that sort.

Okay. I think I said before, when we initially spoke about
this, that I do believe that that was the way I gained
visibility, which is why I was invited on the first board
fifteen years ago. But I'd like to sort of separate that out.
It's the gaining visibility part that makes it possible for
people who are not part of the corporate mainstream to become
part of it, whether it's an Hispanic who is a leader in a
particular way, a woman who's president of a university,
somebody who is president of a company- -although that in itself
sets up some conflicts.

So it's the visibility and the knowledge of the leadership
qualities and the judgment that I believe go into that
selection. There are not a lot of women community leaders who
are on boards, and I don't think that there will be a lot in the
future. I think, as I said before, there are enough women in
the managerial pipeline in business that they can become visible
in that way and be selected.

277

Morris:
Luttgens :

As far as giving programs are concerned, I do believe that
there has been a great deal of change in corporate contributions
and corporate foundations. Before, I believe, it was seen as
something that was delegated to a secretary who was retiring,
who had been in the company for a long time, where no decisions
would be made by that person. But it would be a pretty routine
arrangement, where the funding was provided for a number of
organizations that served the general good. I think that has
changed, part of it being the enormous number of requests that
have been coming to corporations --the feeling that there is a
deep pockets place where social agencies can come, where change
can take place.

I believe now there's a lot more focusing on what it is
that the corporation wants to do, the kinds of giving that may
enhance what it is they do from a business standpoint, which I
don't have any problem with, and a general increase in knowledge
of needs and resources, rather than a knee-jerk response to a
request. So I think that has changed, part of it as a result of
the magnitude of requests that are coming to them, and
partially, because although their giving has increased, it's not
limitless. They feel a real responsibility to do the best they
can.

Now, there are some gadflies, like Evelyn Y. Davis, who
brings shareholder proposals from time to time about not giving
anything at all- -that all the money is shareholders' money, and
none of it should be distributed to any social agencies. I
think there have been enough studies done that indicate that
shareholders in general don't feel that way. It's the point of
a particular gadfly, as I recall. So there's that, and then
there are also shareholder proposals that you should not make
any contributions to a university that has, as faculty, any
leftist professors at all.

Really, still?

Yes, there are still shareholder proposals coming in on that
from time to time. So you're getting into some real First
Amendment issues that I find interesting, and I have been
receiving the IRRC [Investor Responsibility Research Center]
materials as a result of my involvement at the Rosenberg
Foundation. I read the shareholder proposals, and I'm
interested in the trends and the kinds of things that I see
occurring. At Rosenberg, we do study the proxy proposals
through staff, and actually, through our financial advisor now,
who is taking a look at that sort of thing, too. We have, a
couple of times, written letters saying that although we
differed with management's reasoning, we were not going to vote

278

Morris :

Luttgens

Morris:

Luttgens

Morris:

Luttgens

Morris:

Luttgens

for a shareholder proposal. Mostly, they're not well -designed
to accomplish what it is they want to accomplish, even though we
might be sympathetic to the purpose.

Right, similar to initiatives in the political world?
That's right, yes.

In relation to the increase in requests: is it a larger increase
of requests to corporations than to foundations? Has there been
a similar increase in requests, say, to the Rosenberg
Foundation, in the years that you've seen an increase?

I don't think that much. I've asked Kirke that from time to
time, in our meetings, when he gives us the project proposals
denied, and I don't believe that they have increased. There's
been some increase, but I don't think it's been a deluge. I
think part of the reason why there has been an increase with the
corporations is the corporations are more open about their
giving.

Twenty years ago, it was pretty hard to find out that
corporations were giving anything. I think it was Hewlett-
Packard that first published in its annual report a piece about
its annual giving program, its support of corporate volunteers.
Xerox, of course, did that early on, but it was minimal. It was
hidden. They didn't want anybody to know. They didn't want to
deal with proposals in a massive way, is my impression. And
that's changed. Now, most of them publish a report on their
community activities. They have a separate- -not a listing of
where they've given money, but the areas they give to,
guidelines on how to apply. All of those are just plain good
foundation procedures.

Now is this giving programs within the corporate structure, or
is this a separate corporation?

Well, there are two kinds, as you know. Either the corporate
foundation or the corporate contribution program, and generally,
it's the foundation that publishes guidelines. The corporate
giving programs, still, they would like to have some protection
on, I believe.

Did you look for ways to express some of these concerns and make
suggestions on good foundation procedure in your work on the
corporate boards?

Yes, I have had an opportunity to discuss some of that, but I've
stayed away from the allocation process, because that's not my
role. But procedures, I think, are appropriate, and, as a

279

Morris:

matter of fact, we have a corporate public policy committee that
I chair at two of the corporations, McKesson and Telesis. The
gross amount of contribution is approved by the public policy
committee, which takes it to the board for approval. In other
words, the gross contribution amount for the foundation or
giving program for the year.

But as far as individual grants , we have nothing to do with
that. Those are made by an internal contributions committee
that's made up of employees or corporate foundation trustees.
Very few corporate foundations have outside people on their
grant committees. I think Levi Strauss is an exception. I
believe they have a couple of people. From a national
standpoint, there may be others, but to my knowledge, it's
mostly an internal process .

Even if it's a foundation structure.

Luttgens: I don't have any problem with that, as long as staff has done a
good job of researching and is responsive to the policy
direction of the foundation board. I think that's good
practice. It's an interesting process, and I guess what I was
going to mention is that on one of these corporate public policy
committees, at one time, we had a member who questioned a gift
to a particular organization and said that there was another one
a lot better in the same field.

I felt impelled to say, "I don't think that's our role.
You can point out that perhaps they should investigate another,
but as far as changing an allocation--" Certainly, we needed
his knowledge, but we needed it before something happened,
before an allocation was made from a general standpoint, and
should then allow the staff to make the decision as they saw it.
In other words, not to second-guess staff. If you start
undermining staff, going over staff's head, trustee to trustee,
I think you really undermine what staff is doing. You say to
staff, I don't have any confidence in your decisions. My
decisions are better than yours. Whereas in most cases, they
aren't, because as a trustee, I'm not working full-time at it,
and staff is.

Morris: But individual board members, as trustees, can have knowledge
about specific aspects of what's going on in terms of the
organization of an applicant.

Luttgens: I think they could be called upon to either suggest an area that
is needed in the community, if you're talking California, and
it's somebody who is in Los Angeles, as opposed to San
Francisco. They may have special knowledge that would be

280

helpful. But by and large, I'm an advocate of trustees hands -
offing on staff work, except from a directive policy standpoint
and final approval .

Increased Social Responsibility

Morris:

Luttgens

Morris:

Luttgens

Listening to your discussion last week of the Business Leaders'
Task Force, it struck me that at least in those business
leaders, there seems to be a definite feeling of social
responsibility, and I'm not quite clear how that relates to the
hardheaded businessman who looks at the bottom line.

That probably has changed, too, Gaby. I think that the general
impression originally was that the CEO and his wife, depending
on her particular interests, influenced the giving. I think
there is a much escalated feeling that company contributions,
whether it be through a foundation or a straight giving program,
need to be as informed as everything else they do. Look at the
vice president who is in charge of contributions in two or three
of our corporations. It's not something that's way down below
middle management. It's elevated in the corporate structure, as
a much more important area.

Than it was fifteen years ago when you moved into the corporate
world?

I would say so. It's more than just blessing the United Way,
although there's still a lot of support for that, obviously.
But it's, "What is it we're trying to accomplish in our giving
program? If we're trying to reach a minority population, are we
recognizing that they have some agencies that need some help?"
And that's self-interest to a certain extent for the business,
but, at the same time, it's also bringing into the mainstream
some areas that perhaps aren't getting as much support as they
have in the past. So I think it's greatly broadened over the
years .

Asset Management

Morris: How about last fall, when the stock market did its celebrated
drop. Did that have an impact on any corporate decisions on
what would go into their giving program or the amount that would
go into the giving programs?

281

Luttgens: I think it probably did have some limiting effect, but I didn't
see anything major on it. I think the area of much more concern
was in the pension funds, which were heavily into equities, but,
even there, I think many of the money managers, because stocks
were overpriced, had cut back somewhat on their stock portfolio.
We saw a drop at Rosenberg. We saw a drop at the Walter S.
Johnson Foundation. By the end of the year, it was almost back
to where it had been at the beginning of the year. Now granted,
there had been a big run-up over the summer before that dropped.
That was not regained, but as far as the amount of giving, it
really wasn't that much of an impact.

Morris: Did you find that the corporate experience was helpful back at
the foundations, in terms of their investment policies?

Luttgens: Yes. Right now, as a matter of fact, at both Johnson and

Rosenberg, we're looking at our asset mix, whether we use hard
or soft dollars, a lot of the decisions that businesses have to
be looking at. Because I serve on the pension and savings plan
committee at Telesis, I have had access to how they operate and
how they view the asset mix, and so on. So I think that's been
helpful to me, to pass on, but also we've tried bringing
businesspeople onto foundation boards. A businessperson will
replace me at the Johnson Foundation when I leave at the end of
this month. We brought two businesspeople on the Rosenberg
Foundation board, so that has been a valuable resource, a way of
thinking.

Morris: Actually using their expertise in terms of the foundations'
investments?

Luttgens: No, and I'll need to make that clear. They aren't being used as
professionals, but they are people who have professional
business experience, so they're coming from a little bit
different place than somebody who has been totally community or
academic .

Morris: So that the actual managing of the portfolio is done by an
outside consultant?

Luttgens: Oh, yes, in both cases, so that that is not a case of using
their professional expertise in that way, but simply their
general business experience.

Morris: I guess I was startled to listen to the new head of the Kaiser
Family Foundation speaking last spring about what sounded to me
like a very aggressive kind of asset management. He had a long
term planning consultant and then a short-term investment

282

Luttgens

Morris:
Luttgens

Morris:

Luttgens

counselor, and I wondered if that is becoming the custom amongst
foundations , too .

No, I found that startling, too, Gaby. The other startling
thing I found, which may or may not be a trend- -it's
interesting- -was that that foundation's trustees were not making
any grant decisions. Did you pick that up?

The investment people?

No, that their board was delineating policy and areas that they
wanted to go into. I'd have to look back at my notes from that
meeting. You could check it yourself. It's my impression that
the trustees weren't making any grant decisions.

Well, it sounded like the new president was definitely a strong
person and was taking a lot of decisions.

That's right, and I guess I would like to watch that, and that
might fall into your category of "future of foundations." I
don't think that's going to be a big trend for small
foundations. Trustees are going to continue to want to have a
close relationship to the kinds of granting and actual grant
decisions, but he's running that on the model of a corporation.

Foundation Staff-Trustee Relations^/

Morris: We were saying that he had described having some fairly stern
rules that he was negotiating from in how he wanted to be
allowed to run the show, and I wondered if that is an area of
discussion amongst foundations. You know, how strong should the
executive be in relation to the policy board?

Luttgens: It's not been a subject of discussion at Rosenberg. It has been
a subject at the Walter S. Johnson Foundation, because there is
the feeling that that board should be run by the family members
and invited outside board members. They haven't quite shaken
down their board-staff relationship. There is a feeling of,
"Don't forget this is our foundation, even though we have staff
working for us . "

I'm not comfortable with that. I think you get the best
staff work when you clearly indicate staff responsibility, board
responsibility, and then keep out of the other's territory. The
staff there is very good and understands the staff role. I'm
not sure that the family members totally understand the value

283

they can get by clearly delineating their role and sticking to
it. Time and experience may improve that.

Morris: It would seem to me that the other side of that coin is that it
would also be easy for trustees to get sort of insulated and
encapsulated, by staying too far away from staff and not having
too much contact in between trustee meetings.

Luttgens: I guess that's true. We count on Kirke at Rosenberg to bring us
proposals that, in his best judgment, fit the policy areas that
we think the foundation should be in, within the financial
guidelines that we've adopted for the year. We don't take every
proposal that he brings to us. There are times when we just
don't feel that one proposal is as good or will accomplish as
much as another. But by and large, his recommendations are
adopted. I think we would make a change if we didn't think he
was doing what we wanted. But we think he's a terrific
executive.

