DRAFT

Provost Advisory Council Notes

February 26, 2002

 

Invited: John Simpson, Cathy Sandeen, Leslie Sunell, George Brown, Lan Dyson, Lynda Goff, Tom Vani, Marty Chemers, Ed Houghton, Ron Suduiko, Meredith Michaels, Steve Kang, George Blumenthal, Bob Meister, Susan Gillman, Barbara Brogan, Frank Talamantes, David Kliger Larry Merkley, Robert Miller, Wlad Godzich, Francisco Hernandez, Bruce Schumm, Steve Thorsett, Carol Freeman, Betsy Moses, Kathleen Dettman, Jamus Lin, John Tamkun, Karen Eckert, Christina Valentino, Jennie McDade, Kathy Jefferds, Jennifer Shurley


 

 

Information Updates

 

  • Budget – LAO Report Implications.  Vice Chancellor Michaels reported that the Legislative Analyst had released her analysis of the Governor’s 2002-03 budget.  This detailed analysis is posted on the Internet and is based on updated financial projections of the State economy showing the deficit to be about $5 billion higher (i.e., $3.9 billion due to additional revenue shortfalls and $1.1 billion due to underestimated expenditures) than the $12.5 billion estimate in the Governor’s budget proposal.  Furthermore, the LAO estimates that the Governor’s budget proposal, if passed by the Legislature in its current form, would result in an on-going operating shortfall of $7 billion per year since it relies on a number of one-time actions and fund shifts to address the 2002-03 budget shortfall.
    • With respect to UC, the LAO recommends
      1. That the $4 million proposed for UC Merced faculty be eliminated on the basis that funding is not needed in 2002-03.
      2. That, in addition to the Governor’s recommended reductions, expenditures for outreach be further reduced by $4.2 million.
      3. That funding be provided for summer instruction at UC Davis but that such funding be contingent upon achieving specified increases in enrollment.
      4. That funding be reduced for three capital outlay projects, including the Humanities and Social Sciences Facility at UC Santa Cruz (since the construction costs exceed recommended guidelines).
      5. With respect to capital outlay in general, that all future projects be constrained to the construction cost guidelines, that the State should no longer fund space for research (instead, research facilities should be funded through the “Garamendi” mechanism that borrows against future contracts and grants activity), and that all future projects be justified on the assumption that enrollments during the summer be at 100% of that in the FWS (the current target is 40%).
      6. That State-supported research by reduced by 5% (or $16.9 million).
      7. That the State adopt a student fee policy, that professional school fees be raised by 15%, and that non-resident tuition be increased.
      8. That all need-based student financial aid be centralized and administered by the Student Aid Commission (including that financial aid generated though UC sources such as student fee income).
      9. That all teacher development funds (e.g., professional development institutes, subject matter projects, etc.) be shifted from UC’s budget to K-12’s budget as a block grant.

The LAO also opposed the UC/CSU proposal on the joint Ed.D. to the extent that funding would be included in UC’s budget with students being charged UC fees and funded by the State at UC’s marginal rate.

    • Since the Legislature will likely wait for the spring revenue projections, there will probably not be much action on the State budget until May.

 

  • Institutional Planning Discussion Document Status.  CP/EVC noted that at the end of the week, he would release an update that provides a framework for moving forward in the campus’ long-range planning process, that identifies a number of issues that require more thought and discussion, and that provides feedback on the divisional plans.
    • He also expects to consult widely about the campus institutional plan in forums such as PAC and its subcommittees, committees of the Academic Senate, and in conversations/open meetings with each dean and their faculty and with other principal officers and their staff.

 

 

 

Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC)

 

VPDUE Goff outlined the timetable for the WASC accreditation review, reviewed the membership of the campus’ WASC steering committee and working group, and provided an overview of the sections in the current draft of the campus’ “institutional proposal” to WASC.  She noted that all the documents, analyses, and resource materials associated with the WASC reaccredidation would be posted at http://planning.ucsc.edu/wasc as they were developed.

 

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

  • On Topic 1 (growth and improvement of graduate student programs):  The resources required to achieve our graduate enrollment targets are significant; increasing significantly our extramural support will help with graduate student support.  It was noted that the recent Report of the Commission on the Growth and Support of Graduate Education (as well as its supporting documents presented to The Regents last fall) provide a number of recommendations on which the campus should act.
  • On Topic 2 (enhance undergraduate student academic engagement):  VPDUE Goff noted that UC President Atkinson has proposed that UC adopt systemwide a “freshman seminar program” that would provide every freshman with the opportunity to enroll in a small one- or two-unit class (20 of fewer students) that is taught by an Academic Senate faculty member (active or emeritus).  UCOP is willing to provide funding to campuses for this program.  PAC members also raised options for optimally organizing undergraduate academic advising.

 

Next steps.

 

  • Follow-up:  PAC members were asked to provide comments on the draft institutional proposal to VP/D Goff.  Over the next couple weeks, the proposal will also be reviewed with Senate committees.