Are they hedge funds with a side hustle in teaching, research and building construction? Are they tricked out memorial gardens for philanthropists? In either case leaders of educational settlements are expected to act in the best interests of both their institution and their donors, and to maintain high standards of transparency, accountability, and ethical conduct when accepting charitable gifts.
University endowments are comprised of money or other financial assets that are donated to academic institutions. Charitable donations are the primary source of funds for endowments. Endowment funds support the teaching, research, and public service missions of colleges and universities.
In the case of endowment funds for academic institutions, the income generated is intended to finance a portion of the operating or capital requirements of the institution. In addition to a general university endowment fund, institutions may also maintain a number of restricted endowments that are intended to fund specific areas within the institution, including professorships, scholarships, and fellowships.
The largest philanthropic gift ever given to a United States college or university is the donation of $9.6 billion made by MacKenzie Scott to various organizations, including several universities, in 2020. Scott, the ex-wife of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, made the donation as part of her commitment to give away the majority of her wealth to charitable causes. The universities that received donations from Scott include historically black colleges and universities, community colleges, and research universities such as the University of California, San Diego, and Johns Hopkins University. The donation was considered significant not only for its size but also for its focus on supporting organizations that serve underrepresented and marginalized communities.
There are several standards and best practices that are generally followed by universities and colleges when accepting charitable gifts. These standards are designed to ensure that the gift is used effectively and that the interests of both the donor and the institution are protected. Some of the key standards include:
Transparency and accountability: Universities and colleges are expected to be transparent about how gifts are used and to provide regular reports to donors on the impact of their gifts.
Due diligence: Universities and colleges are expected to conduct due diligence on potential donors to ensure that their gifts do not create conflicts of interest or ethical concerns.
Gift acceptance policies: Many universities and colleges have established gift acceptance policies that outline the types of gifts that will be accepted and the procedures for accepting them.
Donor recognition: Universities and colleges are expected to recognize donors in an appropriate and meaningful way, while avoiding actions that could be seen as an endorsement of the donor’s business or political interests.
Ethical fundraising: Universities and colleges are expected to follow ethical fundraising practices, including avoiding pressure tactics or misleading information, and ensuring that donors are aware of any tax implications of their gifts.
Overall, universities and colleges are expected to act in the best interests of both their institution and their donors, and to maintain high standards of transparency, accountability, and ethical conduct when accepting charitable gifts.
Most educational settlements are not overloaded by signage by design but distracted management (overlapping temporary signs, inconsistent styles) or large footprints supports the perception. Today at the usual hour we explore the literature covering exterior and interior signage with emphases on coherence and necessity.
Signage must align with the educational institution’s brand identity, including logos, colors, and typography (e.g., Helvetica font is often specified, as seen in some university standards).
Corporate logos are typically prohibited on primary exterior signage to maintain institutional focus.
Compliance with Local Zoning and Building Codes
Signs must adhere to municipal zoning regulations, which dictate size, height, placement, and illumination (e.g., NYC Building Code Appendix H or similar local codes).
Permits may be required, and signage must not obstruct traffic visibility or pedestrian pathways.
ADA Accessibility Requirements
Exterior signs identifying permanent spaces (e.g., entrances or exits) must meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards, including visual character requirements (legible fonts, sufficient contrast).
Tactile signs with Braille are required at specific locations like exit stairways or discharge points, per the U.S. Access Board guidelines, though not all exterior signs need to be tactile.
Wayfinding and Identification Functionality
Signs should clearly identify buildings, provide directional guidance, and include essential information (e.g., building names, departments, or campus districts).
Placement is typically near main entrances, limited to one per building unless otherwise justified.
Material and Durability Standards
Materials must be weather-resistant and durable (e.g., extruded or cast aluminum with finishes like natural or dark bronze, avoiding plastic in some cases).
Maintenance considerations ensure longevity and legibility over time.
Size and Placement Restrictions
Size is often regulated (e.g., no larger than necessary for legibility, with some institutions capping temporary signs at 32 square feet).
Placement avoids upper building portions unless in urban settings or campus peripheries, ensuring aesthetic harmony.
Approval and Review Processes
Exterior signage often requires review by a campus design or sign committee (e.g., a university’s Design Review Board).
For partnerships or donor-funded buildings, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) may govern signage rights and standards.
Safety and Visibility Standards
Signs must not create hazards (e.g., minimum clearance of 7.5 feet above walkways, no sharp edges).
Illumination, if allowed, must comply with safety codes and enhance visibility without causing glare or distraction.
Temporary Signage Regulations
Temporary signs (e.g., banners or construction signs) have time limits (e.g., 30-90 days per year) and must be approved, with size and frequency restrictions. The National Electrical Code Article 590 covers temporary wiring for festoon illumination and defines “temporary” as 90 days.
Somewhat Related:
Before CAD, Architect wrote like this. A handwriting everyone could understand. pic.twitter.com/dYyIJMNsOx
This content is accessible to paid subscribers. To view it please enter your password below or send mike@standardsmichigan.com a request for subscription details.
None of these four distinguished Michigan graduates have a University of Michigan campus building bearing his name: Thomas Weller (Nobel Laureate), Frank Murphy (US Supreme Court Justice). Kelly Johnson (Aeronautical Engineer of World War II aircraft), Claude Shannon (Pioneer of Superintelligence now transforming the world)
We examine the proposals for the 2028 National Electrical Safety Code; including our own. The 2026 National Electrical Code where sit on CMP-15 overseeing health care facility electrical issues should be released any day now. We have one proposal on the agenda of the International Code Council’s Group B Committee Action Hearings in Cleveland in October. Balloting on the next IEEE Gold Book on reliability should begin.
