E.3. Guidelines for Proposals to the Gifts and Bequests Committee
Spring 1992
Development Policy and Administration Manual
Chapter III. Gift Administration Policy
Section E. Allocating and Reallocating Gift Funds
*************************************************************
GUIDELINES FOR PROPOSALS TO THE GIFTS AND BEQUESTS
REVIEW COMMITTEE
A. The Committee: Purpose and Constitution
The Gifts and Bequests Review Committee is appointed by the
President for advice on the allocation (the designation of
campus, purpose, or type of fund, and the implementation of such
a designation) of gifts and bequests when a donor has failed to
make any or all of those designations. The Committee normally
meets twice each year, whenever there are enough items pending to
form an agenda.
The Committee comprises administrators whose task is to weigh the
needs of the University and the ultimate benefits to be derived
from alternative allocations or reallocations of a fund. When
the market value of a fund is in excess of $500,000, the
Committee makes recommendations to the President, who in turn
makes recommendations to The Regents. The Regents have delegated
to the President authority to allocate funds of $500,000 or less,
and he in turn has redelegated this authority to the Senior Vice
President--Academic Affairs, who is Chairman of the Committee.
B. Chancellors' Notification
When enough items are pending to form an agenda for the Gifts and
Bequests Review Committee, notification is mailed to all
Chancellors. The Chancellors' Notification includes lists of all
the gifts to be considered and all the information known that
would affect the Chancellors' recommendations. It is normally
mailed allowing approximately six weeks for response, and a copy
is sent simultaneously to the attention of the chief development
officer on each campus. Proposals are to be submitted to the
Committee only by the Chancellors.
C. Campus Proposals
The Chancellors' proposals and recommendations are to be address-
ed to the Senior Vice President--Academic Affairs, in care of the
Director--Development Policy and Administration, Office of the
President, who is Secretary to the Committee.
It is usually not to a campus's advantage to submit more than one
proposal for the same fund; if, however, the Chancellor elects to
do so, the proposals should be ranked in order of priority.
How extensive should proposals be? This depends on the nature of
the allocation decision(s) to be made. However, proposals should
run no more than three pages in length, although attachments may
be provided. A suggested format may be found at the end of this
section.
Campus Undesignated. If the fund appears on the Chancellors'
Notification as an item for which the donor has not designated a
campus, campuses should provide any information available that
demonstrates a prior relationship or other connection with the
donor if such existed. If no relationship existed, or if the
donor has not been specific about purpose or type of fund, the
proposal should elaborate on those points as described below.
In the case of funds for purposes other than student aid, includ-
ing funds for medical research, campuses should stress their
particular qualifications for making use of the fund.
In the case of student aid funds, one of two factors is generally
controlling in determining to which campus the gift will be
allocated: 1) A prior relationship or other connection between
the campus and the donor; or 2) the recommendation of Financial
Aid and Loan Collection, Office of the President. This recom-
mendation is generally based upon a determination of the campus
with the lowest per capita endowed scholarship income, either
overall in the case of general endowed funds, or for a particular
sub-group (for example, medical students) if the donor has
imposed such a restriction.
Unless a campus can show a specific donor connection (e.g.,
alumni status, gifts by the donor during his/her lifetime,
donations by family members), the Committee will normally follow
the recommendation of Financial Aid and Loan Collection, Office
of the President. Therefore, it is usually not effective for
campuses to submit proposals based on more general grounds (e.g.,
geographical proximity).
Proposals for allocation of student aid funds should therefore
either consist of a simple statement explaining the donor's
connection to the campus or citing the recommendation of Finan-
cial Aid and Loan Collection, Office of the President and indi-
cating a willingness to accept the bequest, as well as proposing
a type of fund if necessary (see below).
Purpose Undesignated. A determination of how extensive a pro-
posal is necessary next depends on the purpose specified by the
donor, if any.
If the donor has already named the campus and has designated that
the bequest be used to support a specific program, unit, or func-
tion that is well-established, it is only necessary to propose a
type of fund.
If, however, a donor has designated a gift only broadly to
establish a new program or significantly expand an existing one,
or if the donor has not named a campus, then the Committee will
wish to see a proposal that addresses in some detail how the
funds would be used. In these cases the proposal should include:
-- The name(s) of the individual(s) responsible for the
proposal, together with a sentence or two indicating
background and qualifications.
-- A description of the purpose for which funding is
sought. Is the project new or ongoing? What is unique
about it? What is the Committee helping to enable if
it recommends allocation of a gift for this purpose
that otherwise might not occur?
-- The amount of funding needed to support the purpose.
How much of the total support for the purpose would
come from allocation of the gift?
-- If the gift for allocation does not provide total sup-
port,what other sources of funding are on hand? What
prospects are being sought out?
-- How does this project fit into the campus's overall
academic plan?
The Committee has established no formal criteria for the types of
proposals to be given priority, but weighs the proposals for
funding by a particular gift against one another to determine
which proposals will have the largest impact in fulfilling the
University's mission. In general, the Committee prefers pro-
posals that follow the wishes of the donor as fully as possible,
as far as they are explicit. It also considers whether a
proposed allocation will provide a significant, lasting memorial
to the donor, though especially in the case of smaller funds this
may not be possible. Finally, the Committee prefers proposals
for purposes that will provide long-term benefits.
In the case of student aid funds, campuses are encouraged not to
recommend use for a particular type of aid beyond any restric-
tions of purpose imposed by the donor; such further restriction
should be handled administratively to give as much future flexi-
bility as possible.
Type of Fund Undesignated. Proposals should be explicit about
the type of fund intended. Four options are available: fund
functioning as an endowment; current fund; plant fund; and loan
fund. (A true endowment is so-designated by the donor.) See
Section III: F.1 for more information about fund types.
It is suggested that proposals favor allocation as funds func-
tioning as endowments for gifts in excess of $100,000, unless a
compelling justification for other needs is presented. Since the
majority of gifts received are for current use, it becomes
important to build the University's endowment as a foundation for
the future.
D. The Allocation Process
When proposals have been received, the information is circulated
to the Committee approximately one week before the Committee
meets. When complicated proposals or a large number of proposals
are received, they are sometimes reviewed by a sub-committee,
which in turn makes recommendations to the full committee.
Chancellors are informed by the Senior Vice President--Academic
Affairs of the Committee's recommendations. When a fund exceeds
$500,000, allocation rests in the hands of The Regents, and the
President's recommendation is submitted to them at their next
meeting. Chancellors and development officers will also be
informed of The Regents' action by the Senior Vice President--
Academic Affairs. The President has redelegated to the Senior
Vice President--Academic Affairs the authority to reallocate
funds of $500,000 or less. In the case of action by the Senior
Vice President--Academic Affairs, Chancellors and development
officers will receive a copy of the allocation letter, which is
sent to the University Controller, Office of the President.
GIFTS AND BEQUESTS REVIEW COMMITTEE
University of California
Development Policy and Administration
Office of the President
Approved by Chancellor
PROPOSAL FOR REVIEW BY GIFTS AND BEQUESTS REVIEW COMMITTEE
Name of Estate:
Date Proposal Due at Office of the President:
Title of Proposal:
Campus Submitting Proposal:
Amount Requested:
Type of Fund:
Will the Campus Assess a Gift Fee? If so, how much?
Campus Contact Person:
Recommended Purpose: