Letter to the Community

March 17, 1999
TO: The University Community
FROM: Philip E. Austin

Recently, in the magnificent South Campus Ballroom at Storrs, Chancellor Emmert and I met with about 400 faculty and staff members at a "Forum on the State of our University." This was a welcome opportunity to report on issues of immediate concern; more significantly, I think, it represented an important step forward in our efforts to forge a closer sense of community within the University. As at our Freshman Convocation last Fall, turnout far exceeded expectations and the response was warm and encouraging.

For those who were not able to attend, I would like to present here a summary of my remarks. As always, I welcome your comments.

State Budget Issues

Let me begin with what is one of the most significant items immediately before us, the State budget and its impact on the University.

Those of you who are new to the state may not know that Connecticut, like many other states, budgets on a biennial basis. In Connecticut the odd-numbered years are the critical ones. The process is conventional: the University, like the state agencies, submits a request, it goes through some analysis by the Office of Policy and Management (OPM), the Governor presents a budget proposal, and the General Assembly deliberates and approves appropriate legislation for the Governor's signature.

The results can at times be anything but conventional. The last time we went through a budget session, in 1997, OPM recommended what was in essence a 10% reduction in University funding--this at a time when we were in the early phases of UCONN 2000, we were starting to show dramatic improvements in fundraising, and we were about to embark on a very ambitious Strategic Plan. We had a strong case, we made it aggressively, and the result was that the General Assembly restored our funding. To his great credit, Governor Rowland accepted the restoration and we moved on from there.

I am happy to report that this year's budget proposal, for the 1999-2001 biennium, is generally a constructive document that will allow the University to meet its fundamental objectives. While it does not provide everything we asked for (or everything we need), it is a useful place to start a discussion of how we can work with the State of Connecticut to meet the aspirations for the University that we share with our elected leaders.

Essentially the budget provides funding almost, but not quite, at current services levels. There is a special allocation of $2.5 million that might enable us to resolve, finally, a long dispute over the tract of land that had been set aside for a technology park - the UCEPI project. While we have no immediate intended use for this property, it is in our long-term interest to put this issue behind us.

In addition, in exchange for maintaining tuition levels in the 1999-2000 academic year at the 1998-99 level, the budget provides $2.6 million to cover revenue we would otherwise have obtained from our students and their families. As you know, at the General Assembly's behest the Board of Trustees also froze tuition this year, and this was covered by $2.4 million in state funds.

Some aspects of the budget, however, give us cause for concern. We asked for funds sufficient to maintain our facilities, including our new buildings. Unfortunately, the proposal before the General Assembly falls substantially short of what is needed, calling for less than one-third of what OPM's standard formula would provide for the new facilities. It is all well and good to construct extraordinary buildings. But unless we have adequate dollars to maintain them, state government is laying the groundwork for the kind of disaster that made UCONN 2000 essential in the first place. I will do everything in my power to keep that from happening.

We also requested $5.5 million over the course of the biennium to help fund what we characterize as our "strategic initiatives" in four areas: undergraduate education; enhanced student recruitment with an emphasis on diversity and multicultural offerings; economic development initiatives, including the Critical Technologies program, the Connecticut Information Technology Initiative (CITI) based in Stamford, the marine-based programs in Avery Point, and enhancements in Pharmacy and Business Administration; and technology-based student services programs. Each of these initiatives is geared to implementing our strategic plan, and there has been faculty and staff input in developing all of them. They are part of our overall effort to assure excellence across the curriculum, in all disciplines in which we offer academic work - 'in the humanities, the sciences, the arts and all other areas - at the undergraduate, graduate and professional levels. In large part we are funding these initiatives through internal reallocations; in part, we are asking the state for the required additional funding. Except for some very welcome support for our Y2K initiative, we received not one additional dollar for these priorities--and, as with our maintenance needs, we have to make some very clear arguments to see those requests met.

There are two other elements of the budget that merit discussion, one notable by its inclusion in the proposal, the other by its absence.

The former relates to the state's expectations regarding our faculty's fulfillment of its teaching responsibility and its provisions regarding administrative compensation. The proposal mandates that the University of Connecticut move in the direction of having our faculty members teach, on average, one additional course per year, and recommends that the state appropriation to the University be reduced accordingly. It also calls for a freeze on salaries for administrators outside of the collective bargaining units.

Recently the General Assembly's Appropriations Committee held hearings on the University budget. I responded to the faculty workload issue by stressing that the function of a land-grant research university is such that faculty have multiple obligations that include classroom instruction, basic and applied research, publication and public service. It is pointless and indeed counterproductive to mandate a quantitative increase in classroom teaching if it leads to a reduction in our faculty's ability to perform and perform well in those other areas. That weakens our ability to serve our students or our state, and I will continue to press that point.

In that general context, we have a simple and direct response to the budget's calls for a freeze on administrative compensation. All of us - administrators, faculty, and staff - are legitimately held accountable for the success of this University. In a series of decisions in the 1990's the State of Connecticut gave this institution the autonomy we need to fulfill our mission. As the recently issued PricewaterhouseCoopers report points out, we have kept the number of senior administrators relatively low at the University because that makes for more efficient and more accountable management. The last thing we need is a return to State micromanagement of human or other resources.

