Could the Baxter State Park Authority accept private gifts and donations for the park?

Plain-English summary

The Baxter State Park Authority asked whether it could accept grants, gifts, or donations for the park. The Attorney General's office concluded that Governor Percival Baxter's trust instruments did not bar outside gifts when their use remained within the trusts and his intent.

Under the 1986 statutory arrangement, the Authority itself had express power to receive and spend trust money and park income. A separate statute authorized the Governor to accept gifts for the state or empower an agency to accept them. The opinion therefore said the Governor could accept a gift restricted to park use or authorize the Authority to do so, with an implied power to use it consistently with the Authority's mission.

The gift's conditions mattered. A donor could not change the trust's nature, enlarge its scope unreasonably, defeat its purpose, create a memorial, or become involved in park management. The opinion recommended accepting only irrevocable gifts whose sole condition was compliance with the Baxter trusts and Governor Baxter's intent.

The Authority also had to keep outside gifts separate from Governor Baxter's trust funds because a charitable trustee owed a duty not to commingle trust assets.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1986. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Who this opinion addressed in 1986

Baxter State Park Authority members

The Authority could receive a compliant gift when empowered by the Governor. Its discretion over use remained governed by the trusts and Governor Baxter's intent rather than donor control.

Prospective donors

The opinion favored an irrevocable gift with no added restriction beyond conformity with the trusts. It rejected memorial conditions and arrangements that could involve donors in park decisions.

Charitable trustees

Outside gifts had to support the settled charitable purpose and remain separate from the existing Baxter trust funds.

Common questions

Q: Could the Authority accept a gift on its own statutory power? A: The opinion read the existing park statute as limiting direct receipts to trust funds and park income, but said the Governor could accept a gift or empower the Authority to accept it.

Q: Could a donor require a memorial in the park? A: No. The opinion said Governor Baxter strongly opposed using the park as a memorial and advised against any such condition.

Q: Could a gift carry detailed restrictions on park management? A: The opinion advised that the only condition should be compliance with the Baxter trusts and intent, so donor terms did not conflict with park governance.

Q: Could outside gifts be placed in the existing trust accounts? A: No. The opinion said they should not be commingled with Governor Baxter's trust funds.

Background and statutory framework

The park statute appeared at 12 M.R.S.A. §§ 900, et seq., with the Authority's receipt and expenditure power in 12 M.R.S .. A. § 901 (1981). The opinion also quoted the Governor's gift-acceptance authority in 2 M. R. S . A. •. § 5 { 19 79), as amended in 1981 to allow an authorized or empowered agency to receive gifts.

The trust analysis looked first to the instruments, which were silent about third-party gifts, and then to Governor Baxter's conduct and correspondence. State appropriations and Baxter's own additional payments supported the conclusion that outside money was not categorically forbidden, while his opposition to memorial projects established an important limit.

Citations and references

Statutes as transcribed:

• 12 M.R.S.A. §§ 900, et seq.
• 12 M.R.S .. A. § 901 (1981)
• 2 M. R. S . A. •. § 5 { 19 79)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.maine.gov/legis/lawlib/lldl/agops/agops.htm
• Original PDF: https://lldc.mainelegislature.org/Open/AG/Opinions/1986/ag_19861211.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

JAMES E. TIERNEY
ATTORNEY GENERAL

STATE OF MAINE
DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATE HOUSE STATION 6
AUGUSTA, MAINE 04333

December 11, 1986

Irvin c. Caverly, Jr., Director
Baxter State Park Authority
64 Balsam Drive
Millinocket, Maine 04462
Re: Donations to Baxter State Park
Dear Buzz:
I have been asked to provide advice regarding the legality of the Authority accepting grants, gifts or.donations for Baxter State Park. Generally,_the Trust instruments present no bar to such gifts, so long as the use thereof is limited by the terms of the Trust and the intent of Governor Baxter. Under the present statutory scheme, the Governor of the State may accept gifts or empower the Authority to accept gifts for the benefit of the Park.
The legality of the Authority accepting gifts for the benefit of the Park·is governed by the provisions of 12 M.R.S.A. §§ 900, et seq., as well as the intent of Governor Baxter as expressed in the various Trust documents and, perhaps, extrinsic evidence. Pursuant to its statutory. authority, the Park Authority has power to receive and expend monies only from the trust funds and the income derived from the Park. 12 M.R.S .. A. § 901 (1981). In 1981, the Legislature amended the statutory provision dealing with acceptance of gifts bv the Governor of the State. Prior to the arnendrnent, the legislation provided as follows:
 - 2 -

"The Governor is authorized to accept in the n~~e of the State any and all gifts, bequests, grants or. conveyances to the State of Maine. " 2 M. R. S . A. •. § 5 { 19 79) . the following language was added:
"No other state official or any member of any other branch·of State Government may accept any gift, grant or conveyance tO the State. or to that branch of government . . . unless ·specifically authorized to do so by statute or by clear implication, or unless empowered to do so by the Governor."
P.L. 1981, c. 53 (emphasis added).
Thus, it is possible now for the Governor of the State to accept gifts expressly restricted to be used for Baxter Park, and to utilize such gifts as State appropriations for the Park. Governor Baxter did not appear to object to State appropriations. Indeed, at least in one instance, Governor axter. encouraged State appropriations to pay for Park rangers letter of September 27, 1962, from Baxter to Austin Wilkins).
In addition, and significantly, the Governor can generally power the Authority to accept gifts.l/ Although one can gue that the applicable legislation does not empower the vernor or the Authority to expend or utilize such gifts, such ower appears to be implied from the legislation so long as uch expenditure is otherwise in conformance with the uthority' s mission.. "The grant of an express power carries ith it the authority to exercise all other activities asonably necessary to carry it into effect . . . " 3 Sands, :utherland Statutor Construction [3d ed.]., § 65. 03. In this atter;, the grant of express power tb the Governor to accept ifts or authorize an agency to accept gifts also carries with the implied power to utilize the gift as the donor desired to empower the agency to do so, unless, of cours,e, such ilization otherwise.conflicts with law or the trust. There pears no conflict with any applicable statute nor, as scussed below, Governor Baxter's trust.