Morris:

Luttgens

What's happening at the Johnson Foundation is, as they're
bringing the grandchildren on, and there's a big educational gap
to be closed, they have established a grants committee, where
the grandchildren, largely, meet and review grants early on.
It's being a terrific educational experience for them. It gives
them a status, as far as the rest of the board is concerned,
because they have gone in-depth into these proposals, before it
comes to the board.

Before it's prepared and developed into an actual docket for the
board.

Both ways. In other words, on an inquiry basis and also on a
"this is what the staff is working on" basis. In some cases,
they've gone out on site visits with staff, and so I think
that's a very good way to bring newer members, who aren't
familiar with the foundation, up to speed.

Foundation Finance Committees

Morris: The annual financial guidelines: are those developed by the
investment committee?

Luttgens: Yes, we call it a finance committee as far as the Rosenberg
Foundation is concerned, and it's a financial policies
committee. I've served on it, I guess, almost since I've been
on the board and was chairman of it when I was treasurer. It

284

Morris:
Luttgens

Morris:

Luttgens

doesn't need to be chaired by the treasurer, but it seems to
work well, because he or she really is responsible for the
financial aspect of the foundation. We, with staff, draw up a
budget.

First of all, we adopt the grants budget amount. Well, we
have to look at what our income is going to be. You have to
determine the amount of investment income available, and then
decide how much of that is going to be allocated. How much must
go into administrative costs, of course, and how much has to be
paid out, by law. We've always paid out as much or more than
was needed to be paid out. Out of all that comes a number, and
it's been, I guess, a million-one this year for grants at
Rosenberg, or was for '88. We do that the first of the year and
then work against it all year long.

Johnson's process is pretty much a staff -directed process,
with some trustee input at the board. Now, they've established
a finance committee, so it may be that they'll start running
that through the finance committee . That Johnson Foundation
board was pretty much run by the chairman, because there wasn't
a committee structure. That now is changing, and I think it's a
very healthy thing. First of all, it spreads the
responsibility, so that the chairman doesn't have to do
everything, and it also provides a way for other board members
to feel invested in the foundation.

And to test out their potential.

Yes. I think it's a very healthy process, so Johnson now has a
finance committee, a nominating committee, a grants committee,
and I think that's all. Finance will be also a personnel
committee, which will decide salaries, which is the same as the
financial policies committee for Rosenberg- -it also looks at
salaries and makes recommendations.

Early on, was that financial policy role considered unusual, to
have a woman taking that kind of a role in becoming treasurer?

I don't believe they had had a woman chair it before. I don't
think they had had a woman treasurer. They always looked to the
men, but I don't think it's that unusual now. I mean, the
Rosenberg Foundation is a very forward-looking foundation as to
abilities of all the board members.

285

Women's Role

Morris: I guess I was thinking that you and I take it for granted that a
woman's place is in the House or the Senate or the corporate
boardroom, but for many people that's not true. The question is
whether you have to lobby for that kind of a spot.

Luttgens: No. There was no lobbying for it. Actually, Hernia Hill Kay,
who was chairman, asked me if I would be treasurer.

Morris: That's a woman as president.

Luttgens: That's right. When I was president of the Rosenberg Foundation,
I don't believe I had any women as committee chairs. Well, yes,
I guess Henna chaired the fiftieth anniversary planning
committee. I can't remember, but at any rate, I think Rosenberg
has never had any problems about having only a certain group
provide the leadership. Best way I can say it. [laughter]

Morris: How about in the corporate board positions?

Luttgens: Well, I am chairing the compensation committee for PG&E this

year, and they have never had a woman chair a committee before.
I was very flattered when the CEO called and said he would like
to ask me to do it. I've taken it seriously and tried to learn
as much as I could about compensation practices , which are
complicated in some ways.

Morris: When you first went on corporate boards, was there a sense that
some people felt a little awkward having a woman on the board?

Luttgens: No, because I was the second woman. Dr. Roberta Fenlon had

preceded me on the Pacific Telephone board. She had preceded me
on the Crocker board also. I remember something Mary Metz said,
since she has come on as the second woman on both PG&E and
Telesis with me. She said she's very pleased to be the second
woman, because what it says is that she isn't just the first by
herself, but they see the value of women on the board and have
gone beyond one --which is a nice thing to say.

Morris: Well, that also, by implication, means that the first woman was
a good experience.

Luttgens: I think so, and I think that people don't understand in Arlene

Daniels 's book,* where she talked about the fact that my service

Arlene Kaplan Daniels, Invisible Careers: Women Civic Leaders from
the Volunteer World, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988.

286

on a corporate board was seen as a token. I asked her why she
said that? And she said, in her interviews, there were some of
her interviewees who felt this way. My response is, they
haven't served on a corporate board. They don't understand that
once you become a member, you are a member of a family, and you
bring certain skills, you make contributions, you participate,
you share responsibility. You aren't there as a fifth cousin
four times removed. You're there, and you jolly well better be
participating in decisions, because legally, it is your
responsibility. You have been elected by the shareholders to do
that.

So, although it may be perceived as a token, I don't
believe that's true. You become known. Your abilities are
known, just as anybody else on the board. You know predictably
what people are going to bring to the table and how they're
going to participate.

Morris: Would it be your experience that, as a black person was brought
on the board, and/or a Chicano or an Asian, that they, too, were
fitted into the corporate culture, as it were?

Luttgens: To be selected, they have to demonstrate good judgment. They

have to have visibility. They have to demonstrate some ability.
Once that is accepted by the board, they're a member of a team.
Surely, you need to be critical and look at things critically,
but, on the other hand, you weren't there as just a separate
entity that represents a group. I've made it quite clear that
although I want to know the reactions, the feelings, of women in
management (for example, in the corporations where I serve,
because I've met with them), I am not going to simply represent
them on the board.

Morris: In the nonprofit world, particularly at the small local chapter
level, quite often the comment is heard that half the people on
our board don't get to meetings and don't take a role.
Therefore, they're not really participating in decisions. Does
that occur at all in the corporate world?

Luttgens: There was one board member who I saw not be asked to continue,
at one time. I never heard him make a contribution, in a very
large corporate board. That's the only time that I have seen
that happen, unless somebody has gone off the board for age or
because of change in position, which is apt to happen. In other
words, somebody who's on the board because he or she is chairman
of something and no longer is chairman of that. It is

287

Morris :
Luttgens

appropriate for that person to suggest that the original reason
why he was brought on the board is no longer valid. Barbara
White, as president of Mills College, went on the Bank of
America board. When she left Mills, she went east, but she was
no longer a director of the Bank of America, is my recollection,
In other words, her position on the board had been because of
her affiliation, but also she had moved.

B of A had a Mills College seat on its board?

No, but she was the only woman on the board, as I recall. Full
member- -there was a second woman who was a big rancher down
south, whom I believe has also gone off the board. No, there
was no Mills College seat. I think they were looking for
somebody who was very visible and of a known quality.

Further Thoughts on Trustee Compensation

Morris: Does the fact that corporate board positions usually carry

compensation make that something that people work harder at than
being on a nonprofit board, which usually does not have
compensation?

Luttgens: That's an interesting question. There may be some element of
that. Certainly, you feel as if your retainer, in particular,
is being paid to you for service to the corporation. And, as
far as meeting fees are concerned, in most cases they aren't
given if you don't attend a meeting. But the other thing is
that the SEC requires that the corporation publish the number of
meetings attended, and I would say, and I don't mean to skirt
your question, but I think part of it is the legal
responsibility that one has to the shareholder. There are a lot
of shareholder suits, as you know. I have seen people who work
just as hard at nonprofit activities.

But, you know, one thing you've raised is an interesting
question, which is: where does the foundation fit in this, for
those foundation trustees that are compensated? I happen to
believe that foundation trustees should not be compensated. The
reason I feel that way is that I see the foundation as a
nonprofit entity. I see it as a tax-exempt entity, which is
there because that money has been tax-exempt. Therefore, the
trustee, in my mind, has a responsibility to the public.

I do not believe in trustees being paid. I hasten to say
that the Johnson Foundation does pay its trustees a stipend for

288

Morris :
Luttgens :

Morris:
Luttgens :

attending meetings. I was not happy about that when I found out
about it. I agreed to go on the board before I was told that.
I have spoken out in board meetings about it. Money that is
paid to trustees, to my mind, is not available for projects. It
also clouds the issue of: are we staff for being paid, in my
mind. It makes it more difficult to determine. If I'm working
all day long on a Saturday at the Johnson Foundation in a board
meeting, should I be paid for my time? I don't believe I
should, and I believe that the attorney general's office is
going to become very interested in the whole area of trustee
compensation, as it relates back to tax-exempt money. I think
it's a dangerous area, and I think we did talk a little bit
about this before.

It's an area that foundation trustees should be very well
aware of and, if they're going to continue to do it, be aware of
the hazards that may be involved. As a matter of fact, right
now, in San Antonio, there's a meeting on family foundations,
and Susan Silk is leading a panel on ethics for trustees. It's
just for trustees, as I recall. Maybe there are some staff
people from family foundations there. She was going to mention
this, in particular, because of the discussions we've been
having at Northern California Grantmakers.

The second area is the discretionary money available to
trustees. In other words, if I have two thousand dollars
available for me from the Johnson Foundation, I can designate
that that go to the San Francisco Education Fund, or the ballet,
or whatever I want it to go to. That's the same thing, as far
as I'm concerned. Why should I have a decision over that money,
which was endowed by Mr. Johnson?

That's the first time I had heard about that. You mentioned it
last time, and I was thinking that many foundations have an
executive officers' discretionary fund.

Yes. That's quite different, because that's to facilitate the
work of the foundation. This would be my personal interest, and
I don't want to be lobbied by six organizations, frankly.

You're fortunate if it's only six, from what I understand.
Yes, and so I have some problems with that.

289

XXII ROSENBERG FOUNDATION REACHES FIFTY, 1985

Recent Board Members

Morris: You mentioned Herma Hill Kay a few minutes ago. I was looking

at the Rosenberg Foundation's fiftieth anniversary report before
I came this morning, and there are a number of trustees, who've
been appointed in the last ten years, that we haven't talked
about. I wondered what kinds of things was the board looking
for in making these selections?

Luttgens: We've always been on the outlook for outstanding women. And

there are Mary Metz, Phyllis Cook, Herma Hill Kay. Cruz Reynoso
came on after Herman Gallegos had left- -obviously, he was
elected in '79. And, quite frankly, we talked to Herman about
an outstanding person from the Hispanic community, and this was
before Cruz was made a supreme court justice.

Morris: Did he continue to serve while he was on the supreme court?

Luttgens: Yes, he did, although it was a little difficult for him, because
of time, but he did serve. As a matter of fact, he will be the
next president of the foundation, probably, because we go in
chronological order. He is currently vice president.

Morris: Did it cause any problems for him or the foundation, when he was
under attack in the 1986 election?

Luttgens: No, I think we all were very sympathetic to the strain that he
was under, but he has a wonderful sense of humor. We were
courteous about it. We didn't bring it up and say, "How are you
holding up," or anything of that sort, but obviously, it was
hard for him, there's no question about it. We were very
sympathetic to what was happening with him personally.

Morris :

290

Was there any backwash on the foundation as a whole , from some
of the people who were complaining about him?

Luttgens: No, not that I heard of.

Venture Capital Investment: Jim Gaither

Luttgens: Jim Gaither, of course, was the son of Rowan Gaither, and I
remember talking to Jim. I guess we invited him to lunch to
talk to us. He had just come back from Washington, as I recall,
and had had that experience of being a White House fellow. Lew
Butler had known him in that area, and Ruth, of course, had
known the family- -was close to his father and mother.

Morris: Is that Rowan that she worked with?

