Gift Solicitation, Acceptance, and Receipt Policy
This policy was posted for public comment from January 19 – February 3, 2022.
Comments
|
The last sentence in section A2 is not correct. To accomplish the intent of the sentence it needs to be revised to say, "The Office of Sponsored Projects administers all publicly funded or supported projects. Public funding or support includes funding or support from government entities. Projects include grants, collaborative agreements, designations, waivers, and other types of sponsored projects" |
|
My concern is when departments receive real property (usually equipment etc.) and when it comes time for the department to surplus the item(s) it cost surplus and or the department for proper disposal of the item(s). The other concern is when the items that require a MSO (motorcycles, UTV, ATC etc.) or Title (vehicles, trailers and other large equipment) to show ownership the department(s) do not receive the MSO or title nor does the department forward the MSO or Title to the business office and they lose it. Then it costs fleet and the department many man hours to show ownership so we can sale or disposal. |
|
As the Supervisor of Surplus Operations, I see several points of concern. First what items does the Foundation consider health/safety issues? Who will they contact for clarification? How will the Foundation work with SLCC departments that have a known history of accepting donations that escape any known process and thus become problematic in dealing with once they have reached end of life? If there are items disposed of through any means other than Surplus Sales who will be responsible for accrued charges? If Surplus Operations becomes aware of an item being a donation years after acceptance, who will we contact to get clarification of ownership and whether we are permitted to dispose of the item, sales, trash, e-waste, etc. Will any equipment donated that requires proof of ownership be supplied and maintained by the College Business Office to ensure proper stewardship? i.e., Vehicle titles, MSOs, etc. |
|
I am concerned about the language in section E.4 being contradictory to guidance provided by the Office of the State Auditor, which states: "It is the Office of the State Auditor’s position that any funds received by institutional employees, including the development office, are considered institution funds unless there is convincing evidence that the donor’s intent was for the funds to go to the foundation. For example, checks received made payable to the institution would be considered institution funds; checks made payable to the foundation or checks received with instructions that they are intended for the foundation would be considered foundation funds." |
|
The way the current policy section is written seems to give more discretion to College employees about what being received "in error" means, as opposed to the criteria of "convincing evidence that the donor's intent was for the funds to go to the foundation." I would suggest this language be revisited and brought more in line with the State Auditor's guidance to prevent future scrutiny and possible noncompliance. |
|
Section E, Line 6 - Please clarify how value will be determined for receipt of items for donor who may desire documentation related for tax contribution reporting, etc. While section D predominantly clarifies this aspect, it seems appropriate for college representatives with experience in respective academic programs to advise the Development Office of reasonable value & college worth. Often first contact for tangible donation items are connected through respective college academic programs, faculty, SLCC Art Committee, etc. and thereby assume a "college representative" may collaborate with Development Office to articulate donation values and acceptability, safety aspects, etc. Does this collaborative aspect need to be clarified? |
Responses
Lack of Clarity Regarding Development Office and Office for Sponsored Project’s Responsibilities for Private Grants (IV.A.2)
This suggested revision was partially adopted. The last sentence now reads:
“All private donors must arrange gifts through the SLCCF and the Development Office. Federal and state agency grants, collaborative agreements, designations, waivers and other types of government sponsored projects are the responsibility of the Office of Sponsored Projects”
Failure to Evaluate Expenses Related to Maintenance and Disposal of In-Kind Gifts (IV.C.1, 2 and 3)
In response to this concern, Section IV.C entitled “Gifts Not Accepted” has been revised to state as follows:
“Proposed gifts-in-kind must be approved by the vice-president for Institutional Advancement, prior to acceptance. Prior to this acceptance determination, the executive director for Development will evaluate this proposed gift-in-kind, in coordination with the SLCCF board and vice-president for Finance & Administration. After this required consultation, the executive director for Development will recommend to the vice president for Institutional Advancement whether the gift-in-kind should be accepted. In deciding, the vice-president for Institutional Advancement, may, if deemed appropriate, consult with the President and Executive Cabinet.”
Need for Compliance with State Auditor’s Directive Regarding Fund Transfer Procedures When a Gift Is Inadvertently Made to the College Instead of the College Foundation (IV.E.4)
In response to this comment, section IV.E.4 has been revised to state as follow:
“Funds directed to the college in error rather than to the SLCCF, may be deposited through the normal course of business, and subsequently remitted to the SLCCF upon approval by the vice president for Finance and Administration or designee. Such a transfer may only be authorized if there is clear and convincing evidence that the donor intended the funds to go to the SLCCF instead of the college.”
Concern with Development Office Not Providing Valuations for Gifts-In-Kind (IV.E.6)
Section IV.E.6 states that “College representatives will not establish a value for gifts-in-kind.” IRS Form 8283 entitled “Noncash Charitable Contributions” obligates the donor to file this form to obtain a charitable contribution for this gift.
On IRS Form 8283, an appraiser is required to declare the value of the gift. In this appraiser declaration, it states: “I declare that I perform appraisal on a regular basis and that because of my qualification, as described in the appraisal, I am qualified to make appraisal of the type of property being valued.” Likewise, IRS Publication 561 entitled “Determining the Value of Donated Property” establishes the parameters for developing fair market value for a gift in kind. These valuation methodologies are as follows: 1) cost or selling price of the item; 2) sales of comparable properties; 3) replacement costs; and 4) opinion of expert.
The Development Office, nor the college, has the expertise to complete the appraisal declaration set forth above. In addition, the Development Office lacks adequate resources to conduct valuation research on donated items. Typically, the college requires donors, particularly on larger valued gifts-in-kind to have their own appraisals conducted. Under such circumstances, the college requests a copy of the appraisal for its records. While some faculty members at SLCC may have some educational background, training, and experience to determine the value of a gift-in-kind donation, the Development Office does not request them to make such a valuation because this is not a best practice for development offices. However, the Development Office may consult faculty on the desirability for the college possessing a collection related to a particular academic discipline.