Letter to the Community

May 5, 2004
TO: The University Community
FROM: Philip E. Austin

Download PDF Version

The end of the academic year is fast approaching. As I do each semester, I want to take this opportunity to provide a brief overview of issues now before the University and offer some thoughts on broader topics relating to our institution and to higher education generally.

Let me begin by repeating what has been a common theme in these reports. Despite our share of day-to-day challenges, some internal and others externally imposed, UConn continues to advance. Nearly ten years ago our Board of Trustees approved a Strategic Plan whose first words set what seemed like an impossible goal: “The University of Connecticut will be perceived and acknowledged as the outstanding public university in the nation. . . . It will be the embodiment of the land grant, sea grant, public research university dedicated to excellence.” While we still have a long way to go before we reach the objective, the language no longer seems hyperbolic. In every key aspect of endeavor—instruction, research, public service, student life, clinical care, artistic expression, and athletics—our university is indisputably the leading public institution in the New England region and is increasingly recognized among the twenty or so strongest public universities across the country.

The tasks before us in the year to come will be essentially the same as in the year just past: to build on our achievements in a context shaped by continually constrained resources; to fulfill increasingly high expectations by students, parents, public officials and our own peers; and to respond to emerging needs, both within the University and in the state.

Changes in the University’s Leadership

Shortly before this letter went to press, Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs John Petersen announced his departure to assume the presidency of the University of Tennessee. I join with John’s many friends in wishing him and his wife Carol well in their new post. It is relatively easy to be an effective academic leader in a time of budget surplus, but far more difficult to make the painful decisions that come with annual fiscal shortfalls. Through his nearly four years here John responded effectively to the challenge, targeting resources to areas of greatest potential, initiating programs to respond to public needs and institutional opportunities, and maintaining both high academic standards and high standards of integrity.

John’s departure comes approximately a year after we reorganized the University’s administrative structure to create the position of Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, now filled with distinction by Linda Flaherty-Goldsmith. One of my major objectives was to relieve the individuals charged with the critical task of overseeing our research, teaching, student life and, at the Health Center, patient care programs from the added burdens of directing administrative and operational activities of the University. The latter are important aspects of the institution, and making them more effective and efficient is a full-time job. In addition, the academic program is at the heart of a great university and its oversight requires a skilled leader’s full attention.

The administrative change has worked well, and I want to thank Provost Petersen and Executive Vice President for Health Affairs Peter Deckers for their role in making the transition so successful. A number of process improvements are already underway, including several that will integrate aspects of the Storrs-based and Health Center’s administrative operations. A more detailed review of the activities now proceeding will be outlined in an upcoming issue of the Advance. Among Vice President Flaherty-Goldsmith’s priorities is to assure that the dedicated men and women who have kept UConn going so well for so long receive both recognition and the opportunity to do their jobs as creatively and effectively as possible.

Last week I announced that Vice Provost Fred Maryanski will serve as interim Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs. A member of our faculty for more than 20 years, Fred has served in the University’s senior leadership since 1989, and served as interim Chancellor in 1999-2000. He is exceptionally well qualified to oversee the programmatic and policy functions that fall under the direction of the Provost, and I appreciate his willingness to accept this appointment.

I will shortly announce the appointment of a Search Committee to conduct a nationwide recruitment for the next Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs. The Search Committee will develop its procedures, in accordance with the University’s policies and national norms, and these will be announced over the summer. I will also charge the Search Committee with assuring that the search is broadly inclusive and sensitive to affirmative action goals, and that members of the University community have an opportunity to have their views heard. That said, I hope for an expeditious process, and want to assure that we take every possible step to recruit the most qualified individual.

The first and most crucial task before the new Provost will be to oversee the full development and implementation of the University’s academic plan, for which groundwork has been well laid. This is, of course, a process that of its nature involves extensive participation by faculty and students, and a number of individuals have contributed extensively thus far. I do, however, want to give the new Provost an opportunity to review our work and recommend modification as he or she feels appropriate to the University’s mission and resources.

Challenges of Growth (I)

In several prior letters to the community I have indicated that the University of Connecticut faces challenges that result, directly or indirectly, from our progress. Frankly, many of the things we see as problems would be welcome at other institutions as a sign of underlying success.