Luttgens: Yes. That was sort of a natural, and he was a wonderful

contributing member. It was at his suggestion that we got
involved in the venture capital fund, which I don't think we
ever would have done before. We would have been scared to death
to do it, and it's worked out very well for us. It's a small
amount of the portfolio, but--

Morris: That is made available to nonprofits?

Luttgens: No, this was a venture capital fund that we bought into.

Morris: I see --as an investment.

Luttgens: As an investment. That's correct. Two venture capital funds,

as a matter of fact. And fortunately, because the connection of
some of our trustees with the Stanford board, those venture
capital investment funds were willing to take us on, because we
weren't making that large an investment. As a matter of fact,
they were very pleased with the fact that the Rosenberg
Foundation wanted to be part of the portfolio, which I thought
was rather nice.

Morris: That is interesting. It's kind of a reverse switch.

Luttgens: Now we aren't getting the returns that Alvin Tarlov is getting
with the Kaiser Family Foundation. It's not that aggressive,
and we just sort of have a toe in the water. But, at the same
time, it's worked out successfully. Jim was the one who,
because of his Stanford board experience, was comfortable with
that and suggested it to us. He and Peter Sloss and Kirke

291

really designed it, and our investment advisor now, Wentworth,
Hauser & Violich, is receiving the stock when it's spun off and
is sometimes selling and sometimes keeping it, depending on the
particular company. I think it's been a good experience for
Wentworth, as well.

Morris: To deal with a nonprofit customer.

Luttgens: Well, no, it's profit. The venture capital investment people
are for-profit.

Morris: Right. I understand that, but I was wondering if they had many
clients that were nonprofit organizations .

Luttgens: Oh, Wentworth has a lot, yes. I mean, they take care of the
Johnson Foundation. In the past, they've done, I think, the
total Mills College portfolio. Now they're just doing part of
it. They have a number of not-for-profit.

Morris: Is Mr. Gaither a businessman by training?

Luttgens: He's an attorney, and he's now, as you know, the president of

the Stanford board of trustees. As a matter of fact, I'm going
to see him this afternoon. There's a major gifts committee, for
Stanford, meeting in his offices. I think I mentioned this
earlier, very early on- -he left our foundation board because he
became the managing partner of his law firm, and he felt he
really had to cut back on his association with a lot of things.
He was also on the Walter and Evelyn Haas Foundation board. He
dropped off that. He dropped off the Rosenberg Foundation
board. We all understood that. He stayed on Stanford.

He was called back in at the time that the Marin Community
Foundation was starting and asked to be the chairman of that
board and directed the beginnings of that Marin Community
Foundation. Because he has integrity, because he's trusted by a
number of factions that were critical of what was going on
there. He may have gone off that board, now that he's completed
his term as president, and they have staff and so forth.

Morris: He saw himself as the interim- -provisional, almost- -chairman of
the start-up operation?

Luttgens: I believe so. I think he really did not want to take on
anything more but was convinced that he could make a
contribution, and he did.

292

Morris:
Luttgens

Morris:

Luttgens

On this side of the bay, was Mr. Gaither seen as a peacemaker- -
a chairman who could provide some reconciliation for the rather
troubled Buck Trust?

I think that and also somebody that could provide some
leadership and get it started on a good basis. I think less a
peacemaker than somebody who would get them going well,
organizationally .

Was it the court that asked him to take the chairmanship?

I don't know where his appointment came from,
question. I don't know.

That's a good

Okay, who else haven't we talked about?
for just seven years.

Jing Lyman was there

Yes, until Dick went east. She was brought on at the suggestion
of Caroline Charles, who suggested to the nominating committee
that she might be a good person to bring on, and I think Jing
really has felt- -I know she said publicly that the foundation
gave her an enormous insight into giving programs and broader.
She had been focused on one or two things that she was very
interested in. The foundation broadened her experience.

Had she been largely involved in things related to Stanford
University?

Yes, but also she was very involved in the Mid- Peninsula
Housing- -whatever the title of that organization was, Mid-
Peninsula Housing Coalition, I think—and also very involved in
some women's issues in the Palo Alto area. There was an
organization that was helping women to find appropriate jobs,
and so forth. I forget the name of it, but it's still in
existence. It's a good organization. She was involved in that.

Then Bob Goheen asked her to attend a meeting back at
Wingspread, to discuss women and foundations. She then became
president of that group, as you recall. The Women in
Foundations/Corporate Philanthropy grew out of that first
meeting in Wingspread, then went on to call a meeting of all the
people interested in the subject at the Atlanta conference the
following year, and I can't remember exactly what year that was.
It was in that time span that she was on the Rosenberg
Foundation board, so someplace between '73 and '79, probably
about ten years ago. Then she was elected chairman of that
group, and it gave her national visibility and continued to
allow her to grow into other positions.

293

Morris :

Luttgens

Both members of the family were up to their ears in the
foundation world, at that point.

That's right. As a matter of fact, she was much more involved
than Dick was, at that point, but he was always very gracious
about having meetings at Stanford for foundation people. I had
the feeling she was there first.

Celebration and Renewed Commitment

Morris :

Luttgens

Morris:

Luttgens

Morris :

Luttgens

The fiftieth anniversary foundation celebration—how long was
that in the making?

Oh, a year. Really. Many meetings and many involved months. I
don't know whether they list the committee for the fiftieth
anniversary, but they went back to Lew Butler and Ruth Chance.
They had a number of people who had been involved in the past,
and it was really wonderful. It was a wonderful day, I must
say, with very much a feeling of participation by all of the
former grantees. The focus was on them, which was a very nice
way to go about it.

It's remarkable. Have you come across other foundations who
have, still, links with some of the same organizations after
fifty years?

I really have not, but I'm sure that that is true. I notice
that the Irvine Foundation's annual report this year cites their
fiftieth anniversary, which surprised me. I hadn't realized
they were that old, and it's a very nice edition of the annual
report, if you haven't seen it yet. I don't see in there a
physical coming- together or any sort of a social occasion, which
we debated about. Was it appropriate to host all these people
for lunch, and wine and cheese afterwards? It was absolutely
marvelous .

Did the process of planning that involve any sort of general
sense of where the foundation was after fifty years and where it
might go?

That was part of the idea. Now, I was not a member of the
planning committee, so I can't speak for them, but the morning
talk was given by Jim Holliday, as you know, the former
California Historical Society head. The afternoon talk was

294

given by Isabel Sawhill, and she was drawing on the demographic
information she had as to children, poverty, all those figures.
I heard her quoted again last Friday by Elizabeth Shore, who has
written a book called Within Our Reach that's about poverty and
families. That's Bel's forte. I had met her at an economic
conference back at Arden House and was very impressed with her.
So she was here, and that was really the forward look.

Then, of course, we broke into group discussions with all
of the participants. They talked about the past, and then they
talked about the future. On all sides, I thought it was
outstanding. There was some criticism that Jim Holliday's talk
was not as focused as some people would have liked, and it's one
of the reasons that this report is as late as it is, he did go
back and rewrite it and get it to us. It took a while. As you
could see in the responses, there were some who took exception
to some of the things he had said, which is all right. That's
healthy.

I think that there was some disappointment in his talk. I
didn't happen to feel that way about it. I knew some of the
personal things that were going on in his life. He had a
brother who was dying of cancer that week. I talked with him
the night before his talk and knew that he still was going back
to his hotel room to do some more work on it. He wasn't quite
satisfied with it himself. When you're in that state of mind, I
think you're saying to yourself, "It isn't quite like I'd like
it."

So I was very sympathetic to him and actually wrote him a
little note afterwards, because he berated himself. When the
panel responded to him, he was, in a way, very quiet. He was
not going to respond back again. In a way, he was crushed.
That was the one sour note, but it was because of his personal
situation, is my feeling.

I thought, overall, the day was a great success. Lots of
letters came in saying how successful it was. It was marvelous
to bring some of these people together. Several of the people
we met in San Diego were there. The people we met in the Valley
were there and participating. It was a great day.

Morris: It's really very impressive how the continuity has stayed in

those fifty-plus years, now, and in the changes that have come

Fiftieth Anniversary Report [1985], Rosenberg Foundation, San
Francisco, 1987. Copy in supporting documents.

295

about in the same fields of working with rural people and
working with families and children and youth.

Luttgens: Yes, we were thinking about this, because I was asked to sit

with Elizabeth Shore at lunch, and I made the comment that I was
particularly interested in her subject.

I have not read her book, and I must get a copy of it. I
mentioned to Betty- -Kirke was not there; he was in the east. I
guess I left a note for Kirke, saying that I thought that the
foundation- -if he hadn't read it- -ought to get a copy and we
could circulate it, because what she's talking about are some of
the things that are working, as opposed to gloom and doom: we're
all in poverty, we have these great pockets of poverty and
nothing can be done about them. I found her comments very
helpful.

Anyway, I said I was particularly interested because this
was an area that the Rosenberg Foundation had adopted as a field
of interest. Susan Silk, who was sitting between us, said to
Elizabeth Shore, "But you have to realize that the Rosenberg
Foundation has been serving the needs of youth and families for
fifty years." I hadn't even thought to explain that to
Elizabeth Shore. It certainly emerged in our yearlong look at
what we wanted to be doing as an important area. That and
trying to make some progress in the cultural difference area.

Morris: Cultural difference area?

Luttgens: Well, which means immigration- -again, for children and families.
How do you assimilate these enormous numbers of people who come
from a different culture, a different language, and so on. I
noticed in the Irvine report, they list that as one of their
areas of interest. Certainly, Johnson is interested in some of
those same kinds of subjects. They aren't quite as focused as
Rosenberg is.

296

XXIII COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND PUBLIC INFORMATION

Future of Foundations Conference

Morris:

Luttgens
Morris:

Luttgens
Morris :

Luttgens
Luttgens

I'm going to leap over, for a minute, to the Future of
Foundations conference,* because somebody kindly sent me a copy
of the Southern California- -

Association for Philanthropy. SCAP.

Right, and this is kind of a thumbnail summary of what, I
assume, was a much more intensive meeting.

I have two copies of that, and I'm ashamed to say I haven't read
it. It's in my "To Read" pile.

As I say, it's a thumbnail summary, but again and again, there
are references to cultural diversity and varying patterns of
philanthropy and what sounds like an undercurrent of fairly
serious concerns about whether or not these groups can get
together and agree on community goals.

Well, as I say, I have not read this, but I'm delighted that
they're interesting themselves in this [viewing report].

But they did put on a good program down there. They had John
Van de Kamp. They had Jim Joseph. Gene Wilson is awfully good,
of the people that I know. I don't know how many people they
invite from up here, but they're always very nice about inviting
me. I haven't been for years, but I do know Lon Burns and Jack
Shakely, too. This is much more of a corporate -based group than
we are up here, but they've got a good group of people, I must
say, participating. That's all I know about it.

See supporting documents for notes on this September 1986 Council on
Foundations symposium held at Stanford.

297

Morris: Right. I was struck, when you mentioned the cultural diversity
question, that both the cultural diversity and the importance of
agreeing on some community goals seem to be what's in the air.
I'm hearing it from various sources.

San Franciscans Seeking Consensus

Luttgens: Did you see the review of our San Franciscans Seeking Consensus
in yesterday's paper?

Morris: I did. I brought it.

Luttgens: I chatted with that reporter, because he had called and talked
to me on the telephone early on. I guess his review was a
little more cynical than I thought it would be, because he
seemed very sympathetic when he was talking to me . I think we
made some progress. The people who were in my section, when we
broke up into those small groups, wanted to meet again in that
particular group, because some of them had been to several of
the conferences we had had before. They said they didn't want
to start in all over again at ground zero with a whole new
group, that we knew one another, that we could work from there.

Now, we did the easy part. We did the vision and the
goals. We didn't do the strategies. But Bob Fisher from the
San Francisco Foundation, who was in the group that I was in,
made, I thought, a very good statement at the end of our little
group session and then to the larger group, which was that we
were all generalists. We weren't specialists, and what we
needed now was to bring in somebody with some expertise who
would develop some alternative strategies that we, then, as a
lay group, could say, "Yes, we want to go with this," or "No, we
don't," and bring them in in the three specific areas that we
had been studying.

