I think this back and forth about what it means, by what I assume are well-educated people, goes to the argument that it is basically written in confusing lawyer jargon and not easily digestible to the average person.
You initially said “a pension fund to offset taxes.” What I would take issue with there is using pension and endowment interchangeably when they’re not at all interchangeable, and the use of the word “offset” when it’s supposed to eliminate and replace, not simply offset, taxes (unless it becomes insolvent, in which case they would have to get voter approval to bring taxes back. Yikes!).
But I agree with your point that the taxpayers shouldn’t be deciding this in the first place because even if it were written clearly, there’s not enough information you can fit in the space to let anyone make an informed decision. You’d have to understand what an endowment is, what incentives have historically been created by them, and most importantly (what critics have been asking), where would the money be coming from?
My interpretation of where the money is coming from is bribes. That’s a detail in the word “donations” I didn’t get from the wall of text that is that amendment, but from further reading.
My main source was this article.
I really like that you point this out because a thriving society takes care of their vulnerable and disabled populations in this way. A lot of disabled people in the US want to work, but mostly due to disability asset caps along with the actual disability, they can’t.