This semester we faced the challenge of dealing with extremely heavy demand for University housing in the next academic year. For the past two years, and again this coming fall, we limited freshman enrollment at Storrs to approximately 3,200, both to assure course availability and availability of housing for freshmen and sophomores. However, two factors combine to increase the number of University housing applications: the increase in the number of upper-class students, stemming from an increase in freshman enrollment three and four years ago (from about 2,900 in 1999 and 2,800 in 2000 to the 3,200 level in subsequent years) and, perhaps more significantly, the exceptional quality of UConn’s many housing options, which not only encourages students now living on-campus to seek to remain, but lures some students who have moved off-campus for a year to try to come back. South Campus, Hilltop apartments and suites, Charter Oak apartments and suites and renovated housing elsewhere across campus gives us a housing stock that would be the envy of almost any public university in the country. At the beginning of a typical academic year, more than 70% of Storrs undergraduates live in university housing. At comparable state institutions the percentage of undergraduates living on-campus is almost always well below 40%, often as low as 25%.

Since 2001 we have made it clear to all entering freshmen that we will guarantee housing for freshmen and transfer students. After that, availability is not guaranteed, and the possibility of a housing lottery has been well publicized. Until now, we managed to avoid excluding upper-class students from University housing. We could not do so this year. A total of 1,756 students who had lived in University residence halls for six or more semesters applied for housing, and we had only 1,323 beds available. Thus 433 students were told that, as a result of the lottery, they would have to find other housing.

Because there is always some “melt” in housing applications, we were able to institute an appeals process so that students with compelling need (e.g., students with extreme financial hardship or scholarships that require residence on campus) can be accommodated. Our Student Affairs staff worked long and hard to assist students “lotteried out” to find alternate accommodations; special efforts included inviting off-campus property managers to “housing fairs” for these students, allowing affected students to terminate their 12-month on-campus leases early in order to sign off-campus leases, assisting students to meet potential roommates for off-campus apartments, and help in guiding students on financial aid to use their aid packages to pay for private housing. We continue to work on some expansion of transportation to more off-campus apartment complexes.

Still, the lottery system creates inconveniences and anxieties, and we are working to improve the allocation process in the future. There are a variety of means to distribute scarce resources; the pricing mechanism is one potential option, as long as it leads to a fair and efficient solution and contains the assurance that students in financial need are not excluded from on-campus housing. Earlier notice of availability, with less room for confusion, will also help the system work more effectively. Other steps are also being considered, and the Residential Life staff and administration as a whole are open to suggestions. At the end of the day, however, it is worth noting that a projected 11,860 students will be in University housing this coming fall, much of it of extraordinarily high quality. Those excluded are overwhelmingly people who have attained upper-class status and who have the maturity to live off campus.

Challenges of Growth (II)

Concurrent with the increase in the size, academic strength and diversity of our student body has been an expansion of the significance and scope of our faculty’s research. Generation of new knowledge, always an important part of our mission, has become increasingly significant over the past decade. Growth in external funding for research reflects a combination of factors: excellent new laboratory facilities, recruitment of superb new faculty to supplement a corps of outstanding scholars, encouragement of active pursuit of federal and other funding and, in recent years, improvements in our research support infrastructure. UConn’s increased prominence as a center of research excellence gives us reason to be proud. It also creates its own set of challenges.

I have previously written about specific concerns which we have addressed expeditiously and in cooperation with the research community here at the University. In the area of research animal care, we responded to a set of problems that, if left unaddressed, might have seriously compromised our ability to compete effectively for federal research support. We are continuing the process of improving our animal facilities and programs and hope to seek accreditation by AAALAC (Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care) in 2007. Last year, a deeply troubling situation in one segment of the Environmental Research Institute similarly required prompt action. We continue to work with auditors to solve the problems there.

We are now faced with additional challenges, made all the more urgent by our increased national visibility. With an increase in research support comes the increased need to follow, to the letter and without exception, the complex administrative and fiscal requirements promulgated by funding agencies. Failure to do so will not only create serious difficulties for the programs involved; it will create for the University a reputation that would be problematic for our overall research agenda. In the current climate, in which high profile research institutions have been subject to intense scrutiny and heavy penalties for what some see as technical violations, we must attach the highest importance to compliance with the letter of the law.

Accordingly, under the direction of senior academic officers led by Provost Petersen and Executive Vice President Deckers, and with the strong support of the Board of Trustees and the Health Center Board of Directors, we have taken major steps to expand our audit and compliance program and, equally important, to strengthen our capacity to assist faculty in the administrative aspects of research. Our efforts in both regards are being assisted and, in large measure, guided by leading members of the UConn research community. Early next fall I plan to announce a further expansion of our compliance efforts, with additional resources specifically dedicated to this function.

