Letter to the Community

November 11, 2002
TO: The University Community
ROM Philip E. Austin

Download  PDF Version

As we move past the midpoint of the Fall semester I take this opportunity to report, as I do each term, on several of the key issues confronting the University. This is a particularly active time at UConn, perhaps even more than has been the case in recent years. While much of what appears in the following pages relates to external and internal challenges, overall the news remains highly positive. We continue to strengthen our ability to attract good students and outstanding faculty; to be a site of excellent research and scholarship; to expand our base of philanthropic support; to provide exemplary public service, including clinical care at the Health Center; and to merit-and hold-the support of our state's citizens and their elected representatives. All this is cause for satisfaction.

It is not, however, cause for complacency. I have indicated on many occasion s that our progress generates new needs, and that continues to be the case. Beyond that, we have several specific challenges, some of them unique to UConn and others stemming from national dynamics, that call for the University's close attention this academic year and beyond.

Facilities Update

The seventh anniversary of UCONN 2000 passed without fanfare on June 22. About seven weeks later, at 2 a.m. on August 13, the $1.3 billion 21st Century UConn proposal initiated by Governor Rowland won legislative approval, and on August 26 we welcomed the Governor, the legislative leadership, and about twenty other General Assembly members to South Campus as the bill was signed into law. Thus the physical transformation that began with a $1 billion investment in 1995 is enhanced by an additional $1.3 billion commitment, expanded to include the Health Center, and scheduled to run through 2015. It is a sobering thought that when the building program draws to a close, students who were a year old when it began will be entering their senior year at UConn.

Since last winter we completed major renovations at Wilbur Cross and Storrs Hall, opened the South Parking Garage, finished Phase II of the Agricultural- Biotechnology Building, implemented sprinkler projects at several residence halls, and installed new exterior signage at Storrs and the regional campuses. Work is proceeding at the new downtown Waterbury campus and, at Storrs, the School of Engineering's Information Technology Building, the Biology/Physics Building and the new Co-op. We began several other major projects, including the extensive, four-year renovations to the Student Union, an addition to Benton Museum, Gampel Pavilion renovations, improvements at the Neag School of Education's Gentry Building, and the transformation of the former School of Business to the new Center for Undergraduate Education. Construction now underway of new housing at North Campus (including 300 beds for fraternities and sororities, 470 beds in suite-style residence halls, and 500 beds in student apartments) will help meet the demand for student housing; these residential facilities are funded by special obligation bonds to be repaid by room fees. A Towers central dining facility will also meet a compelling need. Renovations at the Law School and at the Avery Point campus are ongoing as well.

Construction is always more to be cherished on its completion than to be enjoyed in process, and that certainly holds true for the projects that a re proceeding this year. The core of the Storrs campus seems to look more like a construction site than at any time in recent years, largely because of the massive work at the Information Technology Building and the Student Union, along with the projects at Gentry and the old School of Business. Our track record at Storrs and across the state promises that the ultimate outcome will more than justify the inconvenience. I do, however, want to thank all faculty and staff for their forbearance, and I want particularly to express my appreciation to our students. The temporary relocation of the offices and meeting rooms in the Student Union creates some difficulties, but these have been accepted with good grace and an excellent spirit of cooperation.

Throughout the University, the goals which have characterized UCONN 2000 remain our fundamental objective for 21st Century UConn: to create a statewide campus that is as attractive, technologically advanced, and appropriate to the academic and research program as exists at any public university in the country. Our progress with UCONN 2000 gives us every reason for confidence that we can attain that objective.

Enrollment Report

Two and a half months ago we welcomed the University's 122nd freshman class at the Convocation ceremony at Gampel Pavilion. In terms of size, diversity, and academic strength, the Class of 2006 continues the trend established in 1997, as the promise of UCONN 2000 began to take hold in the public mind. Some key statistics illustrate the point:

I have often said that these numbers may represent the best single indicator of our progress-along with one other vital statistic: Since 1995, 394 high school valedictorians and salutatorians, most of whom could have chosen from among a wide range of colleges, enrolled at the University of Connecticut. This year alone there are 60 in the entering freshman class.