We happened to spend our whole goal time on education,
because we went around the small group and that's what we were
interested in. Some of the other groups did housing and jobs
and employment. There was no way we could get to all three, but
there was quite a bit of consensus on goals. It's the
strategies that will be tough, I think. The other question that
we brought up in our group and in the larger group: was it time
to begin to start reaching out? In other words, as you

"Citizen Group Works on the Future," Vlae Kershner, San Francisco
Chronicle, 9 September 1988. Copy in supporting documents.

298

Morris :

Luttgens :

Morris:

Luttgens :

developed the possible strategies, should you also be going out
and enlarging the group? There didn't seem to be any clear
picture.

We were talking about the San Francisco 2000 meeting the other
day.

Oh, and so one of the things that Bob suggested to our little
group, not to the big group, was that he would entertain a
proposal for funding for that kind of expert consultation, if we
wanted to do it. I was afraid he was going to say this to the
total group. I think it would be too bad to sound as if it was
assured, because knowing the internal process, there will have
to be some review of it internally, and there may be some people
within his foundation that don't think it's that good an idea.
But I think we may be getting somewhere, with the San
Franciscans Seeking Consensus.

I'd like to see us change the name, if we could. It's a
little ambitious. It's a little, sort of, pompous, in a way.
And so if we can get back to the idea of goals--! noticed that
somebody in the SCAP meeting was from Los Angeles 2000. If we
could get back to that and work on that premise, I think it
would be a lot clearer to people what we're doing.

Does this kind of a continuing process then feed back into
information that's useful to Rosenberg, San Francisco, other
foundations in the area?

I think from the standpoint of citizen participation and trying
to achieve some of the things that both Rosenberg and San
Francisco Foundation would like to see happen, like better
education, more affordable housing, business and jobs- -I think
all of those things are part of what the foundations are all
about. The overall thrust is certainly appropriate.

As far as information is concerned, I think it's the
citizen process that's probably more important than the
information. We know affordable housing is a terrible mess.
There isn't any really affordable housing. That affects
transportation, people getting back and forth to their jobs. We
know that schools are doing a better job- -I think, certainly, in
San Francisco than they were in the past- -but still not ideal,
turning out kids who read, write, reason, and have the skills to
get a job. So the whole thing keeps going around. I mean,
there is an interdependence. Vlae Kershner brought up in his
article something about the interdependence, that we were using
terms that were—he didn't use the word "trendy," but that
belonged to a particular milieu. Well, they are interdependent.
He gave it an aura of sort of a cultural rebirth.

299

Morris: Well, it was kind of a put-down, too. Their own version of the
harmonic convergence. It was a different kind of a tone than
the previous article.

Luttgens: Yes, I was a little surprised, having met him and the fact that
he spent all day with us and people were very nice to him, and
it was rather unusual to have a reporter be part of that whole
process. I was a little surprised that he came out with that
cynical view of what had gone on.

Media Coverage

Morris: It raises the question of public information in general, in
relation to philanthropic ventures.

Luttgens: I'm glad you raised that as a question. That's something that a
number of us have talked about for a year, or almost two. When
Kitty Teltsch was out here a year or so ago, talking with the
Northern California Foundation group, one of the questions that
we asked her was, "How do you develop within the reporting
milieu an understanding of philanthropy?" She really has the
philanthropic beat on the New York Times, and is it David
Johnston who is still with the L.A. Times, but I think he's had
his beat changed. Or maybe he's gone from the L.A. Times.
Anyway, he had mostly the philanthropic stories.

They began to develop an understanding of the actors. They
can call people up and ask for comments and have some feeling of
trust with them. They understand what's happening. I don't
mean a whitewash of what's going on. I mean a body of
knowledge. We had hoped when David Dietz did his article for
the San Francisco Chronicle- -because he spent two or three
months talking to foundation people before he did that long
piece --we thought, "This may be somebody who's going to be
assigned to cover this area." But having read the article,
again, it was a prickly kind of article, pointing out the things
that were wrong in the field of philanthropy, instead of some of
the positives, it seemed to me. He doesn't seem to have that
assignment.

Now, this Vlae Kershner came because somebody talked to the
powers -that-be at the Chronicle and suggested that it might be
of interest to them to assign somebody to follow this particular
effort. But the hope would be that there would be somebody that
would care enough, who could spend enough time with, build up a
trust with, and still could raise critical questions--! don't

300

Morris:

Luttgens

think that's the point- -but would have some understanding of
this area which is supposed to be so mysterious, and then
everybody leaps in and says, "But you're making all these
decisions behind closed doors." Kitty had said—we asked her
this question, --"Invite a reporter to your board meeting. Let
them see what the process is."

Of the San Francisco Foundation or of the Rosenberg Foundation,
for instance?

Yes. The Ploughshares Fund did invite Kitty to one of their
board meetings in New York, when they were meeting there, and
she didn't come. I don't know if something else came up, and of
course that's always the excuse the reporter has, if you lean
over backwards to say, "Would you like to come?"

We've invited reporters. As a matter of fact, we had
Walter Blum, who covered the first open meeting the foundations
had with grantees, because I remember he wrote it up afterwards.
I still have the clipping somewhere. He described me as a
little woman with a, I don't think he said, "neat nose," but
something that was pretty close to that. Now, you know, I don't
know what that means. He could just have described, and he did
describe, what was going on, but he had to have something like
that to hang it on. He gave, I thought, quite an objective
appraisal of that meeting, which started out with a panel and
then broke into smaller groups. It was down at Fort Mason and
was very widely attended.

NCG has had a series of open meetings with grantees. I
believe last year they had four meetings --two in San Francisco
because there were so many grantees to be accommodated, one in
the East Bay, and one down the Peninsula. I'm not sure that the
press was invited to attend those, but I think if anybody had
asked to come, they would have been cleared for that.

Openness to Grantees

Morris: I remember Kirke mentioning, a year or so ago, that he was in
Sacramento doing a workshop, and there were something like
eighty- five organizations there. That seems incredible, in
terms of organizations' interest in knowing more. You would
think that eighty- five organizations doing anything would be an
interesting news story. Maybe not front page, but certainly a
feature about what is bringing these people out, and what is it
that they're looking for?

301

Luttgens: Well, the thing that interests me about it, Gaby, is the

openness between foundations and grantees. From the time that
I've been involved in the foundation world, when I first came
into it, there was always a feeling of, "Well, we're going to
make our decisions on our own," from the foundations'
standpoint. Now Rosenberg has always had a very good
relationship with grantees, and I believe Johnson has, too.
They've been honest, they've responded quickly. All those
things that the principles and practices suggest you do: answer
your mail, answer your phone calls, and so forth.

But I sense much more of the foundation community leaning
over backwards to help grantees, number one, understand what
their policies are, how to apply, how to use, for example, the
Foundation Center Library. Those meetings that they have there,
I think, are excellent for grantees who meet with one or two
foundation people, so that there is an openness back and forth.
The larger open meetings with trustees, which were really
pioneered by the Bush Foundation in the Midwest and some others,
I think, are all much more of an open relationship.

Now, I may have mentioned this on an earlier tape, but
Pablo Eisenberg down at that Future of Foundations meeting,
said, "Talk to grantees. Make them part of your decisionmaking
process when you're deciding where to go in your policies,
because they know where the problems are." A couple of times at
Rosenberg, we have invited in, for lunch and a two -hour
discussion following, nonprofit people in a particular field
that we were interested in. I remember one in particular that
we did with the Children and the Law. There were two or three
grantees, and they talked to us about what they saw happening,
where the needs were occurring, where the trends were. That's
really the kind of thing Pablo was talking about, I believe.
Not a "we know what's best for you," sort of attitude, "so we're
going to fund that and that," but, "help us decide where the
needs are and where they are developing."

Morris: Is the public, then, that one is wanting to establish contact
with- -is it the other parts of the not-for-profit world, the
potential grantees, and other donors? Or does the world of
philanthropy really care about the average Joe who reads the
newspaper and is mostly interested in sports scores?

Luttgens: Two different levels. In other words, I think the average Joe
probably couldn't care less, until he sees that there's been
some money in Marin County that's being taken away, and then
he's aroused. Or until he hears about the Season of Sharing
through the Chronicle. I mean, that's been an enormous success.
That's an appeal to the individual citizen, and I am very

302

heartened by that, because that says to me that the individual
citizen is willing to give if he or she is touched by something
that is read about. So that's one level.

The other level is the seeking of funds by an agency that
needs money, and that's a much more informed level, because
hopefully they've tried a few places to get money, and they have
some knowledge about it. There are two different levels you've
identified. You're quite right. One would, I think, be very
affected by the media. It's the example of Gennady Alferenko in
Russia that I mentioned to you, who had a column in Komsmelskaya
Pravda which told about a need, "Money for Ideas," and the
Russian people were giving rubles, where there was no tax
deduction at all.

Morris: You mentioned the Season of Sharing. The public information

aspect probably would be important, too, at the United Way- type
level.

Luttgens: Yes, and there's always been this tradition of discussion. Why
aren't we getting stories all year long about how wonderful the
agencies are in keeping people afloat? People have struggled
with that --the public relations people at United Way- -for years
and years, and the newspapers don't seem to be interested in it,
nor do they give credit, necessarily. How many times have you
seen that an agency is giving help, and that agency is a United
Way agency? That isn't part of the story.

Again, it's the role of the intermediary, whether it be the
Business Leadership Task Force, or the San Francisco Education
Fund, or United Way. Those are all ways to funnel either money
or expertise into the end result, the end need. Paul Ylvisaker
mentions that in his Foundation News article, when he talks
about the differences that have occurred, which struck me very
much in the vein of your discussion of what changes do you see?
It's moving from the individual to the institutionalized, with
an intermediary. You could call the foundation an intermediary,
in a way, because it has staff. It has trustees. Somewhere it
has an endowment, which was the original giving program. Paul
mentions that in his article.

Broadening Decisionmaking

Morris: He also gave a paper at the Future of Foundations conference.
He, too, was talking about the need for broader discussion of
public needs, and the focus of the paper was on democratization

303

of nonprofits. Is that another way of talking about what you've
been saying about broadening of the internal decisionmaking
process?

Luttgens : I'd have to go back and reread that paper, Gaby, to know what he
specifically meant by that. If I could just think aloud on it,
I would say yes, that you needed a lot of democracy on nonprofit
boards, certainly. You need all kinds of people, I believe, and
to use the kinds of experience that they bring to that board
table for the purposes of the organization. I guess I'd just
say, parenthetically, you don't belong on a nonprofit board if
you aren't going to attend meetings. We mentioned that earlier,
because by the new California law, you're just as responsible
for decisions as if you were there, and although we haven't seen
a lot of nonprofits being sued, it could be, depending on what
area they're in. I don't know what Paul was referring to
specifically, but, as I say, I'd have to read it again.

Morris: Was that the first conference of its kind that had been held on
the West Coast?

Luttgens: Yes. It was the first one of its kind held nationally, and then
they had some others that were held in other places. They did
have national representation. It was invitational, which meant
that there was a mix of staff, and trustees, and national
figures. Irving Harris was there from the Beethoven Project in
Chicago. What he's done with his projects is really amazing, as
you probably know. He's not local, but he'd be an interesting
person for you to interview.

United Way Adjustments^/

Morris: Is there any more we need to say about the United Way oversight
committee and the kinds of things it's been looking at in the
last few years?

Luttgens: No, I think as we said earlier in the United Way area, it is no
longer the oversight committee. It has been absorbed, as I
believe it should be, by the board and the executive committee.
They, in essence, had a workshop, or a retreat—whatever you
want to call it- -this year, in which they talked about where
they ought to be going, what they could afford, given the fact
that the campaign still doesn't raise as much as it should to
provide for all the needs that they would like to address. In a
way, that was the purpose of the oversight committee,
originally. It was, where should we be going? Where should our

304

Morris:

Luttgens :

Morris :

Luttgens :

Morris:

emphasis be? I think the board has now taken over that
function, so I don't worry that the committee has just
disappeared.

