DRAFT

Provost Advisory Council Notes

March 12, 2002

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

Absent: Wlad Godzich, Leslie Sunell, Lynda Goff, Ron Suduiko, Meredith Michaels.

Guests: Barbara Collins

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

Next Steps in Planning

Campus Provost Simpson noted that his March 1, 2002 update outlining a framework for moving forward in the planning process and outlining issues that required more thought and discussion was intended provoke thought. He also noted that he would be meeting individually with principal officers to provide more detailed commentary on their plans and with their divisions to solicit additional input; he will also meet with each of the PAC subcommittees. He asked PAC members for their initial thoughts, reactions, and comments.

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

It was noted that the update did not specify the resources that would be allocated to each principal officer (other than the faculty FTE ranges provided to academic divisions). Campus Provost Simpson noted that such additional detail would be forthcoming in the draft resource plan (scheduled for release at the end of the month); in addition, each principal officer should continue to actively pursue extramural sources of support.
There are a number of paradigm shifts in the types of extramural support that the campus could seek over the next decade:

Traditional contracts and grants (i.e., individual faculty competing for research contracts/grants)
Industry- or government-sponsored support of broader research efforts, i.e., campus efforts to secure major contracts, grants, and/or gifts (involving groups of faculty and researchers)—in many cases, this research will be inter- or multi-disciplinary in nature, involving faculty from several academic divisions as well as professional research staff (e.g., the campus’ Center for Justice, Tolerance, and Community or the governor’s Cal ISI projects)
Income from the management of intellectual property (“IP”)
Equity in start-up companies (e.g., for UC Santa Cruz, might involve disciplines such as DANM, psychology, etc.)
Targeted research initiatives of importance to the Governor/State legislature (e.g., Cal ISI projects, specific research grants, etc.)

In many cases, extramural support will fund a significant number of non-faculty FTE (i.e., industry adjuncts, professional researchers, and support staff) who, in collaboration with campus faculty, will manage (and perhaps even lead) large research efforts. This has the following consequences:

The campus will need to have a strategy for research-related space (e.g., including, but not limited to, capital projects supported by contracts and grants overhead funding).
The campus will need to hire people who can successfully manage and support large research efforts.

The accountability and assessment agreements between the individual principal officers and the Campus Provost/Executive Vice Chancellor were seen as a key to the Campus Provost’s effort to devolve responsibility to principal officers.
Enrollment management (e.g., attracting UC-caliber students whose interests match the campus’ academic disciplines, guiding students once they are here, and ensuring their successful graduation) will be a strategic issue the campus must address in order to realize the future anticipated by the divisional plans. This could include innovative summer programs or joint programs with the community colleges to ensure that students have, for example, appropriate math skills to succeed in the sciences. It was noted that the quality of the admitted freshman fall 2002 class is exceptional (e.g., 2,500 with 4.0 or better GPAs, five students with perfect 1600 SAT scores, etc.).
A number of specific issues related to diversity (e.g., how the campus will address the diversity needs of the State and how our strategies will affect the curriculum) were also raised.

Next steps.

Follow-up: All principal officers were urged to consider how their current funding (e.g., their “base”) might be redeployed and leveraged in support of realizing the goals articulated in their plans.
Follow-up: All PAC members were encouraged to provide feedback to CP/EVC Simpson on any part of the 3.1.02 document.

Blocking network access—proposed guidelines and procedures

IT Consultant Merkley outlined the proposed guidelines and procedures that would govern actions taken by CATS (in disconnecting compromised servers from the network in order to protect the campus’ information technology resources). He also referenced a recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education that provides additional context for this issue.

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

Assistant Vice Chancellor LeCuyer noted that the guidelines and procedures had been reviewed by Senate Committee on Computing (and changes that addressed their concerns had been incorporated).
The importance of anti-viral software was discussed (the campus’ agreement with NAI/McAfee is currently under negotiation for renewal).

Next steps.

Action: PAC members recommended to Campus Provost Simpson that the guidelines and procedures be adopted.

Information Updates

Interim Director Tanner provided a brief update on the activities associated with the campus’ Silicon Valley Center. The campus (on behalf of UC) is presenting its capabilities and credentials to operate a University-affiliated research center (UARC) for NASA in response to their draft acquisition plan (RFP2-38177). A UARC could represent as much as $100 million in research activity over the next five years. He referred members to his January 22, 2002 update for information about other planning efforts related to the Silicon Valley Center