But the numbers also represent one of the University's major challenges.

As Chancellor Petersen reported to the Board of Trustees earlier last month, we are moving very close to capacity at the Storrs campus. Indeed, in terms of housing we are above that level: This fall 10,317 undergraduates and graduate students moved into University housing meant to accommodate 9,944. Imaginative and, in some cases, frankly, sub-optimal makeshift arrangements enabled us to serve all those to whom we had promised beds, but this is not a situation that we can sustain for long without adverse consequences. The story on the academic side was a better one, with significant improvements over past years in student access to classes. Nevertheless, here too we face continuing challenges.

The housing situation is in some respects an artifact of UConn's exceptionally  high rate of undergraduate student residence in on-campus housing (currently 72% compared to the national average of 55%)-a situation we hope will be addressed over time, to some extent, through an expanded private housing market. It is, moreover, a problem that will partially be remedied by the completion of housing for 1,270 students in the North Campus area including fraternity and sorority facilities, apartments and suites. This will meet anticipated needs next fall without resorting to tripling of two-person rooms, use of study lounges for housing, or the temporary placement of students in facilities not designed for undergraduate housing.

Despite the avoidance of a crisis this fall, the academic issues are of equal if not greater concern. As indicated below, the operating budget adopted by the Board of Trustees in August was a tightly constrained spending plan that called for extreme caution in the expenditure of additional funds. Nevertheless, recognizing the University's continuing commitment to the strongest possible instructional program, the budget provided $3 million over the next three years in additional funding for faculty and for student advisement. The Board's explicitly stated goal is to provide every University undergraduate with the opportunity to complete an academic program expeditiously, with appropriate advisement, and with access to a reasonable number of small classes.

There are several ways to achieve that objective and people of good will can engage in a legitimate debate over the optimal use of resources to accomplish the goal. As at other institutions, UConn is working toward the appropriate mix of additional tenure-track lines and postdoctoral instructors, large lecture classes and smaller sections, and other combinations that will, taken together, maintain excellence and assure access. We will meet the challenge imposed by the 1997-2002 increases.

It is increasingly clear, however, that if the rate of growth at the Storrs campus is not limited, our commitment to quality will be seriously jeopardized. Accordingly, as part of our enrollment report to the Board earlier this month, we proposed that over the next five years freshman Storrs enrollment increase only marginally. Yet we recognize and indeed we celebrate the fact that demand for a University of Connecticut education continues to rise. Thus we face the question of how best to meet the need for enrollment growth within the context of resource constraints.

The best if not the only answer is to allocate the most significant proportion of future enrollment increases to the regional campuses. Over the past five years the number of freshmen enrolling at the regional campuses has increased by 289, or 52%. Perhaps of greater significance, the number of applicants indicating a regional campus as their first choice has climbed from 784 in 1997 to 917 in Fall 2002. Of our 394 valedictorians and salutatorians, 33 have chosen to enroll at the regional campuses.

This is an important, if heretofore largely unheralded, sign of one of the major elements of the University's transformation. Once perceived as less than full-fledged members of the UConn community, the five regional campuses have witnessed an amazing degree of progress. The new campus at Stamford opened in 1998; the new campus at Waterbury is scheduled for completion in 2003. Avery Point has undergone major improvements, including completion of a magnificent new Marine Sciences building. Renovations at Avery Point and Hartford are high on the list of 21st Century UConn projects, and we are working with faculty and others to develop academic plans at Torrington that will guide infrastructure plans there.

The physical improvement has been accompanied by a programmatic emphasis. Over the past five years the University has proposed and the Connecticut Department of Higher Education has approved eight new programs at the regional campuses, including a Bachelor of Science in Business and Technology at Stamford and the Tri-campus (Waterbury, Hartford and Torrington); a Bachelor of Science in Coastal Studies at Avery Point; a Bachelor of Arts in Urban and Community Studies at the Tri-campus; a Master of Accounting at Tri-campus; and others. In fact, thirty percent of all our new program approvals have been sited at the regional campuses. Establishment of the Tri-campus organizational structure enhanced the regional campus capacity to deliver a first-rate academic program, and augmentation of the recruiting staff has enabled the University to communicate the regional campus message to a wide audience.

