Sponsorship

This policy was posted for public comment from April 15 – 30, 2026

Comments have been condensed and reformatted.

Responses

There needs to be an exception made for The Grand Theatre Foundation. As a separate 501(c)3 there needs to be some provisions regarding our grants, private donations, and community partnerships and sponsorships.

Thank you for the comment. An exception for the Grand Theatre Foundation has been added to the procedure.

Clarification is needed on how this applies to hosted programs that are funded from outside entities for sponsorship of workshops, events, etc. It would be helpful to know the criteria that are used to determine whether a sponsorship is qualified or not qualified to ensure that the correct expectations are set with potential sponsors.

Thank you for the comments. For the VBRC and other hosted programs funded by outside entities, the intent remains the same that these campus partners coordinate with the Development Office and SLCC Foundation -- based in Institutional Advancement. This policy formalizes the need for that coordination. Sections 4.B.2.c&d provide clarification regarding what sponsors are allowed to do for qualified and nonqualified sponsorships, respectively. This information is taken from the IRS code listed in section 2. References. Generally, if a sponsorship involves advertisements (“a message that promotes or markets a business, service, or product” [defined in 3.A.]), then it is a nonqualified sponsorship creating a tax liability for the college.

Terminology Concerns

Section 1 – Concern about the phrase, “non-college entities.” Specifically, that the phrase could be read too narrowly. Depending on the circumstances, another college or university could potentially act as a sponsor, and the policy statement may unintentionally suggest otherwise.

Thank you for the comment. This has been revised to ”non-SLCC entities.”

3.C & D – Concerns about the definitions for Nonqualified and Qualified Sponsorship. Specifically, suggestions to consider clarifying the distinction between qualified and nonqualified sponsorships. The phrase “meets IRS guidelines” reads vague without further explanation. Also, consider revising the definition to make clear that the key distinction is whether the sponsorship creates tax liability for the college, with IRS guidance informing that determination.

Thank you for the comment. The definition for Nonqualified Sponsorship has been revised to include the phrase, “such as an advertisement.” Sections 4.B.2.c&d also provide clarification regarding what sponsors are allowed to do for qualified and nonqualified sponsorships, respectively. This information is taken from the IRS code listed in section 2. References. Generally, if a sponsorship involves an advertisement (“a message that promotes or markets a business, service, or product” [defined in 3.C.]), then it is a nonqualified sponsorship creating a tax liability for the college.

3.E – Suggestion to consider adding language distinguishing donations and sponsorships. The policy may be difficult to apply where the college receives gifts, naming donations, in-kind donations, or event support that include some form of recognition.

Thank you for the comment. This policy’s scope is specifically sponsorships. Gifts fall under the Gift Solicitation, Receipt, and Acceptance Policy. Naming donations are under the scope of the Honorary Naming of College Facilities and Programs Policy. All three policies will be located under the Institutional Advancement section of the Policies and Procedures webpage, once this sponsorship policy is approved.

3.G. – Consider clarifying the relationship between this policy and other college uses of similar terminology, such as “sponsored students” and “sponsored projects.”

Thank you for your comment. Clarifying similar terminology used in other college policies or general college use is outside the scope of this policy.

4.A. Role of the Institutional Advancement Office and 4.C. Criteria for Sponsorship

4.A – should this be “The vice president for Institutional Advancement or designee” is responsible?

Thank you for the comment. Revision accepted.

4.C.2 – concern that these criteria are highly subjective and may be difficult to apply consistently without a clearer rubric or evaluation framework. It would also be helpful to clarify who evaluates a sponsor’s ethics, reputation, values, relationship with the college, and other relevant factors. Suggestion that the use of the word “values” should be defined or tied to a more objective criteria to reduce the risk of inconsistent or arbitrary application.

Thank you for the comment. 4.C.1&2 have been merged, ”The college reserves the right to select sponsors based on the sponsor’s alignment with the college’s mission and core values. In making this determination, a range of criteria may be considered, including but not limited to:” followed by the non-exhaustive criteria.

