DRAFT

Provost Advisory Council Notes

March 26, 2002

 

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

 

Absent:   Cathy Sandeen, Steve Kang, Leslie Sunell

 

Guests: Barbara Collins, Liz Irwin, Paul Prokop, Dave Regan, Carolyn Christopherson

 

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

 

 

Update on Budget

 

Vice Chancellor Michaels provided a brief update on three bills related to the UC capital program:

  • Education Facilities GO Bond.  Passed by the Assembly, the bill proposes a $13 billion bond for 2002 and a $12 billion bond for 2004; funding is split 30% for UC, 30% for CSU, and 40% for the community colleges.
  • Governor’s Economic Stimulus Package.  Passed by the Assembly, the bill now moves on to the Senate.
  • Funding for the Cal ISI projects.  No action has been taken on the Governor’s proposal to shift funding for the University of California Research Institutes to lease-revenue bonds.

 

 

 

Update from PAC Task Force for Development

  

Vice Chancellor Suduiko reported that in response to a May 2001 organizational assessment, University Relations (UR) has taken action in three areas: 

  • personnel (i.e., reorganized the donor and stewardship programs and recruited Paul Prokop as Associate Vice Chancellor for Development as well as hired six development officers to enhance UR’s capacity to create proposals),
  • major gifts (i.e., undertaken a strategic approach to enlarging the campus’ prospect pool that includes working with the Chancellor to identify top prospects, including the 25-30 principal donors; created, in partnership with the dean, an entrepreneurial center for each academic division; and implemented the use of additional electronic screening tools to identify potential donors), and
  • strategic planning (i.e., UR has completed its own internal strategic planning process; the foundation has aligned its priorities with those of the campus; and the PAC Task Force on Development has replaced the Academic Advisory Board for Development in response to the recommendation at the November 27, 2001 PAC meeting). 

As a result of these actions and the partnership between UR, deans, vice chancellors, and the Chancellor, there are currently $40 million in solicitations under active development.  In addition, UR is working to develop accountability measures (e.g., number of prospects managed by each development officer) by which its progress will be measured as it helps the campus develop a culture of philanthropy.

 

In January, the PAC Task Force on Development was asked to consider issues of campaign policy and procedure and to provide on-going advice and coordination of the Comprehensive Development Campaign.  In particular, AVC Prokop asked PAC members to review and provide comments on two documents developed in consultation with the Task Force:

 

As an example of how these work plan actions and timelines as well as policies and procedures apply to a specific development campaign, Dean Chemers and AVC Prokop discussed the development activities (including the detailed follow-up needed with each potential donor) associated with the Center for Justice, Tolerance, and Community campaign.  In addition, the “case statement” for the Physical Sciences Building was distributed as an example of the detailed articulation of project merits, need, justification, and goals used to inform prospective donors.  An overview of the Campaign for Duke University was highlighted as an example of how that campus demonstrated to potential donors via case statements how each solicitation was related to the campus’ priorities and long-range goals.

 

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

  • Dave Regan, President of the UCSC Foundation, noted that in order to ensure that Trustees are fully aware of the current excellence and future goals for campus’ academic programs, he has asked each dean to talk about their programs and students.  For example, at the March 26, 2002 meeting, Trustees will have a presentation and discussion about the STEPS (Science, Technology, Engineering, Policy, & Society) Institute for Innovation in Environmental Research.  Other activities include:
    • Recruiting and building the Foundation’s development committee.
    • Hosting dinners for potential donors in order to identify new prospects.  (Note:  PAC members will be called upon to assist with these activities.)
    • Working with the nominating committee to identify additional trustees with interests that coincide with the goals identified in the divisional long-range plans.
  • It was noted that a successful campaign is based on effective development operations, and that annual development plans need to be established for the divisions.  These plans are the primary mechanism to create viable development objectives and fund raising goals.  AVC Prokop outlined a number of ways that UR and deans could partner during the process of identifying, cultivating and exploring opportunities with potential donors, thereby achieving the objectives for which the solicitation policies were developed.
  • Members requested additional information on a number of specific issues:
    • The tools available to principal officers involved in development.
    • Clarification concerning recommended (rather than minimum) gift levels associated with endowed chairs.
    • The inventory of campus rooms that might provide “naming” opportunities for potential donors.

 

Next steps.