To the editor:

I’d like to respond to Mr. Seuferling’s reply to my original comments.

Original comment: “but surely the powers that be could’ve convinced the donors the money could’ve been used for more justifiable purposes.”

Mr. Seuferling’s response: “When it comes to charitable giving, donors are ‘the powers that be.’ About 95 percent of all contributions to the Kansas University Endowment Association are designated for a worthy project or fund. For example, using the $1 million gift from the Robert H. Malott family for any purpose other than the new Malott Gateway for which the Malotts have designated their contribution would be a serious breach of trust.”

No sir, I’m sorry but, in my humble opinion, the “powers that be” are still KU administrators. They define the need; the Endowment Association finds the donors. I also feel reasonably sure that the Malott family would have been more than willing to discuss with KU and the Endowment Association diversion of some if not all of their generous gift to alleviating some of the $7 million shortfall.

Perhaps not, but did anyone ask?

“Tapping … gift or any private funds to make up for the state’s budget shortfall would also blur the distinction between state and private support of KU. It would strike at the very core of the mission of KU Endowment, which is ‘to build a greater university than the state alone can build.'”

Ummmmmm? Which is greater; a university that takes care of its own by whatever means or closes museums and eliminates people rather than step up and show the state lawmakers how important it feels programs, students and people are?

John Hamm,

Lawrence