Most faculty are familiar with basic elements of the reporting and compliance process, including such requirements as time and effort reports. Others may be less well known, such as matching and cost share requirements and consistent application of federal cost principles and financial reporting. Additional elements may apply only to faculty working in specific areas or with support from specific programs or agencies. In any case, we need to move forward with complete assurance that the University’s programs, training, education, and overall climate eliminate potential exposure to charges of inappropriate activity. Instances of deliberate malfeasance are, thankfully but not surprisingly, rare at the University of Connecticut, and I have every confidence in the integrity and good intentions of our research faculty. Examples of technical or administrative error are, regrettably, more frequent. Whether they stem from inappropriate attention to detail or misunderstanding of regulations, we cannot allow such situations to place in peril future funding, or the University’s continued good standing among its peers. I am confident that with the continued cooperation of leading faculty, high priority attached to compliance, and a strong support system to help researchers perform their work “by the book,” we will meet continued success.

Budget Update

While the Connecticut economic outlook for the coming fiscal year is somewhat brighter than in the year just past, the University’s budget situation will almost certainly remain difficult. The State of Connecticut is expected to approve a state budget shortly and we are working hard to obtain the best result possible.

The context for Fiscal 2005 is similar to that of prior years and, in many ways, to the experience of other state universities across the nation. Since 1990, the proportion of the Storrs-based programs’ operating budget covered by state support has declined from about 50% to just 37% this year. (At the Health Center, which derives significant revenues from clinical care, the state portion now stands at only about 18%.) Yet in recent years our needs have increased dramatically: enrollment, which dropped in the first seven years of the last decade to 21,753 in Fall 1997, was at a record high of 26,629 in Fall 2003 and anticipated to go over 27,000 this September. As our student body grows in size, diversity, and academic strength (average SAT scores, which stood at 1112 in 1997, will be about 1170 this fall, and we expect to welcome 90-95 more valedictorians and salutatorians), so do expectations about availability and quality of services. It would be less than forthright if I did not express deep appreciation to Connecticut’s elected leaders—and taxpayers—for the $2.3 billion investment in UCONN 2000 and 21st Century UConn. But the fact remains that outstanding new buildings must be maintained, classrooms need faculty, and the expanded student body creates increased demands ranging from recreation to counseling and advisement to security.

Last year, in response to the state’s own fiscal crisis, UConn took an enormous budgetary hit. We lost $12.5 million (including fringe benefits) in Early Retirement Incentive Program funding at Storrs, as 365 faculty and staff took advantage of that program. At the Health Center, the ERIP loss was $1.1 million, with 121 faculty and staff taking advantage of the program.

Thanks in enormous measure to the support of our faculty and professional and administrative staff, the University got through the 2003-04 academic year with our programs intact and level of quality high. The wage freeze overwhelmingly approved by AAUP and UCPEA bargaining units at the Storrs-based programs, and the freeze accepted by administrators, represented a commitment to the University and our students that will not soon be forgotten. In addition to tuition increases, continued growth in funded research, and ongoing success in private fundraising, the faculty’s and staff’s contributions averted what could have been a budget crisis of major proportions.

Yet we continue to face serious challenges. The Appropriations Committee budget proposal now before the General Assembly will bring State support for operations at the Storrs-based programs to $196.4 million, and at the Health Center, $73.1 million in FY ’05. Since these amounts are below our “current service” (i.e., the amount needed simply to continue services at current levels, factoring in inflationary increases, new buildings, and other changes), we continue to explore all possible economies, including some that might be achieved through synergies between Storrs and the Health Center in some administrative areas. Nevertheless, if we are to continue to maintain access and enhance quality—two goals to which we are firmly committed—we must continue to campaign for increased state funding and to expand our non-state resource base. This June I will present to the Board of Trustees a budget proposal that is designed to achieve that goal.

Campaign UConn

On June 30, Campaign UConn, the University’s $300 million fundraising campaign, will come to its conclusion. At this writing the University of Connecticut Foundation has raised $289 million in new gifts and commitments to support scholarships, faculty and programs. This amount does not include the $146 million gift-in-kind of computer software from UDS to the School of Engineering, which brings the overall total to $435 million.