Students have multiple goals and lifestyles. Some want a conventional four-year residential college experience, which is available at Storrs. But many others wish to go to school close to home for work, family, or personal preference reasons. The option of obtaining an excellent education and a UConn degree at one of the regional campuses is one that more and more students are exploring. Growth of the regional campus enrollment assures maximum utilization of our expanding physical plant, promotes effective use of faculty and staff resources, and enables us to fulfill our mission of service to the state as a whole.

Setting Objectives and Developing Plans

At the request of the Board of Trustees, in June I presented an outline of my objectives for the University over the next five years. The document is appropriately labeled "draft," because it represents a starting point for discussion across the University community, and, as I emphasized to the Board, any meaningful planning process will reflect broad input. Building on earlier work, I listed ten key objectives that I believe represent consensus goals:

1. University programs in selected fields will be ranked by the appropriate evaluative bodies as among the top ten nationally.
2. The University will continue to be a dynamic center of scholarship and creative work, with a strong commitment to basic as well as applied research and an equally strong commitment to freedom of academic expression.
3. As one of the nation's leading centers of medical and dental research and education, the University will continue to be a significant provider of first-rate clinical care to Connecticut's residents.
4. Programs essential to Connecticut's economic development will be maintained, implemented or expanded.
5. The University will continue to serve as a major force for the enhancement of Connecticut's quality of life through activities and events that enrich the cultural, educational and recreational climate of the state. Every University campus will represent an asset to its surrounding community.
6. The University will be the school of choice for ambitious, talented and creative high school seniors from Connecticut and, in significant numbers, from across the nation.
7. Enrollment will be maintained at a size that permits the proper balance of access and the assurance of excellence in academic and student life programs. We expect that enrollment will grow modestly in the next five years and then be reevaluated in the context of curricular, student service, housing and other objectives.
8. The University will offer access to all academically qualified potential students regardless of economic means.
9. The faculty, staff, and student body will reflect the ethnic and cultural diversity of Connecticut's population. The University will continue and expand programs that foster a climate of civility and inclusion.
10. The University will be recognized as an organization committed to helping all members of its faculty, administrative and support staff fulfill their career goals.

The Board offered a general endorsement and directed us to implement a process and, where appropriate, develop specific goals.

On September 16, Chancellor Petersen announced the appointment of a faculty/student/administrator task force charged with developing an ongoing process of academic planning. The process has two closely related functions: to assure that the University's academic program is consistent with the general objectives agreed upon by the University community and endorsed by the Board of Trustees; and, on a more specific and immediate level, to link the next phase of our building program to our academic aspirations and needs. Chaired by Board of Trustees Distinguished Professor and Humanities Institute Director Richard Brown and Associate Vice Chancellor Karla Fox, the 15-member task force includes eleven other faculty members representing a broad cross-section of academic areas, and two students. It will begin work shortly with a comprehensive review of existing plans, an updated environmental scan and data collection, and will conduct extensive outreach to all Storrs-based constituencies over the course of the academic year. A final document is anticipated in the spring semester.

In previous communications I have discussed the roughly analogous process which the Health Center undertook over the past three years. That process led to a clear set of objectives and priorities, strengthening the Health Center's capacity to fulfill its research, teaching and clinical missions at a time of fiscal difficulty for hospitals and academic health centers across the nation.

Budget Challenges

Over the past six months I have taken several opportunities to discuss our operating budget challenges with faculty, staff, students and parents. Although the numbers have changed slightly over that time, the basic story remains the same. Like almost every other state, Connecticut faces significant revenue problems; these stem from a combination of the national economic downturn and two factors that affect this state particularly strongly: turbulence in the financial markets and the aftermath of last September 11. It is not likely that there will be a significant turnaround soon; in fact, the situation may get even more difficult before it improves.