FERC Open Meetings | (Note that these ~60 minute sessions meet Sunshine Act requirements. Our interest lies one or two levels deeper into the technicals underlying the administrivia)
Department of Electrical Engineering, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei City, Taiwan
First Draft Proposals contain most of our proposals — and most new (original) content. We will keep the transcripts linked below but will migrate them to a new page starting 2025:
N.B. We are in the process of migrating electric power system research to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers bibliographic format.
Recap of the May meetings of the Industrial & Commercial Power Systems Conference in Las Vegas. The conference ended the day before the beginning of the 3-day Memorial Day weekend in the United States so we’re pressed for time; given all that happened.
We can use our last meeting’s agenda to refresh the status of the issues.
We typically break down our discussion into the topics listed below:
Codes & Standards:
While IAS/I&CPS has directed votes on the NEC; Mike is the only I&CPS member who is actually submitting proposals and responses to codes and standards developers to the more dominant SDO’s — International Code Council, ASHRAE International, UL, ASTM International, IEC & ISO. Mike maintains his offer to train the next generation of “code writers and vote getters”
Performance-based building premises feeder design has been proposed for the better part of ten NEC revision cycles. The objective of these proposals is to reduce material, labor and energy waste owed to the branch and feeder sizing rules that are prescriptive in Articles 210-235. Our work in service and lighting branch circuit design has been largely successful. A great deal of building interior power chain involves feeders — the network upstream from branch circuit panels but down stream from building service panel.
Our history of advocating for developing this approach, inspired by the NFPA 101 Guide to Alternative Approaches to Life Safety, and recounted in recent proposals for installing performance-based electrical feeder design into the International Building Code, appears in the link below:
Access to this draft paper for presentation at any conference that will receive it — NFPA, ICC or IEEE (or even ASHRAE) will be available for review at the link below:
NFPA 110 Definitions of Public Utility v. Merchant Utility
NFPA 72 “Definition of Dormitory Suite” and related proposals
Buildings:
Renovation economics, Smart contracts in electrical construction. UMich leadership in aluminum wiring statements in the NEC should be used to reduce wiring costs.
This paper details primary considerations in estimating the life cycle of a campus medium voltage distribution grid. Some colleges and universities are selling their entire power grid to private companies. Mike has been following these transactions but cannot do it alone.
Variable Architecture Multi-Island Microgrids
District energy:
Generator stator winding failures and implications upon insurance premiums. David Shipp and Sergio Panetta. Mike suggests more coverage of retro-fit and lapsed life cycle technicals for insurance companies setting premiums.
Reliability:
Bob Arno’s leadership in updating the Gold Book.
Mike will expand the sample set in Table 10-35, page 293 from the <75 data points in the 1975 survey to >1000 data points. Bob will set up meeting with Peyton at US Army Corps of Engineers.
Reliability of merchant utility distribution systems remains pretty much a local matter. The 2023 Edition of the NESC shows modest improvement in the vocabulary of reliability concepts. For the 2028 Edition Mike submitted several proposals to at least reference IEEE titles in the distribution reliability domain. It seems odd (at least to Mike) that the NESC committees do not even reference IEEE technical literature such as Bob’s Gold Book which has been active for decades. Mike will continue to propose changes in other standards catalogs — such as ASTM, ASHRAE and ICC — which may be more responsive to best practice assertions. Ultimately, improvements will require state public utility commission regulations — and we support increases in tariffs so that utilities can afford these improvements.
Mike needs help from IEEE Piscataway on standard WordPress theme limitations for the data collection platform.
Mike will update the campus power outage database.
Healthcare:
Giuseppe Parise’s recent work in Italian power grid to its hospitals, given its elevated earthquake risk. Mike’s review of Giuseppe’s paper:
Mike and David Shipp will prepare a position paper for the Harvard Healthcare Management Journal on reliability advantages of impedance grounding for the larger systems.
The Internet of Bodies
Forensics:
Giuseppe’s session was noteworthy for illuminating the similarity and differences between the Italian and US legal system in handling electrotechnology issues.
Mike will restock the committee’s library of lawsuits transactions.
Ports:
Giuseppe updates on the energy and security issues of international ports. Mike limits his time in this committee even though the State of Michigan has the most fresh water international ports in the world.
A PROPOSED GUIDE FOR THE ENERGY PLAN AND ELECTRICAL INFRASTRUCTURE OF A PORT
Other:
Proposals to the 2028 National Electrical Safety Code: Accepted Best Practice, exterior switchgear guarding, scope expansion into ICC and ASHRAE catalog,
Apparently both the Dot Standards and the Color Books will continue parallel development. Only the Gold Book is being updated; led by Bob Arno. Mike admitted confusion but reminded everyone that any references to IEEE best practice literature in the NFPA catalog, was installed Mike himself (who would like some backup help)
Mike assured Christel Hunter (General Cable) that his proposals for reducing the 180 VA per-outlet requirements, and the performance-base design allowance for building interior feeders do not violate the results of the Neher-McGrath calculation used for conductor sizing. All insulation and conducting material thermal limits are unaffected.
Other informal discussions centered on the rising cost of copper wiring and the implications for the global electrotechnical transformation involving the build out of quantum computing and autonomous vehicles. Few expressed optimism that government ambitions for the same could be met in any practical way.
Are students avoiding use of Chat GPT for energy conservation reasons? Mike will be breaking out this topic for a dedicated standards inquiry session:
Today at the usual hour we examine the case studies undertaken by Department of Energy to explore the feasibility of buildings powered by entirely by direct current. Use the login credentials at the upper right of our home page.
New update alert! The 2022 update to the Trademark Assignment Dataset is now available online. Find 1.29 million trademark assignments, involving 2.28 million unique trademark properties issued by the USPTO between March 1952 and January 2023: https://t.co/njrDAbSpwBpic.twitter.com/GkAXrHoQ9T