I think it's an important thing for United Way to do, from
time to time --to look at its program and see how it needs to be
adjusted. If you read now about what they're doing, they are
serving some very needy populations that they weren't serving in
the past, so I think that's all very healthy. But they're going
to have to raise fifty-one million dollars, as I understand,
their campaign goal this year. It's going to be tough.

It's interesting that the number of foundations has increased
noticeably in the last fifteen years, although according to the
council meetings, the rate of formation of foundations seems to
be down.

And they're smaller foundations, as I recall. Part of that was
in Terry Odendall's report, too, I believe. Or maybe Elizabeth
Boris at the council had extrapolated that. But the chief
difference, as I understand it, is that many of the foundations
are occurring after the death of the donor, the Packard
Foundation being an exception, so that no additional money is
added, and the only way you can increase the size of the
foundation is by investing well. I could be wrong.

Within the last year since that meeting took place, it may
be that there are a lot more foundations established, but it's
my impression that the ones that are being established are
smallish ones. Although I gather there's a very large
foundation in the Bay Area, San Ramon, the Wayne and Gladys
Valley Foundation, developing. It's somebody's name. It is in
the works. I don't know whether it's the result of an
endowment, or much about it.

You contrast that with United Way. There's a slight increment,
but they never seem to make the kind of breakthrough in raising
money that they talk about.

That's one of the reasons that United Way, nationally and
locally, is pursuing so vigorously the whole endowment idea,
which has community foundations incensed, because they see that
as their purview. That discussion has been going on for fifteen
years, but United Way feels that it must pursue it, and is, and
it makes for a sore feeling.

You get the sense that United Way has less of a market share,
I may use that phrase, in terms of the picture of available
philanthropic resources and decisionmakers than they once had.

305

Luttgens: Well, you've got to describe that a little bit more.

Morris: There used to be United Way, or Community Chest, and a few

foundations. United Way has stayed in about the same position,
while corporate foundation and corporate giving have increased,
the number of foundations have increased.

Luttgens: I would agree with all of that, yes. Plus the fact that there
is a strengthening in the structural part of the foundation
world. Although United Way is a member of the Northern
California Grantmakers, as we discussed earlier, and Joe
Valentine has been serving on the board of directors of the
Northern California Grantmakers, there's a much stronger
structure there for Northern California Grantmakers . The
foundations come together in meetings . They explore particular
problem areas, and, in many cases, these dovetail into United
Way's interests, like the homeless task force, or child care, or
AIDS, I guess. They're a much stronger component of the
resources that are available in the community, I believe.

306

XXIV FUTURE OF PHILANTHROPY

Mai or Changes In Recent Years

Morris: That's, maybe, a good jumping-off place for the kind of thing I
asked you last week, if you would give some thought to what you
see as the major changes that have occurred in the years since
you've been participating in the philanthropic world, and where
you see it going.

Luttgens: Well, certainly, the foundations used to provide seed money for
new organizations --new ideas which, after two or three years,
maybe four years, could be passed on to a United Way or to a
government program. That's the major difference that I see, as
far as roles are concerned. Now there may be a collaborative
arrangement with United Way without a passing- on of a particular
responsibility, problem- solving for foundations and United Ways
together, and perhaps, with individual citizen participation.
Businesses are involved in that, because corporate foundations
are involved as well. There's more of a collaborative way of
operating, as opposed to a pass-on, with a discrete
responsibility forever and ever.

The other thing I would mention again is intermediates --
and I'll use the example of the San Francisco Education Fund--
where the issues are large, and they need expertise and
familiarity with a system. If there is an intermediary that is
trusted by the donors, whether they be foundations,
corporations, even United Way, then they could tap into the
knowledge of the intermediary. It will take a little bit of
money, not much, for administrative reasons, but will save in
staff time enormously and in developing or hiring somebody with
that particular expertise. Now that's a tricky area, and it has
to be done well, I think, but where it is done well, it can be
very valuable. It means keeping the trust of the institution,
the school system or whatever, and the trust of the donors and

307

working with agencies, and so forth. It does require a lot of
citizen involvement, which I think is good, so I guess those are
two ways in which I see change occurring.

The third is one we've also discussed before, and that is
that I think that foundations are going to be scrutinized a lot
more carefully, particularly where a controversial issue arises,
whether it be registering voters, or whether it be the purpose
of a fund where there is a second-guessing element by people who
feel that the fund wasn't used in the way that it should have
been used. There's a lot of ferment in the government legal
arena to seek any way of getting additional revenue that has
been exempt before. I think that all of that points toward a
climate of caution, as far as the foundations are concerned, to
make sure that they are operating within the law and are
perceived as doing such. I think it's the perception, as
frequently as not.

I think there's a great future for foundations. I think
there are all kinds of things that foundations can continue to
do, even given the constraints of the immediate situation.

Morris: Well, those constraints have been there before.

Luttgens :

Morris:

Luttgens :

That's right, and it's a question of where the constraints are
this time. They may be the same, or there may be some
additional ones, or there may be some new challengers.

I think these things go in cycles, and I think that there are a
lot of external things in the climate that may cause
difficulties, but that says to me that foundations- -their staff
and trustees --need to operate in the best possible manner and in
a way that is appropriate and thoughtful, and reviewing programs
from time to time to make sure they're meeting needs, which is
why I think they're established in the first place.

I'm not sure whether they're any more serious or not, but
there was a lot of interest in '69. There's no question about
it. I think the spotlight may be coming around again. I served
on the long-range planning committee for the Council on
Foundations two or three years ago, and there were foundation
people we met with across the country, who would just as soon
not have any light shed on what they were doing, just for this
reason. In other words, foundation people who said, "We don't
want to have any publicity." One of the major things that came
out of those meetings was that we need a greater understanding

308

Morris:

Luttgens

Morris:

Luttgens

Morris :

Luttgens

Morris :

by the public of what it is we're doing, and there were elements
in the foundation community that said, "No, no. We don't want
any more knowledge, because it'll just stir up controversy."

And "more people wanting our money."

Not only that, but second-guessing as to where it's going.

Is there a parallel, again, with the corporate world, that some
corporations have people like Cornell Maier at the head, who is
out there looking for ways to work with the community, and there
are other corporations that don't want the government telling
them what to do, and don't want the stockholders telling them
what to do, and don't want anybody inside the plant gates?

Well, that's true, but it seems to me, from my experience,
having worked with the leadership in the major corporations,
that that has changed, too, as we talked earlier- -that there is
much more of an understanding of community responsibility,
social responsibility, in corporate leadership. You have to
have a viable corporation, to be able to make some contributions
both in money and the time of your employees. That's part of
it. I think that's part of what goes into all major corporate
thinking now. The small business has a problem. It's in that
middle-sized area that there is a real problem, because they
can't afford either the time to learn about problems, or the
financial contributions.

In older times, it was the guy who ran the small business in the
small town who sponsored the baseball team and did his turn on
the school board, and on the hospital board.

Yes, and I think that that still is true. On the Private
Industry Council, we have three members, which I didn't realize
until I had lunch with one of them last week, who are heads of
small business architectural firms. They're seeking jobs from
the big businesses, but they're in there, putting in time,
serving on the Private Industry Council in areas that they're
interested in, such as youth employment and that kind of thing.
And United Way is trying to reach those middle-sized and smaller
businesses. As you read the newspapers, you also see that
that's supposed to be the solution for the growing of business,
to encourage the small businesses. They're part of the warp and
the woof, I think, of the whole society.

What we're sort of working around to is a working discussion of
what philanthropy means at the end of the twentieth century.
What I find, in thinking about this project and talking to
people about philanthropy as it's now practiced by people like

309

yourself and the people we've been talking about, is that it's
very hard to nail down what it is.

Luttgens: I would say it's the giving of time and money to support needed
efforts to make a community more healthy, and to encourage
others to do so, and to make the whole experience something that
isn't a chore but is valued. I think all those things go into
it. I could look it up in Webster's Dictionary, and I'm sure
I've used that.

That's a very high-minded statement, but actually, we all
benefit from a better community. So rather than sounding as if
it's Lady Bountiful, or Lord Bountiful, I think it's all to our
own interest, as it is to businesses' interest, to contribute to
a healthy community. I don't think that's going to go away.
That's been with us, as you mentioned earlier, from the
beginning. People pitched in to work, coming back to de
Tocqueville. That's going to go on.

Encouraging Young Volunteers

Luttgens: The interesting thing is to see how you can make that mean

something to people who are so busy with careers or something
else. I've watched my daughter, for example, who doesn't have
any time at all from what I can figure out, but she served on
the Visiting Nurse Association board in southern California.
And because it was close to what she was doing in her work in
the hospital, she saw the value of it. She got impatient with
the group process, but she stuck with it through her term and, I
think, finally went off. When she did work as a volunteer, she
selected things where I had not been involved, which was fine.
She worked for Planned Parenthood here in San Francisco. They
were things that she was interested in, where she felt she could
make a contribution.

Now, it seems to me we need to reach her whole generation
of the thirty-year-olds and younger, and that would be my hope
in this expansion of the Independent Sector program, that we
would begin to reach a whole different group of people, who
would take off with it and run in ways that interest them and
not expect to be either directed by, or even advised by, our
generation. We're going to continue to do things, but I think
that they need to adopt — and many of them have already- -they've
brought themselves together.

310

There's a young group that has been working out of the
investment community, as I understand it. They talked to me a
long time ago, when they first started out, and they come and
go. The mobility is great, because they get transferred
someplace else, but they continue to adopt projects, do work on
them, have fun; which is part of it. There is a social aspect
to it, where they get together.

Morris: And this is a spin-off of an investment group?

Luttgens: No, they come out of the investment community. They're young
people who, in the east perhaps, had some courses, for example,
at the Yale school, where they had some exposure to the need for
community responsibility. They carried that into their day-to
day jobs but have added on something. Many corporations are
urging their employees to work at community jobs. As a matter
of fact, that letter that was on my front door is from Bob
Choate, who is writing a letter to some of the corporations
here, asking them for a letter of endorsement for the principle
of his project, which is to involve college students in
community service.

As a matter of fact, there is an office on the UC campus.
There's an office at San Francisco State. I think we talked
about this. There's a superb office at Stanford, where students
are matched with community service jobs and develop projects in
public service. Don Kennedy was interested in this before
Vasconcellos ever introduced the bill. It's a bill that's a
year old that went through the California legislature that would
have mandated community service by every student who attended
either the UC system or the state system. It has been enacted,
but they took out the mandation.

Morris: Yes, I think it relates to if you get a student loan, perhaps.

Luttgens: Oh, really? I haven't seen that. Bob would know about that,

because he fought to get the mandatory aspect out, because that
is not healthy. Unfortunately, when the governor signed the
bill, he also did not sign the funding for it, which was a small
amount. I think it was a hundred and forty thousand dollars,
but it would have helped to establish centers on campuses where
there weren't any. I think we talked about this, because I did
the main speech for Bob down at Stanford a year ago August on
this, and we had a lot of community agencies there.

Morris: You mentioned the Yale program.
Nonprofit Organizations?

Is that the Program on

311

Luttgens

Morris:

Luttgens

Morris :

Luttgens

Morris :
Luttgens

No, it's the School of Organization and Management at Yale, with
a section devoted to nonprofits. The Program on Nonprofit
Organizations has no students and is headed by John Simon, also
at Yale.

Is there any research information coming out of the Yale program
that has filtered out and been of use to the working trustee?

I think we're still looking for something there. As I recall,
something has come out, but it's been years and years now, and
I'm beginning to wonder whether it's all being kept inside in
files, or whether we're ever going to see it.

That's too bad.
years ago.