Higher education is always vulnerable in such situations because, unlike other state services like child protection or corrections, we have-or, at least, those who write state budgets believe that we have-other sources of revenue available to us; higher education is, in fact, perceived to be one of the largest discretionary budget items. Arguments for strengthened state support for the University, which we presented forcefully and repeatedly through the legislative session, relate to the need to continue investment in our dramatic progress in educating more of Connecticut's talented and ambitious students (reversing the "brain drain"), maintaining and protecting the UCONN 2000 (and, soon, 21st Century UConn) investment, and generally enhancing our capacity to strengthen the quality of life and the economic vitality of the state. Those arguments did not prevent budget reductions, but I believe they helped prevent more severe cuts than we in fact experienced.

The budget adjustment for the 2003 fiscal year (coinciding with the 2002-03 academic year) reduced the state's allocation for the Storrs-based programs from the previously-approved $203.9 million to $193.7 million, and cut the Health Center's state budget allocation from $76.3 million to $74.2 million. To say that things could be worse, or that cuts are nothing new, is not to minimize the challenges presented by reductions of this magnitude in a single year.

We met the challenges by taking several steps, many of them difficult but all of them warranted by our overriding commitment to the University's progress. In August the Board of Trustees approved a budget for the current year that balances expenditures and revenues, provides some additional resources to meet student needs, and maintains our capacity to generate additional revenues through funded research or donor support. To attain these goals, the Board approved, among other measures, a mid-year increase in student tuition of $108 above the amount previously approved. I communicated to all 24,000 students and their parents the importance of the additional resources generated by this increase to the academic program, and received a generally supportive response. In addition, the Board called upon the University to continue our effort to implement optimal efficiencies and expense reductions. For the short-term, this has meant looking very carefully at every hiring decision, limiting University-funded travel, and taking other steps to curtail expenditures.

I wish I could say that this is only a temporary problem, but we believe that the next biennium will continue to be a difficult period; the impact of the current economy on state budgets will continue to be felt for years to come. On August 13, in addition to approving the 2002-03 spending plan, the Board approved a biennial budget proposal for presentation to the state that increases the cost to an undergraduate attending UConn and living in University housing by approximately 7% per year in 2003-04 and 2004-05 respectively; it also calls for continuing programmatic improvement along with administrative efficiencies. In the current economic context, this is a positive budget proposal and we will advocate it vigorously in the months to come. The University is held in high regard across the state; for the most part, our elected officials share that perspective. Nevertheless, we need to be particularly vigorous in presenting what we believe to be a compelling case for sustained support for Connecticut's flagship public university.

Campaign UConn

Along with the increase in student applications and enrollment and enhanced funding for scholarship and research, the continuing rise in philanthropic support represents a significant indicator of the external world's perception of the University of Connecticut's progress. This summer we said goodbye to Vice President for Institutional Advancement Edward Allenby, whose leadership was instrumental in expanding our donor base from about 27,000 contributors when he arrived in 1993 to more than 36,000 in 2002, and who oversaw an increase in annual giving from about $6 million to over $50 million last year. During that time the size of our endowment nearly quintupled, from $41 million to approximately $200 million today. In ways unimagined in the early 1990s, private support now truly provides a "margin of excellence" in every aspect of the fulfillment of our mission.

As at any major university, successful fundraising depends on the interaction of a number of variables, several of which are beyond the institution's direct control. Most important is, of course, the underlying strength of our instructional and research program. The University of Connecticut has an excellent story to tell and we have made giant strides in our effort to communicate it effectively. But other factors are also significant, including the perception that private donations supplement rather than supplant support from other sources and that they make a significant difference in the institution's progress. It goes without saying that economic conditions also play an important role.

The fundraising structure created during the mid-1990s, and given special impetus by the state matching grant program and its extension last year, enabled us to continue our progress despite an increasingly challenging economic climate. While it was necessary for the UConn Foundation to implement cost-reduction measures over the summer, the Foundation remains exceptionally well positioned to generate increasing private support and to fulfill its role as the steward of the assets under its jurisdiction. A search for a new Foundation president is now underway and I am confident that a new leader of outstanding capability will take our efforts to even greater heights.