1 Of course, a legislative amendment to 12 M.R.S.A. § 901, ec~fically empowering the Authority to accept and expend tside gifts would make it unnecessary for the Governor to be Valved in this issue and would clarify the situation.
 - 3 -

With regard to any trust restriction on acceptance of gifts, . Gover3:1or Baxter's i3:1tention on this matter must be· determined first by analyzing the language of the Trust document-s. Mooney v. Northeast Bank & Trust Co., 377 A.2d 120 {Me. 1977); Fiduciary Trust Co. v. Brown, 152 Me. 360 (1957). charitable trusts are favorites of the law, and t~e court construes the language thereof liberally to permit charitable intentions to shine through. Grigson v. Harding, 154 Me. 185 (1958); Bates v. Schillinger, 12a Me. 14 (1929). I have reviewed Governor Baxter's deeds of land to the State, and they are silent regarding gifts from third parties. ··The documents creating the Trust funds arealso silent on this issue. These Trust instruments, therefore, neither prohibit nor authorize the use of funds from additional sources.
· Since the Trust documents are silent on the issue and charitable trusts are liberally construed to achieve the intentions of the settlor, it can be said that acceptance of gifts to achieve the purposes of the settler not only fails to conflict with the Trust but, moreover, is in furtherance and conformity therewith.; The Trustees have such powers as are expressly or impliedly given them by the settler or are vested • in them by statute. Bogert, Trustee & Trustees [ 2d ed. rev. ] , § 391. Although Trustees might not be authorized to accept any and all gifts from third parties to the Trust, it has been held that "a gift which does not change the nature of the trust, unreasonably enlarge its scope, or thwart or defeat its essential purpose, and which in amount·is in reasonable proportion to the requirements of the Trust, is within the authority of the trustees" to hold and use in accordance with the trust instrument. Danaldson v. Borough of Madison, 213 A.2d 33, 46 (N.J. Sup. Ct. 1965). In Danaldson; the New Jersey court approved a·bequest from the_husband of the settler to· cover increased costs in maintenance of a building which was • the object of the trust. With respect to the Park, so long as a gift does not attempt to change the nature o.r purpose of· the Trust, it would appear a gift cDuld be received because of the size of the Park and magnitude of the Authority's mission.
Governor Baxter's actions and statements regarding gifts from third parties do not appear to evince a prohibition on such. Where the Trust contains no express provision, it can be argued that reference mav be made to extrinsic evidence to ~etermine the intent of the settler, see generally II Scott on Trusts, § 164 .1. • Records do indicate that during his' lifetime, Baxter himself paid directly for many aspects of the Park's operations. See,~, letters from Baxter dated May 30, 1960 offering to pay for part of a Park road; dated February 28, offering flLTJ.ds in addition to State appropriation; dated ·september 22, 1965 authorizing expenses for gate house. The state of Maine itself also appropriated funds for the operation ·of the Park. See, ~ , Resolves 1953, c. 102, _Resolves 19:63, c. 70. See also letters from Baxter dated September 27, 1962 asking that money for the rangers come from State approp~iations and not his special trust fund.
The correspondence and actions of Governor Baxter indicate he was deeply concerned that no one be allowed t9 use the Park as a memorial and that he be involved in major park decisions during his lifetime. (Letters of August 27, 1965 from Baxter to Austin Wilkins, and of August 30, 1965 from Baxter to Richard J. Dubord.) As you may recall, Governor Baxter strongly objected to the acceptance of funds from the Appalachian Mountain Club for the erection of bunkhouses and purchase of rescue equipment. The concern raised by Governor axter with -respect to the Appalachian Moun~ain Club bunkhouse atter appears to be twofold: that Governor Baxter be nvolved, during his lifetime, with any major decisions, and hat the Park not be used as~ memorial to anyone who wanted· to rovide money _for such.
With Governor Baxter's death, the administration of the ark is in the hands of the Authority whose broad powers and iscretion are limited by the terms of the Trust and intent of vernor Baxter. Normand v. -Baxter State Park Authority, 509 . 640 (1986); State v. Fin & Feather Chlb, 316 A.2d 351, 355 e. 1974). Obviously, no gift should be accepted if it is nditioned on being used as a memorial or for a memorial ructure. Further, as- discussed above and to avoid tanglement and conflict between the conditions of· Baxter's ust and any conditions attached to outside gifts, the thority should accept gifts and donations only if such are evocable and, at mast, conditioned on conformance with the ust and intent of Governor Baxter, with no additional strictions. In this way, there will .be no question that the tharity' s actions regarding the use of the gift is dictated lely by the Trust, the donors will not become involved in the agement of the Park, there will be no memo'rials in the Park, d the Authority would not have to addre-ss conflicts each time gift is presented to it for acceptance. Simply put, if eane wishes to make a gift, grant or donation to the Park, should be an irrevocable gift to the Authority to use in J formance with the Trust and intent of Governor Baxter.
 - 5 -

Finally, if such gifts are accepted, it appears that they should not be corning led with Governor Baxter's trust funds.
,rhe trustee for a charity owes a duty to keep his trust funo.s separate. Bogert, supra at§ 396. If I can be of any further assistance, please do not to call on me.
Sincerely,

PAUL STERN
Assistant Attorney General

State Park Authority Members