They put out a great flock of reports some

I really don't know the answer to that. I know we funded
something from Rosenberg there a couple of years ago. I don't
know whether we've ever seen a result, but maybe Kirke has. I
don't know. Anyway, I think that's the other piece for the
future. I think there has to be a way to make this an area of
interest for young people, and I don't see why it shouldn't be.

Professionally, you mean.

Professionally, yes. It can either be done through the place
where they work or through some sort of a social arrangement,
but it needs to be there, and my feeling is it probably is. I'm
not plugged in that close to it.

Prof ess ionalizat ion

Morris: Is it a plus or a minus that the field has become more

professionalized—both foundation staff and community agencies?

Luttgens: Well, there are a great many people that want to get into the
foundation world. I must get three questions a month from
people who would either like to talk to me or see if there can
be a suggestion made. There has been one meeting that the
Northern California Grantmakers put on that was an open meeting
for people who were interested in getting into the foundation
world, but I guess the point of what I'm trying to say is that
people still are coming from everywhere.

There isn't any Foundation 101 course that you can take
that'll qualify you for the job, or a graduate degree, although,

312

Morris :
Luttgens

Morris:
Luttgens

as you know, the University of San Francisco has an Institute
for Nonprofit Management, and they're popping up all over the
country now. I met with somebody last week who is leaving
advertising at age fifty-seven and is wanting to put his skills
in a nonprofit or a foundation arena. One of the questions he
asked me was, should he take a course at USF? I told him that I
felt that that Institute of Non-Profit Management was more for
people who were already in the field, who wanted to upgrade or
enlarge their skills, than somebody who was looking for a job.
Now I could be wrong about that. I suggested he talk to the
head of the school, but I think it is less to provide a
qualifying credential than it is to assist in enlarging or
upgrading skills of someone who's already there. And it may be
that something like that would be of help to him, but I think
he's more interested in getting a job than he is in taking a
year's course and then trying to get a job, unless he could get
the job and say he's taking the course at the same time.

It's another interesting phenomenon of what's happening in
the field—a school of nonprofit management. They don't know
quite what kind of degree to give, you see. They don't know
whether to give an MBA kind of degree, a public policy degree, a
social work degree. Seriously- -there was a lot of time spent
talking about that with the president of Carnegie -Mellon at the
conference I attended a year ago at the USF Institute.

Maybe it doesn't need to be that specialized.

Well, that's the question. Should it be a part of a business
school degree? Should it be a part of a public policy degree?
There's controversy about that. The interesting thing, to me,
was that they only had a couple of people who were real
practitioners, and that was my only criticism.

In the teaching part of the program?

No, in the conference that we attended, where the papers that we
read were two inches thick, and a book is now being published as
a result of the conference. I don't mean to sound that
critical. It was a useful conference to attend. It's just that
the focus was pretty much from an academic standpoint, whereas
the end result, it seemed to me, was in the context of the
practical.

Of management issues.

Exactly. They had outstanding people, but one of the
practitioners' paper was one that I liked the best. He spoke
both from the standpoint of what works, what's needed, not

313

Morris:

something that was theoretical, and yet was enough in academia
to give it that--

Some intellectual depth. Big order, but an absolutely
fascinating field.

Women's Organizations

Morris : When you were talking about the need to involve more people and
younger people — does that have any implications for the Junior
League, where we started this discussion a couple of months ago?

Luttgens: The last provisional class must have been a hundred and fifty

people. When I joined the league, it was something like twenty-
five in the class. Not only that, they have league sponsors who
agree to- -if somebody wants to apply to the Junior League with
no internal sponsorship --sponsor one of those people. Again,
it's a much more open process than it ever was before. Serving
on the Association of Junior Leagues awards committee, I think
we talked on tape about the fact that they are trying to move
from a white middle- or upper-class group to much more
diversity, from the standpoint of ethnicity. I don't know about
income. That may still pertain, because to be able to do some
volunteer work- -well, even that's changing. If you're a
professional, you're earning enough to provide for yourself, and
you want to give time, absolutely.

Morris: I wonder if there would be some competition with some of the
black sorority groups, who do a lot of community volunteer
projects.

Luttgens: I don't know, but several of us met with the League of Women
Voters last year. They are in the process of a long-range
planning process here in San Francisco, and one of the things
that struck us was that they should look at their membership.
Their membership is getting older. They aren't attracting young
people, and they're very limited in the ethnic representation.
That was the place where we thought they could link with one of
the black sororities.

Morris: I can't thank you enough for all the time that you spent
exploring the steps of your own career in philanthropy.

Luttgens: Well, I hope you got what you wanted. I think it's going to be
horrendous to do the editing, because I think I have been very

314

candid. There are some places, when I realize it's going to be
written, that I may want to take out something.

Transcribing and Final Typing: Shannon Page, Noreen Yamada

315

TAPE GUIDE- -Leslie Luttgens

Interview 1, June 22, 1988
Tape 1, side A
Tape 1, side B

Interview 2, June 30
Tape 2, side A
Tape 2, side B
Tape 3, side A
Tape 3, side B

Interview 3, July 11,
Tape 4, side A
Tape 4, side B
Tape 5, side A
Tape 5, side B

Interview 4, July 19,
Tape 6, side A
Tape 6, side B

1988

Tape
Tape

side A
side B

Tape 8, side A

Interview 5, August 3, 1988

portion of Tape 8, side B
relocated for continuity
Tape 8, side B (start)
Tape 9, side A
Tape 9, side B
Tape 10, side A
Tape 10, side B

Interview 6, September 20, 1988
Tape 11, side A
Tape 11, side B
Tape 12, side A
Tape 11, side B

Interview 7, September 28, 1988
Tape 13, side A

1
12

22
31
43
55

not recorded

107

119

130

248a

132

142
152
163
175

180
191
202
214

226

316

Tape 13, side B 236

Tape 14, side A 247

Tape 14, side B 258

Interview 8, October 4, 1988

Tape 15, side A 271

Tape 15, side B 282

Tape 16, side A 293

Tape 16, side B 303

317

APPENDIX- -Leslie Luttgens

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS IN THE BANCROFT LIBRARY, CHRONOLOGICAL LISTING

"Essential Background Information for Social Planning and Budgeting
in the United Community Fund of San Francisco", February 1961.

Bay Area Social Planning Council, "Guide to Quality: A Study to
Compare Existing Practices of Seventy Member Agencies of the United Bay
Area Crusade with Selected Standards in the Field of Group and Recreation
Services", June 1967.

Caroline Drewes, "Involvement of Leslie Luttgens", San Francisco
Examiner. 16 May 1968.

Memo, Stephen L. Nelson to "The Chosen," October 21, 1969.

Memo, Stephen L. Nelson to Friends of the United Crusade,
November 4, 1969.

Letter, Family Service Agency of San Francisco to Richard P. Cooley
and Robert C. Harris, November 5, 1969.

William McAllister, "Fund Raiser's Letter Adds to Racial Strain of
United Fund Drive," The Wall Street Journal. November 7, 1969.

Press releases, United Bay Area Crusade, November 7 and
November 12, 1969.

The Alvarado School -Community Art Program. John Abrahamson and Sally
Woodbridge, Alvarado School Workshop, Inc., San Francisco, 1973.

Annual Reports of the Rosenberg Foundation for 1973, with an essay
on transient youth; 1975-1976-1977; 1978 with an essay on agriculture by
Lou Cannon; 1979.

Caroline Drewes, "Laurence Boiling- -the Man from UBAC" , San
Francisco Sunday Examiner and Chronicle. 1974.

Leslie Luttgens and Arlene Kaplan Daniels, "Board Membership and the
Volunteer Career", draft, 2 November 1976.

318

"The Impact of Proposition 13 on Bay Area Nonprofit Organizations",
Northern California Graritmakers , Proposition 13 Information Committee,
September, 1978.

"Boardroom Prof ile- -Leslie Luttgens: Helping the Corporation Do
Good While Doing Well", n.d. circa 1979.

Leslie Luttgens, "Proposition 13: The Implications for
Philanthropy", March 1979.

Walter Blum, "Philanthropy: Two Views of Giving", San Francisco
Sunday Examiner and Chronicle. 6 January 1980.

Council on Foundations, Inc., " The Council Newsletter for
Grantmakers" , December -January 1980-81.

"Reagan Names 44 to Special Group on Charity", the New York Times . 3
December 1981.

"Task Force Recommendations on Contributions Strategies", The
President's Task Force on Private Sector Initiatives, 24 March 1982.

Renee A. Berger, "Private Sector Initiatives in the Reagan Era: New
Actors Rework an Old Theme," The Reagan Presidency and the Governing of
America. January 1985.

"Perspectives on Collaborative Funding: A Resource for
Grantmakers", Northern California Grantmakers, 1985.

John R. May, "The First Fifty Years are the Hardest: A Salute to
the Rosenberg Foundation", 20 June 1985.

Council on Foundations, "The Future, Independent Foundations:
Trends in the Field," notes from a symposium at Stanford University, 18-
20 September 1986.

"Friends of the Library Annual Meeting: 25th Annual Meeting", 1986.

Bay Area Business Leadership Task Force, "Rethinking Corporate
Involvement: A Report on the Bay Area Business Leadership Task Force",
March 1987.

The Urban Institute Nonprofit Sector Project, "San Francisco Bay
Area Nonprofit Organizations: The Challenge of Retrenchment", 1987.

Arlene Kaplan Daniels, "Invisible Work", Social Problems. 32: 5,
December, 1987.

319

Vlae Kershner, "Warring Factions Focus on S.F.'s Goals in 2000", San
Francisco Chronicle. 1 August 1988.

Vlae Kershner, "Citizen Group Works on the Future", San Francisco
Chronicle. 9 September 1988.

Rosenberg Foundation, 50th Anniversary Report. 1988.

John Eckhouse, "Solving World Problems: Sculley, Sakharov Team Up",
San Francisco Chronicle. November 1988.

The Southern California Association for Philanthropy and the Council
on Foundation, "Private Resources and Public Needs: Los Angeles in the
21st Century", 1988.

320

INDEX- -Leslie Luttgens

Abrahamson, Lucille, 197
Adopt -a- School program, 205, 208
advisory committees, 57, 59-61, 65a
advocacy, 12, 48, 51, 61-64, 215,

226-227, 274

affirmative action, 56, 57
aging, 264, 268
Agnos, Art, 55, 58
AIDS, 190, 305
Akana, Paul, 92, 130
Albrecht, Ken, 219
Alioto, Robert, 196, 198, 199
Alpha Phi Sorority, 13-14, 16
Alta Bates Hospital, 20
Alumnae Resources , 69
American Bar Association, 232
American Friends Service Committee,

170-171

American Stores, 164
annual reports, 237, 278
Aramco [Arabian -American Oil

Company] , 4, 5, 12
Aramony, Bill, 112
ARCO, 243

Argyris, Marcia, 263, 266
Armacost, Sam, 225, 261, 262
arts, the, 49-50, 53, 56-57
Asian Americans, 28, 82, 93, 102,

136, 155-156, 192, 196, 198, 250
Association of Bay Area Governments

(ABAC) , 135
Association of Junior Leagues (AJL) ,

28-29, 30, 34
attorney general, California, 227,

228, 231, 240, 288

Baker, James, 247, 249, 256

Bananas, 171

Bank of America, 69-72, 92, 115-

116, 146, 148, 261, 286-287

Foundation, 207, 263
Barker, Norm, 174
Bay Area Black United Fund, 102-

104
Bay Area Council, 261, 263

Bay Area Social Planning Council,

80-85, 91-93, 129-131
Benz, Obie, 220-221
bequests, 235-236
Berger, Renee, 250, 255
Berger, Elizabeth, 61, 63
Berk, Mark, 20, 85
Bessey, Bill, 70
Biaggini, Ben, 261
Black Americans , % 24-26, 28, 89,

102-104, 109, 115-116, 122, 131,

136, 140, 192, 216, 222, 223,

248, 250, 260, 313
Blum, Walter, 300
board of directors, see trustees
Boas, Roger, 52, 123-124
Boiling, Laurence, 89, 115-116, 131
Boiling, Landrum, 218-219
Bonner, Jan, 126
Boone, Elisa, 186
Boston Compact, 208-210
Bothwell, Bob, 104
Brady, Ray, 135