4.C.3.c – suggestion to consider defining “adult entertainment” or clarifying what the prohibited category includes. This could be read narrowly to mean sexually explicit business, but it could also be read more broadly to include adult-oriented media or events (e.g., an R-rated film screening).

Thank you for the comment. No changes were made to the policy.

4.C.4 – suggest to revise this subsection for clarity. The phrase “to promote the prohibited product with our types of products” is difficult to understand and may create an unintended loophole.

Thank you for the comment. This has been revised to state, “Sponsorships are allowed when the sponsor’s primary purpose is not to promote any of the products listed in section 4.C.3. Sponsorships may still include incidental promotion of prohibited products, provided that those prohibited products are not the main focus.”

4.D. Process for Sponsorship Approval

4.D.1 – suggestion to consider if the $5,000 threshold is too low and if lower-dollar sponsorships should have a more streamlined process. Smaller sponsorships may involve routine event support, such as paying for food trucks, refreshments, or similar event costs, and requiring a full approval and contract-review process may discourage those sponsors from participating.

Thank you for the comments. This threshold was discussed at length with multiple stakeholders from across the college. Further guidance on these types of sponsorships is provided in the Institutional Advancement Sponsorship Guidelines document that will be linked in 4.D.1.a.

4.D.1.b.(1) – suggestion that it would be helpful to make the standardized sponsorship contract template easier to access (e.g., including a hyperlink) rather than requiring departments to send an email.

Thank you for the comment. As this is a template with standardized terms, and those terms should not be changed without review by legal and others, we cannot post it online in an editable format. Hence the email intermediary step. Options for making this form available in a different format will be explored.

4.D.2.a.(5) – suggestion to provide clarification regarding the department’s role in evaluating alignment with SLCC’s mission and core values, and what criteria they should use to make that evaluation.

Thank you for the comment. The phrase, ”as outlined in Section 4.C” has been added at the end of this statement.

4.D.2.a.(6) – suggestion to revise and clarify this subsection. What is department’s role in evaluating whether the sponsor is qualified or nonqualified? This subsection is confusing because 4.B.3 says the Controller makes this determination, but this suggests departments make the determination. If departments are merely providing their opinion, it would help if the language more clearly reflected that

Thank you for the comments. The term “evaluation” has been changed to “assessment” to denote that the department is expected to put forth an estimation of the type of sponsorship. The assessment will be reviewed and the final determination will be made by the controller.

4.D.2.b&c – Consider revising the order of these provisions so the approval authority up to $50,000 appears before the approval authority for sponsorships exceeding $50,000.

Thank you for the comment. Revision accepted.

4.E. Limitations on Sponsorships & 4.G. Exception for Office of Sponsored Projects

4.E.3 – This provision appears inconsistent with how sponsorships may function in practice. If a sponsor’s name appears on a building, lab, event, or other college material, that visible recognition suggests, at least, some level of association with SLCC. It may be worth clarifying the difference between acknowledging a sponsor’s support and impermissibly endorsing the sponsor, its products, or its services.

Thank you for the comment. Sponsorships do not result in the naming of buildings, programs, etc. Gifts that result in names appearing on a building, lab, etc., are under the scope of the Honorary Naming of College Facilities and Programs Policy.

4.G – Consider clarifying why publicly funded grants and sponsored projects are excluded from this process.

Thank you for the comment. No revisions were made to the policy.

Other Suggestions

Consider clarifying the overall scope and purpose of the policy. It is not always clear whether the policy is intended to govern event sponsorships, athletics-related sponsorships, naming recognition, private donations, in-kind gifts, or some combination of those arrangements.

It may be helpful to add examples of common sponsorships covered by policy and examples of arrangements that are not covered.

