DRAFT

Provost Advisory Council Notes

November 27, 2001

 

Attending:  John Simpson, M.R.C. Greenwood, Cathy Sandeen, Leslie Sunell, George Brown, Lan Dyson, Lynda Goff, Tom Vani, Larry Merkley, Marty Chemers, Ed Houghton, Ron Suduiko, Meredith Michaels, Steve Kang, George Blumenthal, Bob Meister, Susan Gillman, Barbara Brogan, Francisco Hernandez, Robert Miller, Wlad Godzich, Frank Talamantes, David Kliger

 

Guests: Paul Prokop, Dave Regan

 

Staff:  Linda Kittle, Beau Willis, Galen Jarvinen

 

 

Major Campaign Strategy Session

 

CP/EVC Simpson noted that, while the campus is unable to control the flow of resources it receives from the State (i.e., downturns in the State economy affect its ability to fund UC programs), the campus has direct influence over its development activities.  As a very important source of funding to realize our goals, development should be on everyone’s agenda and we must create a campus culture of understanding philanthropy and fundraising.  Vice Chancellor Suduiko introduced Paul Prokop, Associate Vice Chancellor for Development, who reviewed the planning underway in preparation for the campus’ first major fund-raising campaign.

 

AVC Prokop distributed some informational materials about the campus’ comprehensive campaign and made the following observations:

  • The UR division’s central strategy is a major fundraising campaign—already in the "silent" or "lead" phase—which has the potential to generate from $150 million to $200 million or more in direct support of UCSC’s goals within this planning period.  During this “silent” phase of the campaign (projected to last for 24 to 36 months), the campus will approach individuals, foundations, and other funding sources that represent potential lead gifts (gifts between $1 million and $20 million or more). The response to the lead gift effort will determine the final goal projection.  Ideally, the campus could generate as much as 70 percent of our campaign total in this phase, from 25 to 30 gifts.
  • He reviewed the campus’ current fundraising priorities (listed alphabetically), explained the range of gifts needed to achieve the campus’ campaign goals (known as the “gift pyramid”), outlined a timetable, and discussed the organizational and consultative structures that would ensure a successful campaign.
    • Of particular importance to members was the recommendation that a PAC Task Force be appointed to advise University Relations (UR) about the campus’ priorities for fundraising and to facilitate the working partnership between UR and principal officers as the campaign proceeds.
  • A draft campaign white paper was distributed that explains more fully the concepts reviewed.

 

In the discussion that followed, the following points were raised:

  • The campus needs to articulate both institutional/campuswide and divisional priorities so that potential donors can choose among the projects that most interest them.  It was noted that the campus has made good progress on a number of the priorities listed in the informational materials and that it was time to update that list based upon the results of the campus’ long-range planning process.  Among the additional priorities raised by members,
    • Endowed chairs
    • Student fellowships and scholarships (both at the undergraduate and graduate student levels—particularly, given the campus’ graduate student growth aspirations)
    • Giving opportunities that “build quality”, e.g., research opportunities for undergraduates, supplements to the library acquisition budgets, etc.

Alignment of the comprehensive campaign goals with campus priorities and goals must involve not only principal officers but other campus constituencies, especially the faculty.

  • The “dean’s council” is an important component of the campaign organizational structure because it provides an opportunity for major donors to become familiar with the excellence, priorities, and aspirations of the campus’ academic departments and research activities.
  • The importance of engaging alumni was raised (both in terms of personal giving but also for the connections they might have with institutional donors).
  • As the campus builds the “campus culture of understanding philanthropy and fundraising” required to increase substantially our extramural support, it is necessary to prepare appropriate “one pagers” on the campus’ fundraising priorities so that each individual has the tools to become an ambassador for the campus.
  • It is also important that the campus understand how to measure the success of University Relations as one of the campus’ important assets.

 

Next steps.

 

  • Follow-up:  The campus needs to quickly update its priorities for fundraising, whether through a small Task Force of PAC or some other mechanism, to ensure that a consistent message (that is fully articulated with campus long-range planning) is presented to potential donors.  “One-pagers” for each of these priorities need to be developed.

 

 

 

Member Items/Announcements/Wrap Up

 

·        No additional member items were discussed.