Brooks, Steve, 102-104, 109, 185
Brooks, Dolores, 103
Brown, Bernice, 196
Bruckner, Sandra, 150, 152-153,

154, 156

Buck Trust, 227-236, 292
Burke, Katherine Delmar, School,

66-68

Burke, Barbara, 66
Burroughs, Hugh, 223
Bush Foundation, 301
Bush, George, 251
Business Child Care Coalition, 269
Business Leadership Task Force, 51,

56, 127, 207, 252, 259-271, 302
Business Roundtable, 174
Butler, Lewis, 104-105, 143, 149,

157, 163-164,' 169-170, 172, 174

California Children's Lobby, 61-64

321

California State University System,

11, 211, 310

at San Francisco, 46
CalServe, 11
Calvin, Allen, 199-200
Cannon, Lou, 169-170
Central Valley, 168-170
Chamber of Commerce, 263, 269
Chance, Ruth, 18, 61, 141, 142,

144-145, 151, 153, 158, 160, 168,

171, 176, 196, 197, 198, 217, 228
charitable giving, 72, 78, 95, 121
Charles, Caroline M. , 18, 19, 35-

37, 42, 72, 73, 140-141, 143,

145, 155, 159, 166, 191
Chevron Corporation, 134, 261, 262,

265, 266

Chickering, A. Lawrence, 260
child abuse, 175-176
Child Abuse Council, 175-176
child care, 108-110,71, 184, 264-

265, 269-270, 305
Children's Hospital, San Francisco,

19-20, 23, 37
Children's Research Institute, 62-

Chmura, Tom, 207, 208
Choate, Robert, 11-12, 211-213, 310
Christian Brothers winery, 164-165
City of Paris (San Francisco

department store) , 5-6
Clark, Zanne, 54-55
Clark, Edna McConnell, Foundation,

216
Clausen, Tom, 99, 122, 129, 131,

192, 193

Coleman, Arthur, 26
collaborative funding, 109-110,

147, 182, 185-187, 190, 198, 228,

306-307

Collins, Dennis, 225
Committee for Economic Development,

206, 207, 209
Committee for Responsive

Philanthropy, 103-105, 146
community development, 4, 206
community foundations, 304
computers, and nonprofit management,

conflict of interest, 148-150, 172

211

consultants, 155, 182
consumers, as trustees, 120-121
Control Data Corporation, 251
Convention and Visitors Bureau, 57
Cook, Phyllis, 165
Cook, Toni, 104
Cooley, Dick, 114, 192, 193
Coombs, David, 47
Cordon, Ruth Mary, 206-207
corporate foundations, 263, 278-

279, 305-306 ,
corporations and community service,

30, 49, 55, 65-65a, 191-195, 199

200, 201, 206, 207, 209-210, 212

213, 243, 250-251, 254-259, 262-

270, 308, 310
corporations and philanthropy, 50,

56, 81, 84, 88, 90, 92, 94, 101,

118, 122-123, 126-127, 132, 134,

147-148, 172, 174, 182, 185-186,

219, 225, 239, 248, 261, 276-281

292, 296
Cortines, Ray, 67, 137, 205-206,

207-208, 210
Corvin, Adele, 97, 115, 116-117,

190, 198, 268

Costello, Patty, 31, 61-62
Cotton, Lexie, 76
Coughlin, Russ, 61
Council of Social Agencies, Marin

County, 236
Council on Foundations, 30, 125-

126, 146, 150, 182, 185, 189,

235, 237, 238, 242, 247, 273-274;

288, 296, 301, 303, 307

organization, 215-216
Cowell Foundation, 109, 197-199
Cox, Lee, 193, 263
Crocker Bank, 268, 285
Gulp, Mary, 31
cultural organizations, 32-33, 42,

49-50, 52, 56-58
Cuthbertson, Colleen, 3
Cuthbertson, Ken, 3
cy pres . 235

Danforth Foundation, 149

322

Daniels, Arlene, 42, 72, 285-286
Davron, Elizabeth, 175

Day Treatment Center, San Francisco,

59-61

Deaver, Michael, 247, 249, 251
Dellamonica, Judy, 208
de Maria, Joe, 150-151
Denahy, Claire, 146
Dennis, Lloyd, 174
Der, Henry, 196
Deukmejian, George, 212, 310
Dial, Ben, 164
Dietz, David, 299
Di Giorgio, Bob, 192
Dills, Joan, 117
discrimination, 15, 28-29, 52, 56
diversity, 52-58, 139, 178-179,

191, 213, 239, 313
Drohan, Tom, 261
drug abuse , programs , 108
DuBain, Myron, 225
Duncan, Virginia, 31
Duniway, Ben, 142
Dust an, Jane, 220

Eadie, Ron, 186, 208

East Bay, 127, 263, 300, 304

economic development, 133, 136,

251, 308

Eddie, Chuck, 150
Eddie, Gloria Johnson, 150, 154
education, 67, 133, 134, 195-206,

264, 265, 297
Eisenberg, Pablo, 103, 104-105,

146, 161, 301
Elton, Eunice, 208, 267
Emergency Fund, foundations/UBAC,

109-110, 148, 184-189
emergency funding, 82, 100, 103,

107-109, 148, 184-187
employment, 209-211, 264, 266-268
Ethnic Dance Festival, 57
evaluation, 169, 175-176, 204, 258
Everhart, Claude, 136, 191
Exploratorium, 53

Fairfax, Jean, 219

family foundations, 150, 166-167,

179, 238, 240, 273, 282
Feinstein, Dianne, 132, 213, 267
Fenlon, Roberta, 285
Field, Mervin, 132
Filer Commission, 145, 146
First Amendment, 277
First Interstate Bank, 174
Fisher, Robert, 297-298
Fleishhacker, David, 67
Fleishhacker, Mortimer, 81
Flynn, James, 75-76
Follis, Gwin, 201
Ford Foundation, 25
Foundation Center, 182
foundations, 157, 161, 180-181,

247, 275, 296-303

criticism of, 103-104, 148-150,
172, 216, 238-242, 288, 291

ethics, 237-238, 288, 307

regulation, 61, 145, 158, 226,
241, 303, 307

staff, 160-167, 187, 263, 279,
282, 311

trustees, 158-159, 162-168, 179,
186, 233-234, 238, 240, 272-
273, 282-283, 287, 301
Freeman, David, 215, 218
fundraising, 43-44, 62, 67, 83, 87,

94-95, 104, 200-201, 204-205
Furst, Harold, 92

Gaither, James, 93, 153-154, 233,

290-292

Galgiani, Phoebe, 203
Gallegos, Herman, 138, 139, 141,

155, 179

Gamble, Babs (Olive), 50-51
Ganyard, Leslie, 76, 78
Gardner, Booth, 220
Gardner, John, 122, 243-244, 253
gay and lesbian community, 53, 57
Gerbode, William Alexander,

Foundation, 109, 134, 182
Gifford, Bernard, 134
Goheen, Bob, 215-216, 292
Goodlad, John, 150-151

323

government funding, 60-61, 76, 85-
86, 94, 108-110, 181-184, 244-
246, 248

Graham, Meg, 96

Gregorio, Arlen, 63, 120

Grey, Jack, 261, 262, 265, 268

Grossman, Moses, 175

Gulf and Western Company Foundation,
50, 208-209

Haas Eisenhardt, Betsy, 61
Haas, Peter, 96, 105, 118, 119,

121, 163, 178
Haas, Walter and Elise Fund, 134,

154

Haldeman, Keene 0. , 76
Hall, Hadley, 268
Hammer, Armand, 180
Hance, Eva, 76-77
Hancock Foundation, 187
Hanson, Ray, 66
Harder, Paul, 183
Harlan, Neil, 33

Harris, Bob, 90, 101, 121, 233-234
Harvey, Charlene, 55, 56
Harvey, Jim, 263
Hawley, Phil, 225
health care, 85-86, 264-266, 268
Health, Education and Welfare,

U.S. Department of, " 184
health facilities planning, 19-21
Heart Association, San Francisco,

Hennessey, Jean, 217
Hernandez, Gary, 102
Hernandez, Aileen, 134, 213
Hewlett Foundation, 182
Hewlett-Packard Corporation, 127,

278

Hirschfield, Ira, 263
Hispanic Americans, 90, 101-102,

105, 114, 134, 136, 140, 155,

173, 192, 213, 220, 248, 250
Ho, James, 136-137
Hogan, Claude, 128
Holliday, James, 293-294
Hongisto, Richard, 53, 56-57
Honig, Bill (Louis), 196-197
hospitals, 80, 85-86

Hotel Tax Advisory Committee, San

Francisco, 53-59, 68
Hough, Gordon, 182, 193
housing, homeless, 82, 122-123,

133, 136, 190, 305
Hoyt, Larry, 81
Hull, Jerry, 90, 101, 121, 195
Huston, Nickels, 66-67,

immigration, 169, 173-174, 192, 295
Immigration and Naturalization

Service, U.S. , 173
Independent Sector, 95-98, 219, 245

Give Five Project, 32-33, 252,

309
International Foundation for the

Survival and Development of

Humanity, 180-181
Investor Responsibility Research

Center, 277
Irvine Foundation, 33, 35, 56, 96,

225, 295
Izaguirre, Raoul, 219

Jacob, John, 248-249

Jessup, Adeline, 3

Jessup, Bruce, 3

Jews, 14, 15, 28

Johnson, Dottie, 221

Johnson, Walter, 136

Johnson, Walter S. Foundation, 149-

154, 229, 239, 281-282, 284, 287,

291, 295, 301

Joseph, Jim, 216, 221-223
Junior League, 12, 16-19, 68, 96,

191, 313
juvenile justice, 92

Kaiser Family Foundation, 281-282,

290

Kay, Herma Hill, 140-141, 153, 285
Keep Libraries Alive, 48
Keller, George, 206
Kelly, Charles, 128
Kennedy, Donald, 212, 213, 310
Kern, Art, 133, 255, 267-268
Kerr, Breene, 220
Kershner, Vlae, 297-299
Kimball, Bill, 165

324

King, Harold, 197-198
Korean War, 11, 16-17
Koret Foundation, 240
Kornblum, Carol, 227, 228, 231
Koshland, Dan, Sr. , 62.
KPIX, 60, 266, 267-268
KQED, 54-55, 260
Kramer, Larry, 146
Kristol, Irving, 242
KRON, 269

La Raza, 90, 101-102, 105

labor unions, 128, 196, 208, 269

Lane, Joan Fletcher, 64-65

Lasky, Phil, 60

Lastra, Barry, 262-264, 265

Layton, Tom, 109, 223, 228

League of Women Voters, 9, 16, 313

Lederberg, Marguerite, 165-166

Lee, Russel, 1-2, 5, 41, 77-78

legislation, 38, 61-63, 174, 181,

211-212, 226, 241, 266, 274, 303,

307, 310

Leonard, Carl, 269
Levi Strauss Corporation Foundation,

263, 279

Leydecker Stratte, Jane, 2
Lieberman, Steve, 189
Lillick, Ira, 15
Lincoln Children's Center, 131
Lindsay, Gerry Morris, 18, 24, 31
Linenthal, Mark, 46
literacy programs, 49-50
litigation, 229-234
Livingston, Jean, 25
loan funds, 185
lobbying, 41, 61-62, 215, 227
Lobman, Ted, 207
Loo, Jerry, 102
Lo Schiavo, Father, 133
Low, Harry, 82
Lucas, Henry, Jr., 260-261
Lucky Stores, 164
Lundberg, Louis, 20
Luster, Orville, 25-26
Luttgens, Lise, 17, 36, 41, 66,

