What's the Protocol for Abandoning an Architectural Competitioin Once It's Underway?

Plesae scroll down to your SCUP Link, below this notice about SCUP–45.

Oh, no! You won't be getting a printed SCUP–45 Preliminary Program in the mail this year. Instead, SCUP is going green and regularly updating this digital version (PDF), which you can download at any time.

Check it out! You don't want to miss higher education's premier planning conference, and your one chance this year to assemble with nearly 1,500 of your peers and colleagues: July 10–14, Minneapolis.

---

---

SCUP Link

What if you (the University of South Carolina) have an architectural competition for a $60M campus building, several firms go all out in preparing bids, and then you decide to let your major donor pick the architect—and they pick one of the firms that allegedly would not have ended up winning the bid?

Here's an Insider Higher Ed summary and here's a link to an article in The Los Angeles Times.

In a move called "unprecedented" in its state, the University of South Carolina held a competition to design a major new business school building -- and let the donor select the winner, without telling the other firms spending considerable time and money on their proposals that they wouldn't have a shot at winning, The State reported.

The article focused on the ways that the process violated procedures in South Carolina, but the incident may also raise issues about the nature of philanthropy and the decisions that should or should not be made by donors. South Carolina's actions appear to violate standards for gifts by the Council for Advancement and Support of Education.

---

---

SCUP's Planning Institute: Enjoy the F2F company of your colleagues and peers while you engage in one of the three SCUP Planning Institute Steps. In addition to being offered on demand, on campuses to teams of campus leaders, the institute steps are also offered to all professionals at varying times and venues. Currently scheduled are:

• May 22–23, Ann Arbor, MI - Step I
• July 10, Minneapolis, MN - Step I (in conjunction with SCUP–45)
• October 2, Ann Arbor, MI - Step I
• January 21–22, Tuscon, AZ - Step II and Step III

Ten Rules for Naming Buildings and Places

From the "Reality Check" blog on Inside Higher Ed, a useful checklist—1. Only name buildings for dead people, 2. Only use the names of admirable people, . . . 10. Be prepared for controversy over naming choices—and some thoughtful narrative, such as:

Often interesting old buildings already have a name, and frequently the name dates from a period when donations were not relevant to naming choices. When we receive a gift to renovate an old building or otherwise support an important activity in that building, and the donor expresses an interest in renaming the building, we run into our fifth rule. Renaming buildings is always problem. While we make today’s donor happy by doing it, we may well send a signal to future donors that our assertions about the permanence of building names are suspect. If the old name did not acknowledge a gift, the conversation is easier than if the old name recognized a previous gift. Sometimes we finesse this by hyphenating the building name: The Sam George—Susan Peters building. These conversations can sometimes produce volatile responses from alumni with emotional attachments to old buildings, or friends and relatives of the original honoree. Still, we need the gift, and most universities know that if the gift is substantial and the institutional need great, careful consultation and preparation will help smooth over any potential issues, and the next generation of students who will become alumni will have no vested interest in the old name.