This section of the law is called the Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act. It sets guidelines for how institutions should responsibly manage and invest their funds.

This section lays out the definitions for terms used in laws related to charitable activities. A "charitable purpose" includes a range of community-beneficial goals, like education and health. An "endowment fund" is money given to an organization that can’t be fully spent right away. A "gift instrument" is any documentation involved in the transfer or management of such funds. An "institution" can be non-individuals like charities or government bodies managing funds for charity. "Institutional fund" refers specifically to funds held for charitable activities, excluding things like program-related assets. "Person" is broadly defined to include nearly any type of entity. A "program-related asset" is held primarily to fulfill a charity's mission, not for investment, while a "record" is any stored information that can be retrieved later.

This law addresses how institutions should manage and invest their funds, with a focus on honoring the donor's intent and the institution's charitable goals. Managers must act in good faith and with the diligence of a prudent person. They should only incur reasonable costs, verify important information, and can pool funds for management. When investing, they must consider a wide range of factors, such as economic conditions and risks, and ensure their strategies suit the overall portfolio. Diversification is generally required unless it's better for the fund's purpose to avoid it. Decisions on assets must be timely and strategic. If someone with special skills manages the funds, they must use those skills effectively. This statute does not change a director’s existing duties under another specific California code.

This law explains how institutions can manage the money in their endowment funds. They need to use or save this money wisely and according to the donor's wishes. If the donor hasn't specified otherwise, the funds are restricted by the donor's intentions until the institution decides how to use them. The institution must consider several factors such as economic conditions, inflation, investment returns, and its own resources and policies when making decisions.

If a gift is labeled as an endowment, it generally means it's meant to be permanent unless specifically stated. Spending more than 7% of the fund's average value over three years is usually assumed to be unwise, unless proven otherwise. However, this doesn't apply to certain educational institutions or funds with different legal permissions.

This law allows institutions to delegate the management and investment of their funds to external agents, provided they follow certain guidelines. An institution must carefully choose the agent, set clear terms for what the agent can do, and regularly check the agent’s performance. The agent must act responsibly and follow the set terms. If the institution follows these guidelines, it won’t be held responsible for the agent’s actions unless a trustee would be under certain conditions. Agents agree to be subject to California courts by accepting these responsibilities. Institutions can also delegate these tasks to committees, officers, or employees according to other applicable state laws.

This law explains how an institution can change restrictions on a donation they received. If the donor agrees, the institution can modify restrictions related to managing or using the gift, as long as it's still for a charitable purpose. If those restrictions become impractical, the institution can ask a court for permission to change them, and must inform the Attorney General who gets a chance to weigh in. If the purposes become illegal or impractical, the court can allow changes to ensure the gift still fulfills its charitable purpose.

Additionally, if the donation is valued under $100,000, is over 20 years old, and the original purpose is no longer feasible, the institution can modify restrictions after notifying the Attorney General and the donor, as long as the donor's original charitable intent is respected.

This law section says that when evaluating if the rules were followed, you should look at the situation as it was when the decision or action happened, not by looking back after events have unfolded.

This law section states that it applies to all institutional funds that were either already in existence or created after January 1, 2009. For funds that existed before this date, the rules only apply to decisions or actions made on or after January 1, 2009.

This section of the law adjusts how the state applies federal electronic signature laws. It makes changes to some parts, but leaves others, like Section 101, unchanged. Importantly, it does not allow certain important notices to be delivered electronically.

This law emphasizes that when interpreting this act, states should aim for consistency so the laws are uniform between those that adopt it.