We announced the campaign in 1998 with appropriate fanfare and high optimism. It turns out that both were well justified. It is noteworthy that this most ambitious fundraising effort in the history of the university took place in large part in the midst of a national recession. The Foundation’s success in exceeding a $300 million goal is a tribute to the dedicated work of a great many people, both at the University and in the Foundation itself. It is also a sign of the University’s ability to present itself as a worthy target of investment for individuals, foundations, and business organizations who seek to support educational excellence.

A particularly noteworthy example of this support was announced this semester. The Carnegie Corporation of New York, in conjunction with the Ford Foundation and The Annenberg Foundation, selected the University of Connecticut as one of eleven institutions to receive a $5 million, five-year grant to fund the “Teachers for a New Era” program. The grant and an accompanying University match will promote innovative research on teaching effectiveness, collaboration between the Neag School of Education and the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, and new modes of what we refer to as “teaching as a clinical practice” with appropriate accountability measures.

We often use the phrase “margin of excellence” to define the importance of philanthropy to the University’s program. This is an apt characterization. Thanks to UCONN 2000 and 21st Century UConn, private support at this university is primarily devoted not to bricks and mortar, but to programmatic initiatives, recruitment of outstanding faculty, and recruitment and retention of outstanding students. We herald the major gifts, but we are also deeply appreciative of the 40,000 or so other contributions that now come every year from alumni, parents, faculty and staff, and other friends of the university. In aggregate, these gifts now provide more than 550 endowed scholarships, support nearly 60 faculty chairs, and underwrite advances in programs ranging from human rights to marine sciences. In addition, where warranted, private funds also supplement state support for construction.

The conclusion of Campaign UConn will not lead to a suspension of our fundraising efforts; indeed, plans are underway for a new campaign accompanied by standard, ongoing appeals. There is, however, one significant cause for concern. A key factor in our success has been the existence of a state matching-grant program, initially enacted at the time of UCONN 2000 and modified since, that now commits the state to providing one dollar for every two dollars contributed to our endowment, up to a specific annual ceiling. Connecticut’s budget problems led to a deferral of state payments over the past three years, and the amount in arrears is now more than $18 million. The state budget recently passed by the House and Senate contains funding sufficient for the state to meet this liability, and if the budget is approved by the Governor, the University is expected to receive $18.6 million in endowment matching funds.

Athletics as Metaphor

With the cheers of 300,000 parade spectators still ringing in our ears, it would be impossible to write a Spring 2004 report and not highlight the triumph of our men’s and women’s basketball teams in the NCAA tournament. I speak not just for the University community but for the entire state in expressing tremendous pride in our student-athletes, our coaches, and all those who contributed to our success in San Antonio and New Orleans.

This has been an exciting and, at times, a complicated year for intercollegiate athletics at UConn and across the nation. Though several lawsuits are still working their way through the courts, the conference issues that arose last summer have basically been resolved, with the University of Connecticut a member of a strong, exciting Big East Conference. Along with other schools, UConn experienced a negative impact from the departure of several Big East institutions for the Atlantic Coast Conference, and we continue to seek to be made whole. But our athletics programs remain strong, competitive, and as popular with Connecticut’s people as they have ever been. Our basketball triumphs speak for themselves, of course. We look forward to a second great football season at Rentschler Field, and ongoing success in men’s and women’s soccer, field hockey, and other sports.

The day after the women’s NCAA championship game I had the opportunity to speak at “Scholars Day,” the ceremony honoring undergraduate students who have achieved special academic distinction. I said on that occasion, “Normally I wouldn’t bring athletics into a celebration of academic achievement. I do so today, first, because it’s all over the newspapers and TV and to ignore it would be artificial and, in its own way, a form of snobbery. But second, and more important, because our basketball triumphs are emblematic of what the University is achieving in virtually every field in which we’re engaged.”

Athletics at UConn is indeed a metaphor—and not just because we win national titles. Proud as I am of our victories on the court or the playing field, I am even prouder that our program is characterized by absolute integrity and complete commitment to the concept of the “student-athlete” with full emphasis on the first word in that phrase. Tragically, those traits have not always been in evidence at some other schools. At UConn they are the hallmarks of our program. Our players, coaches, cheerleaders, band members—and fans—are excellent representatives of the University and help generate the sense of success so critical in other aspects of our endeavor. And I would be remiss if I did not express my appreciation to Director of Athletics Jeffrey Hathaway for his leadership through a highly successful year.

