DRAFT

Provost Advisory Council Notes

September 25, 2001

 

Attending:  John Simpson, Tom Vani, MRC Greenwood, David Kliger, Lan Dyson, Marty Chemers, Ron Suduiko, Ed Houghton, Bob Meister, George Blumenthal, Francisco Hernandez, George Brown, Wlad Godzich, Meredith Michaels, Frank Talamantes, Lynda Goff, Barbara Brogan, Leslie Sunell, Cathy Sandeen, Robert Miller

 

Guest: Marilyn Westercamp

 

Absent:   Larry Merkley, Steve Kang, Susan Gillman,

 

Staff:  Linda Kittle, Beau Willis, Galen Jarvinen, Mary-Beth Harhen

 

 

Welcome back … since we last met

 

The purpose of the briefing was to bring members up-to-date on activities since the last PAC meeting in July. 

  • Provost Simpson welcomed back members and introduced newly appointed Vice Chancellor for Research Robert C. Miller, Jr.
  • Members noted that the general mood on the campus since the September 11 terrorist attacks has been one of coming together to promote a spirit of justice and tolerance on campus and to participate in opportunities that contribute to the relief effort.  In addition, faculty have contributed their expertise to help the public understand the complex issues surrounding the recent events.  The Public Information Office has created a website, UCSC Responds to the Crisis, that brings together information for the campus community. 

 

Next steps.

 

  • Follow-up:  Since Currents Online, http://currents.ucsc.edu, is used to provide the latest information of relevance to the UCSC community, members were encouraged to make it their default web homepage.

 

 

Focusing the planning agenda for 2001-02

 

Provost Simpson noted that since the campus’ two-year long-range planning process was initiated last fall, changes in the California economy have had a number of effects on the resources coming to the campus.  None-the-less, while those changes in the external environment may affect the timing for new programs and services, they should not affect the on-going planning for the UC Santa Cruz of 2010—in fact, it would be a serious mistake not to bring the current planning efforts to completion.  As the California economy improves, it will be more important than ever that the campus’ plans and priorities are well articulated so that we can select among/take advantage of opportunities as they emerge.  In order to provide members with some additional background, Vice Chancellor Michaels provided an overview of the current budget situation:

  • The UC Partnership Agreement with the Governor was designed to define the minimum funding that UC would receive during bad times; unfortunately, the Governor was unable to provide full funding under that agreement.  None-the-less, UC did receive funding for enrollment growth, for all four of the California Institutes for Science and Innovation, for its capital program, and for selected initiatives such as Internet2 infrastructure; however, it only received half of the annual 4 percent increase in funding for employee compensation and other fixed costs that was promised under the Partnership Agreement.
  • Given the deterioration of the California economy (e.g., affecting capital gains taxes), decisions made by the State (e.g., to extend the vehicle license fee tax cut), etc., next year’s State budget will likely fall short by several billion dollars.  As a result, UC and other State agencies have been asked to prepare 2002-03 budget scenarios that involve cuts of 3%, 5%, and 10%.  While UC hopes to avoid any undesignated cuts, UCOP will focus its budget request solely on those elements in the UC Partnership Agreement (including a restoration of Partnership items not provided in the 2001-02) rather than ask for any initiative funding.  In addition, UC’s capital budget will depend upon the success of a statewide bond initiative for higher education.
  • While the 2002-03 Regents’ Budget will request funding (approximately $32M) for State-supported summer instruction for the remaining five UC campuses (including UCSC), it is uncertain at this time whether the Governor will include such funding in his 2002-03 budget proposal.  UC has asked the Department of Finance to provide it with early notification of the status of such funding so that UC planning can move forward—if State support is not forthcoming in summer 2002, however, it is expected for summer 2003.  Once the decision on State funding is clearer, the campus will be in a better position to articulate the funding it can invest centrally in summer 2002 operations.

 

In his July 2001 letter, Provost Simpson provided an update and context for the current planning process as of spring 2001, an overview of issues related to growth and the programs in the divisional executive summaries, and some general guidance for principal officers on the development of their comprehensive December 2001 submittals.  In that document, the Campus Provost also outlined the respective roles and responsibilities (i.e., the Provost has provided the framework—the eight priorities articulated last fall—and the opportunities to shape and implement the campus future; the role of deans, vice chancellors, and faculty is to use the planning process to think creatively, differently, and broadly to develop programs that are consistent with those priorities).

 

The anticipated deliverables (in summer 2002) emanating from the current planning process is an overall blueprint for the next decade of campus development.  Chancellor Greenwood and Provost Simpson will integrate the December 2001 submittals by principal officers into a first draft of such an institutional plan that will be vetted widely.  An initial draft 2001-02 planning schedule provided a high-level overview of the timetable for developing these plans.

 

In the discussion that followed, a number of points were raised.

  • Reflecting on the terrorist attacks of September 11, Chancellor Greenwood noted that the nation’s great research universities—including UC Santa Cruz—will play a pivotal role in the nation’s response and the types of graduate programs needed to address such issues may result in shifts in the types of funding available to the campus.  (The Chancellor also explored those topics in her subsequent October 2 address to the campus.)
  • Professor Meister, speaking as chair of CPB, noted that the Senate was committed to meeting the deadlines for producing an institutional plan and asked that such a plan address issues related to the campus’ intended undergraduate/graduate mix, as well as the process for developing strong academic programs (including interdisciplinary programs).

 

Next steps.

  • Members were asked to continue their planning for summer 2002 with an emphasis on those programs that could be implemented at low cost (e.g., funded primarily with fee income) and on those programs which are strategic (e.g., would take advantage of the campus’ strengths to attract enrollments and/or would enhance overall academic offerings).
  • Follow-up:  In order to support the 2001-02 planning process, a number of key issues need to be developed and/or vetted within the PAC committees.  Provost Simpson asked that PAC members review the list of potential committee agenda items developed thus far and return (to Assistant Provost Willis by the end of September) their topic additions/deletions as well as their agenda priorities (e.g., at least the first, second, and third priority topic for each PAC committee).

 

 

 

Member Items/Announcements

 

·       No additional member items were discussed.