With a little more than a year and a half to go, Campaign UConn, our $300 million fundraising effort, continues to be on pace for meeting and exceeding its goal. As of August 30, $215 million was raised, bringing us to 72% of the goal. Of this total, $52.3 million is targeted to faculty support, including endowed chairs, professorships, and faculty awards; $34.8 million is geared to student support, including funds for 178 scholarships and graduate and professional fellowships; and $127.8 million is focused on programmatic support in 83 separate areas. A total of 292 new endowments have been created, increasing by 50% the number established in the prior thirty years.

Developments at the Health Center

In addition to items mentioned above, several developments pertaining specifically to the Health Center deserve mention. Each is significant in itself; in aggregate they provide continuing confirmation of ongoing progress in our continuing quest for the highest standards of teaching, research and clinical care.

Board of Directors
In 2001, at the University's request, the Connecticut General Assembly authorized the Board of Trustees to create a 17-member Health Center Board of Directors that replaces the five-member Health Affairs Committee of the Board of Trustees. The new panel has authority over all aspects of Health Center operations, with the exception of operating and capital budgets, which require final approval by the full Board of Trustees.

The new panel held its first meeting on September 9. In addition to three Board of Trustees members, the Board of Directors includes a cross-section of highly distinguished leaders in health care, government, law and financial services. It brings new skills and expertise to the oversight function, and an array of perspectives that can provide the critical counsel needed for a modern health care facility's growth.

Surgicenter
Plans are proceeding for the construction of a new 100,000 square-foot building to house an ambulatory surgery center and provide a home for the Health Center's Musculoskeletal Institute. The new ambulatory surgery center is a joint venture between John Dempsey Hospital and Health Resources International, an international health care management firm. It will include five operating rooms, space for pre- and post-anesthesia care, and room for administrative and business offices. The Musculoskeletal Institute, which will occupy most of the new building, is a new initiative for the Health Center that will incorporate clinical, research and academic programs in musculoskeletal health. The Institute is a key component of the Health Center's strategic plan, which emphasizes linkages between areas of research excellence with clinical care and education programs.

School of Dental Medicine Grant
The School of Dental Medicine, already the largest single provider of dental care to the state's economically disadvantaged residents, will more than triple its services to underserved population during the next five years with a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the nation's largest philanthropy devoted exclusively to health and health care. With the $1.4 million grant, the Dental School will revise its curriculum to increase students' current commitment of 22 days to dental care for inner city and other low-income populations in Connecticut to 75 care days. In addition, the Dental School will expand its affiliation with community health centers, a step that provides additional funds to the Health Center's Health Career Opportunity Programs to strengthen recruitment of minority students. The grant was awarded to our School of Dental Medicine and nine other dental schools across the nation.

The Charlotte Johnson Hollfelder Center for Women's Health
On September 10, with generous private support, the University opened the new Charlotte Johnson Hollfelder Center for Women's Health. I was pleased to join Executive Vice President for Health Affairs Deckers in dedicating the Center, and in thanking Fred Hollfelder for the many gifts to the Health Center he has made in his late wife's name. The new women's health center will provide a variety of services, including obstetrics and gynecology, maternal-fetal medicine, breast health, care for women with osteoporosis, and a range of educational programs. Like other new initiatives, the center provides an opportunity to bring together the resources of the Health Center's educational, research and clinical care programs in addressing areas of major concern to Connecticut's citizens.

Enhancing the Climate for Research

The University of Connecticut's role as a research university generates vast opportunities for our faculty, our students and our state. It also creates major challenges, and we need to meet them effectively and aggressively.

One of the standard measures of an institution's stature as a research university is external funding. Of course, all of us know that grant support is to great degree a function of the specific discipline. The fact that physical and biological scientists are more likely to attract federal dollars than are humanists skews the data, and it should not-and does not-diminish the value we place on scholarship in the latter fields, for which other external indices may be better indicators of quality. Nevertheless we cannot ignore the vast potential role of research funding in supporting the University's overall academic program.