If there were any doubts about that, they were resolved in the weeks after the Final Four. The New York Times, CNN, the Providence Journal, and major Connecticut media ran lengthy pieces about UConn, not just in the sports section, but in the news section. Like many of you, I received a great number of e-mails and phone calls from colleagues at institutions across the country who were learning about UConn’s success in attracting excellent students, expanding the range and scope of research, implementing important programs of public service, and contributing to a sense of excitement across our state. Those of us at the University have long known about these things; now the story is reaching a far wider audience.

The Politics of Education

For the next seven months, the nation will be engaged in a presidential election campaign. I don’t believe it is our role as educators to tell students what to think or how to vote; it is, instead, to help them utilize their analytical and research skills to make their own choices. I do think it’s appropriate to encourage students at all levels and in all fields to think seriously about the political process, and to engage actively in the national debate.

My own hope is that the dialogue between the candidates focuses heavily on issues of concern to higher education generally and to this university in particular. I admit to a set of underlying assumptions: that public universities play a vital role in meeting the nation’s challenges; the better supported they are the more effective they can be; access to quality education regardless of race, gender, religion or economic circumstance is a fundamental right government is obligated to protect; generation of new knowledge through the research process is essential to economic growth and sustained quality of life; and some of the seemingly intractable problems of human relations here at home and across the world may, in fact, be amenable to solution if the process of education leads people to abandon preconceived notions and outmoded prejudices.

With that in mind, let me mention two issues that I would like to see discussed in the months ahead. First is student access. In the 1960s and 1970s the nation made a strong commitment to assuring that no academically qualified student would ever again be excluded from higher education based on race, gender, or ability to pay. Unfortunately, the federal commitment has eroded over time. Pell Grants, the primary instrument for aiding low-income students, have not kept pace with inflation or rising college costs nationally. The result is that many students emerge from college facing a mountain of debt, precluding attendance at graduate or professional school. Of even greater concern, many talented young men and women decide not to go to college at all. They lose the opportunity to get ahead economically, and the nation loses the benefits of the contributions they could make with a college degree. There are a number of means by which the country could address this problem, some involving greater budget commitments than others. But it needs to be recognized as an important issue and placed on the policy agenda for the next administration.

The second issue is funding for research. This University, like every other public university in the country, seeks to obtain maximum federal support for research in our faculty’s areas of expertise. Our mission, as indicated earlier in this message, encompasses generation and dissemination of new knowledge and externally funded research is essential to that endeavor. This means that we will place increasing emphasis on the pursuit of external funding; faculty whose appointment is in disciplines where external funding exists will be expected to compete for support, and, as indicated above, we will continue to strengthen our mechanisms of assistance in the grants process.

With the great help of the Connecticut Congressional delegation, the University has secured significant funding earmarked for specific projects through the appropriations process. We will continue our vigorous efforts in this regard.

More broadly speaking, however, it is also important that the nation maintain its commitment to support academic research generally. As has been the case for the past fifty years, federal research commitments loosely reflect national priorities; at present, and understandably, research funding related to homeland security and national defense is expected to rise. Yet it is essential to national security in the most fundamental sense of the term that support for basic and applied research in other areas not be reduced in order to meet immediate security concerns. Programs funded by the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Agriculture, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and a host of other agencies are vital to the nation’s health, quality of life, and economic growth, all of which contribute in their own way to national security. While I admit to a parochial interest in enhancing UConn’s level of federal funding, I believe that the public policy case for expansion of research support is compelling, and I hope it too becomes part of the national debate.

Within days at Storrs and weeks at the Law School and Health Center we will hold our Commencement ceremonies. For those of us privileged to work at the University, this is always a high point of the year. For those who are graduating, it is one of the high points of a lifetime.

It is gratifying to know that we have provided our students with the best possible education—rigorous, cost-effective, well-focused but comprehensive. It is good to be reminded, moreover, that so much that concerns us on a day-to-day level, whether it relates to budget or to buildings or to so many other specific concerns, has as its ultimate outcome the creation of an institution that is committed to academic quality. With each passing year I become more impressed with the students who choose to come to UConn and the education we provide them, and more proud of the faculty and staff I count as colleagues.

I wish all of you a happy, productive summer, and I look forward to beginning another successful year in the fall.

cc: Board of Trustees