Thank you for the comment. Examples will be provided in the Institutional Advancement Sponsorship Guidelines. The document will be hyperlinked in 4.D.1.a.

Comments

There needs to be an exception made for The Grand Theatre Foundation. As a separate 501(c)3 there needs to be some provisions regarding our grants, private donations, and community partnerships and sponsorships.
Clarification is needed on how this applies to hosted programs that are funded from outside entities for sponsorship of workshops, events, etc. It would be helpful to know the criteria that is used to determine whether a sponsorship is qualified or not qualified to ensure that the correct expectations are set with potential sponsors.
Policy The phrase "non-college entities" could be read too narrowly. Depending on the circumstances, another college or university could potentially act as a sponsor, and the policy statement may unintentionally suggest otherwise. References No comments. Definitions 3.C: Consider clarifying the distinction between qualified and nonqualified sponsorships. The phrase "meets IRS guidelines" reads vague without further explanation. Also, consider revising the definition to make clear that the key distinction is whether the sponsorship creates tax liability for the college, with IRS guidance informing that determination. 3.E: Consider adding language distinguishing donations and sponsorships. The policy may be difficult to apply where the college receives gifts, naming donations, in-kind donations, or event support that include some form of recognition. 3.G: Consider clarifying the relationship between this policy and other college uses of similar terminology, such as "sponsored students" and "sponsored projects." Procedures 4.A: Consider clarifying whether the Vice President for Institutional Advancement may act through a designee when carrying out the responsibilities listed in this section. 4.C.2: These criteria are highly subjective and may be difficult to apply consistently without a clearer rubric or evaluation framework. It would be helpful to clarify who evaluates a sponsor's ethics, reputation, values, relationship with the college, and other relevant factors. The use of the word "values" should be defined or tied to a more objective criteria to reduce the risk of inconsistent or arbitrary application. 4.C.3(c): Consider defining "adult entertainment" or clarifying what the prohibited category includes. It can be read narrowly to mean sexually explicit business, but it could also be read more broadly to include adult-oriented media or events (e.g., an R-rated film screening). 4.C.4: Revise this part for clarity. The phrase "to promote the prohibited product with our types of products" is difficult to understand and may create an unintended loophole. 4.D.1: Consider whether the $5,000 threshold is too low and whether lower-dollar sponsorships should have a more streamlined process. Smaller sponsorships may involve routine event support, such as paying for food trucks, refreshments, or similar event costs, and requiring a full approval and contract-review process may discourage those sponsors from participating. 4.D.1(b): It would be helpful to make the standardized sponsorship contract template easier to access (e.g., including a hyperlink) rather than requiring departments to send an email. 4.D.2.a(5): Consider clarifying the department's role in evaluating alignment with SLCC's mission and core values, and what criteria they should use to make that evaluation. 4.D.2.a(6): Consider clarifying the department's role in evaluating whether the sponsor is qualified or nonqualified. This is confusing because 4.B.3 says the Controller makes this determination, but this suggests departments make the determination. If departments are merely providing their opinion, it would help if the language more clearly reflected that. 4.D.2.b. & 4.D.2.c: Consider revising the order of these provisions so the approval authority up to $50,000 appears before the approval authority for sponsorships exceeding $50,000. 4.E.3: This provision appears inconsistent with how sponsorships may function in practice. If a sponsor's name appears on a building, lab, event, or other college material, that visible recognition suggests, at least, some level of association with SLCC. It may be worth clarifying the difference between acknowledging a sponsor's support and impermissibly endorsing the sponsor, its products, or its services. 4.G: Consider clarifying why publicly funded grants and sponsored projects are excluded from this process. Other Comment(s): Consider clarifying the overall scope and purpose of the policy. It is not always clear whether the policy is intended to govern event sponsorships, athletics-related sponsorships, naming recognition, private donations, in-kind gifts, or some combination of those arrangements. It may be helpful to add examples of common sponsorships covered by policy and examples of arrangements that are not covered.