Between 1996 and 2001 research awards across the University-at the Storrs-based programs and the Health Center-climbed by about 50%, from $98.4 million to $147.5 million. In FY 2002 the total increased to more than $166 million. Four years ago the Board of Trustees set a goal of $168.3 million for FY 2005 and we have almost reached that point. This June the Board asked the administration to make plans for a new objective, raising the goal to between $200 million and $250 million by FY 2008.

The progress we have made thus far, and that yet to come, is to great degree a reflection of the value of UCONN 2000 and the completion of the Academic Research Building at the Health Center. The excellent facilities constructed over the past seven years have helped attract exceptionally productive new faculty and have helped existing faculty fulfill their research agendas. Moreover, UCONN 2000-funded equipment and technology have served as the University's match in many grant applications. 21st Century UConn will help us accelerate this trend.

On the other hand, future levels of federal research funding represent an unknowable factor. A sluggish economy and competing needs-notably including national security and, specifically, counter-terrorism requirements-create both short- and long-term difficulties for all research universities, including UConn. We intend to continue to pursue vigorously all appropriate funding opportunities and we are strengthening our capacity to compete successfully. With the help of Connecticut's Congressional delegation we have sought, with some success, earmarked dollars to support research in areas of special federal interest. Success breeds success, and our progress in recent years, coupled with the building program, positions us well to meet whatever situation exists in the next few years. The objective of enhanced funding is a realistic and attainable one.

There are, however, serious internal challenges that must be met.

First among them is the need to assure ongoing sensitivity to the highest levels of compliance and accountability on the part of all those engaged in research. It is particularly important that principal investigators who are engaged in research involving animals or human subjects are fully aware of and compliant with federal standards. It should be well understood across the University community that failures in this regard jeopardize the University's eligibility for future funding and are simply unacceptable for substantive and ethical reasons. Staff in various compliance offices and faculty on federally-mandated compliance committees are doing their best to be helpful, but cannot assure compliance-and prevent fines or other, even more serious sanctions-without faculty, staff, and student cooperation.

In addition, while cost-accounting principles and practices may seem unrelated  to research, federal agencies consider accountability for funds to fall under the general rubric of research ethics. Small things can create major problems. For example, overspending individual grants and looking to the University to cover overruns with general research funds is not only a bad way to do business but unfair to other researchers who have been more tightly accountable.

In a more fundamental policy area, it has always been the case that we need t o leverage strategically our large institutional investment in research; at a time when state funds are severely restricted, this is more important than ever. One way to do this is to collect indirect costs on all projects. Another way is to request full funding to cover total project needs; operationally, this might mean consistently including in research proposals the full salaries and tuition of graduate assistants. The additional funding that results can then be used to provide funds where matches are required, or to help new faculty initiate research, or to pay for projects (or aspects of projects) that cannot be funded by external sources.

This certainly does not exhaust the list of needs or creative responses, but it does indicate a direction in which I would like us to move. Our role as a major research university is not only important to the overall quality of the academic program; it is central to our identity and our mission. Our commitments to quality, accountability, and strategic focus of resources need continuing emphasis as our research program grows.

Assuring a Safe Campus Environment

As I indicated earlier, the rise in enrollment in terms of size, diversity, and academic strength is a wonderful reflection on our progress. While growth has created logistical and budgetary challenges, I believe we have responded as effectively as we possibly could and have maintained our commitment to academic excellence. UConn's undergraduate program now stands as a point of pride for faculty, students, and our student services and support staff.

There is, however, one aspect of the student experience that troubles me greatly, and it is an area in which the University of Connecticut does not stand alone. Let me be blunt. Substance abuse, which has been a problem for time immemorial at college campuses and other institutions that serve large numbers of young people, is now reaching alarming proportions at many American universities, UConn among them. Every week I receive reports detailing the impact of overdrinking and, less frequently, drug abuse. The major tragedies, of which we have had our share, make headlines and grab our attention. The more common stories, ranging from minor vandalism to simple obnoxious behavior, tend to blend together in people's minds as unpleasant symptoms of adolescent behavior about which little can be done.