195, 309
Luttgens, William, 6, 8, 17, 36,

41, 166, 246

Lyman, Jing, 140, 165, 170, 292-

293

Lyman, Richard, 250, 252-253

Lynch, Charles, 127

MacKillop, Malcolm, 255, 263
Maier, Cornell, 260-261, 265
Mailliard Swig, Charlotte, 42
Management Center, 56
Marble, Melinda, 185, 191, 192, 194
Marcus Foster Institute, 198-199
Marin Community Fund, 154, 291-292
Marin County, 1?7, 228, 230, 235-

236, 301

Mawby, Russ, 219, 221, 223
May, Carl, 24

May, John, 60, 70, 109, 146, 184
Mayor's Fiscal Advisory Committee,

San Francisco, 123-125, 136, 194
McAllister, Bart, 170
McKesson Corporation, 55, 172, 207,

261, 266, 279
media, 53-55, 60-61, 133, 135, 192,

193, 230, 241, 243-244, 248, 253,

255, 265-269, 297-300, 302
Meese, Edwin III, 247, 251
Mellon, Tom, 53
Mental Health Association, San

Francisco, 79

mental health, 11, 59-61, 185
Mergens, Jim, 112
Merrill, Fred, 138
Metcalf, Sue, 232
Metz, Mary, 285

Midpeninsula Housing Coalition, 292
Mielke, Fred, 127, 261
Miller, Mrs. Robert Watt, 121
Miller, Richard, 88, 122
Mills College, 157, 208, 285, 287,

291

Associate Council, 64-65a
minorities, 24-26, 28, 53-58, 82,

89-90, 93, 94, 99-104, 113, 114,

122-123, 213, 219, 220 see also

specific groups, grants to, 169,

210

Mjellem, Linda, 136
Mnookin, Robert, 63

325

Monterey Bay Aquarium, 242
Moore, Fred, 126-127
Moore, Gladys, 23, 31
Morison, Bill, 131
Mosbacher, Rob, 251, 255, 256
Moscone, George, 124
Mosk, Stanley, 82
Mount Zion Hospital, 20, 85
Murphy, Peg, 192, 193
Museum of Modern Art, San
Francisco, 53

Nathan, Ed, 11, 57, 63, 109, 146,

184, 203-204
National Association for Health and

Welfare, 117

National Alliance of Business, 266
National Charitable Information

Bureau (NCIB) , 219, 239
National Organization of Women

(NOW) , 123

Nelson, Steve, 112-113
New Ways to Work, 210
Nielsen, W.A. , 243
nonprofit organizations, 19-21, 38,

48, 51, 61, 84-86, 110, 211, 239,

257, 266, 286, 300-302, 311-312

trustees, 52-58, 77, 120, 125,

128

Norris, Bill, 251, 252
Nothenberg, Rudy, 53, 101
Northern California Grantmakers ,

162, 163, 223, 225, 227, 232,

299, 305, 311

Arts Loan committee, 181-183,
229, 269, 272-274

Emergency Fund, 85

history, 146-148, 150, 188-191,
300

O'Connell, Brian, 73, 245
Operation Civic Serve, 211-214

Pacific Gas & Electric Company,

196, 213, 255, 261, 266, 269, 285

Pacific Presbyterian Medical Center,
19-20

Pacific Telephone Company, 130,
272, 285

Pacific Telesis Company, 55, 137,

172, 193, 210, 263, 264, 279, 281
Packard Foundation, 242, 273
Packard, Lucile, 162, 166, 224,
269, 272-274

Paley, Martin, 19, 109, 133-134,

183, 188, 194, 221, 229, 230-231,

233-234, 237

Pauken, Tom, 244, 246, 250
Pauley, Buzz, 61, 63, 120
Peninsula, 175, 266, 300
Peninsula Community Foundation, 166
Perlman, Ann, 46
philanthropy, 146, 180-181, 183,

229, 301, 306-310
Piel, John, 67-68
Pinckney, Percy, 26
Place, John, 127, 268-269
Ploughshares Fund, 300
politics, 42-43, 51, 56, 61, 72,

148, 183 212, 216, 221, 270, 310
Pope, Judy, 182
poverty, 82, 169, 192, 213, 266,

294-295

Presbyterian Church, 66
Presbyterian Hospital, 59, 66, 138
Private Sector Initiatives,

President's Task Force on, 43,

51, 243-255
Private Industry Council, 43, 208,

209, 210-211, 267, 308
Project One, 84
Proposition 9 (1979), 183
Proposition 13 (1978), 148, 181
public -private partnerships, 110,

243, 255-259, 264-266
Puncsak, Sandra, 264, 267

race relations, 15, 28-29, 52-57,

136
Reagan, Ronald, 60-61, 246, 247,

248, 249, 256, 267-268, 271
Red Cross, 6, 16, 30, 117, 253
regional issues, 133, 263-269
representation, ethnic, 53-56
Resource Exchange, 191-194
Reyes, Ed, 101, 126
Reynoso, Cruz, 140, 165, 232, 289

326

Riles, Wilson, Sr. , 196

Riles -Roth San Francisco Schools

Commission, 46, 51, 149, 195-

197, 201-202
Ripley, Mary, 62, 115
Ritchey, Don, 164-165
Roberts, Ed, 120
Rockefeller, John D. Ill, 191
Roe, Jane, 117
Rogers, David, 219
Rooks, Charles, 221, 223, 224
Rosebush, James, 246, 247, 249, 250
Rosenberg Foundation, 3, 9, 24-25,

78, 227, 293, 298

and politics, 148, 183

assets, 156-157, 165, 277-278,
280-284, 290-291

grant budget, 141-142

grantmaking, 103-104, 109, 153,
162-164, 177-178

grants, grantees, 170-171, 173,
175-176, 210-211, 294-295,
301, 311

trustees, 138-146, 203, 232
Rosenberg, Dick, 165, 203
Roth, William Matson, 40, 145, 149,

196, 199, 201

Sakharov, Andre, 180-181

Salamon, Lester, 183, 243

Sammon, Tom, 207

Samora, Julian, 220

San Francisco Board of Supervisors,

47-49, 110, 137, 269
San Francisco Chronicle. 299, 301
San Francisco Education Fund, 40,

47, 149, 165, 195-206, 258, 302,

306

San Francisco Examiner. 192, 193
San Francisco Foundation, 117, 134-

137, 147, 184, 187, 191, 194,

196, 297-298

Distribution Committee, 148-149,
230

see also Buck Trust
San Francisco General Hospital, 20,

37, 48
San Francisco Human Rights

Commission, 56-58

San Francisco Public Library, 43-50

Friends of, 43, 47-49

branch libraries, 45-47
San Francisco School Volunteers,

205, 207, 208
San Franciscans Seeking Consensus,

132-137, 297, 300
San Francisco Study Center, 191,

194
San Francisco Symphony Association,

33, 58

San Mateo County, 80, 82, 128
Santa Clara County, 127, 175, 266
Sawhill, Isabel, 294
Schilling, Libby, 20
Schlosser, Len, 266
Season of Sharing, 301
Seattle Community Foundation, 224
Shackel ton -Bruckner, Sandra, 150,

152-153

Shannon, Jim, 219
Shelley, Jack, 42
Sievers, Bruce, 134
Silk, Tom, 229-230, 235
Silk, Susan, 223, 229, 288, 295
Sinton, Robert, 76
Siracusa, Angelo, 263
Sloss, Eleanor, 157
Sloss, Frank, 138, 157, 175
Sloss, Peter, 78, 290
Smith, Norvel, 140
Smith, William French, 271-272
social planning, 75-84, 91-92
southern California, 63, 186, 224,

296
Southern California Association for

Philanthropy, 224-225, 296
Southern Pacific Company, 261
St. Joseph's Hospital, 19, 37
Stanford Children's Hospital, 11-

12, 71
Stanford Hospital, 66

Auxiliary, 19, 35-40, 66
Stanford Research Institute, 261-

263, 265

Stanford University, 1-5, 12-15,
64, 150, 212-213, 310

327

camp, Fallen Leaf Lake, 166
trustees, 142, 154, 165, 290-

291

Stratte, Jane Leydecker, 2
Straus, Ellen Sulzberger, 253
Struckhoff, Eugene, 218, 219, 221
Stuart Foundation, 207
Stulsaft, Morris, Foundation, 268
Sullivan, Josephine, 19, 23
Sullivan, Leon, 253

Tarlov, Alvin, 281, 290

Tax Reform Act, 1969, 145, 158, 241

Taylor, Al, 130

Teltsch, Kitty, 243-244, 246, 299,

300

Terman, Donna, 150, 228
Thacher, Gladys, 198, 203, 206, 208
third world, 89-90, 102, 113, 123
Thompson, Gary, 269
Tiano, Anthony, 54
Tower, Caroline, 189, 238
Treacy, Sandra, 207
Trecker, Harleigh, 73
Tress ider, Donald, 14
Trippe, Steve, 210
Truschke, Ed, 263
trustees, 77, 120, 125, 128

recruiting, 52-57

diversity, 216
Tucker, Mrs. Nion, 72

United Bay Area Crusade, 59-60, 73,
78-83, 85, 93, 106
allocation, 86-87, 89-91, 95,

99-102, 105, 107-110, 119, 131
board of directors, 106-107,

113, 119-120, 125-129
criticism, 103-105, 122
fundraising, 87-88, 94, 118-119,

121-122
New Directions study, 89, 105-

106

staff, 102-103, 112-113
United Cerebral Palsy Association,
69

United Community Fund, San
Francisco, 75-79, 85

United Way of America, 64, 83, 95,

97, 103-104, 114
United Way of the Bay Area, 182,

261, 268, 269, 280, 302, 306

agency relations, 25-26, 56, 98

Emergency Fund, 184-185, 187-
188

fundraising, 118, 303-305, 308
University High School, 67
University of California, 11, 211,

310

San Francisco, 20
University of the. Pacific, 19
University of San Francisco, 199,

312
Urban Institute, 183

Valentine, Joe, 112, 114, 131, 190,

305
Valley, Wayne & Gladys, Foundation,

304

Van de Camp, John, 228, 234
Vasconcellos, John, 211, 310
Velikhov, Vergeni, 181
Verity, Bill, 250, 252, 253, 254,

255

Volunteer Center, 97, 98
Volunteer Bureau, 10-11, 70, 96,

117
volunteers, volunteering, 44, 47,

50-51, 68-74, 83, 95-96, 114,

130, 203, 211, 212, 252-254, 278,

309-310, 313

Wada, Yori, 155-156, 196, 198
Waldhorn, Steve, 261, 262
Walker, Brooks, 192
Washington, Eddie, 126
Watt is Foundation, 165
Watts, Malcolm, 138-139, 175
Webb, Jean Vaughn Smith, 271-272
Weinberger, Caspar, 105, 109, 184
Wells Fargo Bank, 185-186
Wentworth, Mauser and Violich, 291
Wert, Robert, 64-65
Whitaker, Aileen (Skip), 23
White, Barbara, 287
White, Llewellyn, 147
Whitman, Fred, 138

328

Wilbur, Cole, 232

Wilkie, Valleau, 220

Williams, Cecil, 122-123

Wilson, Gene, 243

Wilson, Kirke, 105, 109, 137, 142,

144, 158, 160, 168-169, 171, 186,

213, 226-229, 283, 290, 300
Wilson, Lionel, 267
women, 4-6, 13-16, 61, 65-65a, 71

72, 88-89, 114

as leaders, 116-118, 212-125

in corporations, 172, 264, 276,
286

in foundations, 140, 143, 159,
219, 284-285, 289, 292

grants to, 169, 292
Woo, Sharon, 28
World War II, 3, 4, 5

Xerox Corporation, 278

Yale University, Program on

Nonprofits, 311
Ylvisaker, Paul, 302
Yost, Mary, 13, 14
Young, Bob, 112, 128
Young, John, 127, 166
Young, Rosemary, 166
youth, 11-12, 46, 61-62, 100, 139,

147, 191-194, 211-212, 221, 309

employment, 209, 264-268

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Organizational aspects of philanthropy : San Francisco Bay Area, 1948-1988 : oral history transcript / 1990"

See other formats