Not everyone on campus feels that way, of course. Our Student Affairs staff works long and hard to create an environment that encourages responsible behavior and offers positive options to alcohol consumption; the staff implements excellent educational programs and, at the other end of the story, the Student Health Service provides first-class treatment (or, where necessary, transportation to hospital emergency rooms) to students who have made appallingly bad choices. Elected student leaders have been helpful and supportive in addressing this problem. The University Police maintain order and deal appropriately with those who visibly and dangerously violate the rules, and handle what is often a thankless job with a high degree of sensitivity and professionalism.

Worthy as these efforts are, they are not enough. Despite our drive toward the highest levels of academic quality, UConn holds the dubious distinction of being on national lists of "party schools." Spring Weekend may be getting better than in the worst years of the past, but it is a continuing worry for all of us. My general sense is, frankly, that substance abuse at UConn is growing at least as fast as it is across the country. Given the rise in our student body's academic strength, this is surprising, but apparently for many young people the relationship between academic intelligence and common sense is not as close as we might hope.

If we or any of our peer institutions had the complete answer to this problem it would have long since been solved. We will certainly continue and expand our current educational, treatment, and enforcement efforts. This year resources are being directed towards a prevention and wellness program in partnership with the Dean of Students' Office. But even this, regrettably, will probably not do much more than keep the problem from getting worse.

The time has come to ask all members of the community to contribute to a collective effort at creative thought. We need to hear from a wide range of students-not just the student body's elected leaders, who tend not to be among the students at risk, but from students who are having difficulty in this area. We need to hear from faculty, from the staff (including but not limited to Student Affairs staff and the University Police), and from parents. We need, particularly, to take advantage of the resident expertise that exists both at the Health Center and the Storrs-based programs; a significant number of UConn faculty are nationally-recognized leaders in the field of addiction and substance abuse. We need to explore various possible courses of action, including some being successfully implemented elsewhere and others never tried before, to enhance our own efforts. And we need to reinforce a sense of deep commitment that involves everyone at the institution.

At the request of Chancellor Petersen and myself, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Vicky Triponey and her colleagues developed a set of approximately 50 specific recommendations. These serve as a useful starting point for discussion. The final recommendation, which I accept, is that we appoint a campus-wide task force to develop a clear and comprehensive strategy. In the coming weeks I will be working with various groups on campus to structure the task force and to choose a broad cross-section of individuals to serve as members. I have no preconceptions about the outcome of this process, but I know that if we fail to respond to the problem before us we will not be serving the young people for whose well-being we have a profound responsibility.

Concluding Thoughts

As I indicated at the outset, this continues to be an active time for the University, and the length of this letter suggests the range of issues before us. Despite external challenges that are as severe as any since the early 1990s, we continue to be on a positive trajectory. The transformation that began in 1995 with the adoption of UCONN 2000 continues, enhanced by 21st Century UConn and clearly supported by the people of Connecticut. The fundamental decisions about UConn's move to the top ranks of American public higher education have been made and are being implemented. The primary task before us in this academic year, and almost certainly in the years that follow, is to find a way to meet rising expectations while dealing with severely constrained state financial support. We do not intend to set limits on expectations. We do intend to enhance support from other sources and to work creatively to make the best use of what resources we have to enhance our instructional, research, and service programs.

I have said repeatedly that no public higher education institution in the country is better positioned for dramatic improvement than the University of Connecticut. Despite some short-term difficulties, that continues to be true in all the areas outlined above-enrollment, physical infrastructure, student life, service, and research-and the multitude of others that could not be included in this letter for reasons of space. As the 2002-03 year proceeds and as we plan for the years to come, I look forward to working with all members of the University community to assure that we take maximum advantage of the opportunities before us.

cc: Board of Trustees