The second budget element has happier implications. Contrary to our earlier fears, the budget proposes no change in the administration of UCONN 2000. One of the most farsighted aspects of the original UCONN 2000 legislation in 1995 was that it placed implementation responsibility here, at the University. Four years later the results are in: 97 projects completed; a new downtown campus in Stamford; a set of magnificent buildings in Storrs; and, in aggregate, the continuing implementation of a master plan for an accessible, technologically sophisticated, welcoming campus that will help us attract the best students in the State of Connecticut and beyond. As with any endeavor of this scale there have been inconveniences and challenges. We are overcoming all of them. To an extent far beyond what I have seen at any other university and light years beyond what would have been possible if we did not have operating control, we have made UCONN 2000 a project of which we can all be proud.

I would be remiss if I did not add here that it isn't just our locally-based control structure that makes UCONN 2000 so successful - it is a corps of extremely hardworking, creative, dedicated staff who make all of our new buildings triumphs of a community-wide process. They deserve our deepest thanks for a job that has been and continues to be exceptionally well done.

An Update on Infrastructure

In that context, let me outline just where we are with UCONN 2000 and our other construction projects. A year ago, the South Campus facility was a muddy construction site. The Library was not yet complete. The Chemistry Building had not opened, nor had the newly enclosed Ice Rink. The Field House renovations and the parking garage were new and the Gampel Pavilion expansion was of recent vintage. We were busy making plans for the dedication of the downtown Stamford campus.

Today there are 674 students housed in South Campus and multiples of that number eat there every day, in one of the finest residential dining facilities at any university in the country. There are 84 labs in operation and about three dozen faculty working in Chemistry, a complete and magnificent library where utilization is 25% above our previous all-time high, a Stamford campus that enrolled 42% more freshmen this fall than last fall, and a Field House that is fully utilized from morning to night. The Health Center research building will get its first faculty occupants in about five weeks. Construction is underway on the Biological Sciences building, the Agricultural Biotechnology Building, and the Fine Arts building. We will break ground for the new School of Business Administration building early next month and a new Pharmacy building shortly thereafter. A new Visitor's Center is under design, thanks to the generous support of Foundation President Philip Lodewick and his wife Christine. A new building for the UConn Foundation, built entirely with Foundation funds, is under construction. Work at Avery Point is progressing well.

In January we presented to the Governor and the General Assembly and distributed campus-wide our formal report on the progress of Phase I of UCONN 2000. We are now putting the plans for Phase II in final form.

Over the past few months we have been working strategically to bring legislators, editorial board members and other opinion leaders on tours of the campus to show them our progress. The visits have resulted in a uniformly positive reaction in the press, ranging from the New York Times to the New London Day to the Hartford Courant and many papers and television stations in between. The consistent and favorable news coverage is helping us in attracting students, impressing potential donors, recruiting excellent faculty and staff, and, in short, accelerating our very positive momentum.

External Support

Since my arrival two and a half years ago, one of my primary goals has been to increase external private support for the University. I feel more strongly than ever that an institution of our quality and potential, located in this part of the country, merits major private investment. It is no secret that we have a long way to go, but in the past few years we have made huge progress in addressing what had been a serious deficiency. In 1995 the University raised about $8 million; a few weeks ago Vice President Ed Allenby reported to the Board of the University of Connecticut Foundation that in the year that ended June 30, 1998 we raised more than $20 million. Two years ago we began to lay the foundation for a major capital campaign whose goals would have been unimaginable prior to UCONN 2000.

On Thursday, February 25, many of us went to the State Capitol. There, in the presence of the Governor and a room packed full of faculty, students, alumni and other friends of the School of Education and the University as a whole, we announced a $23 million gift from our Class of 1956 alumnus, Ray Neag. This is the largest single gift ever made to this University or to any public university in New England. Of that total, $2 million will support programs at the Health Center and $21 million will be devoted to the School of Education. As the New York Times reported a few days later, this is the largest gift ever made to a School of Education in the United States. With the state's endowment matching grant, Mr. Neag's gift will bring $27 million to the University.

In the coming months we will have an appropriate ceremony here in Storrs to commemorate this gift. Let me say now that it is not only welcome on its own terms, and as an affirmation of our overall progress; it is a harbinger of other, similar things to come.

Health Center Issues

I emphasize at every opportunity that this is one university. The well-being of the entire institution depends heavily on the health of each of its component parts. It is important that people based at Storrs, the Law School and the regional campuses have a full understanding of the Health Center's concerns and challenges; the reciprocal is also true. Later this spring Chancellor Cutler and I will hold a meeting with Health Center faculty and staff analogous to the forum we held in Storrs. This will be a welcome opportunity to discuss major is sues in detail.

Most of the news coming from the Health Center is positive. As I mention ed, the Research Building is at the point of completion and it will increase biomedical research space at the Health Center by more than 40%. We have won some exceptionally noteworthy grants, including a $9 million grant renewal from the National Institutes of Health that will allow us to continue the work of the Clinical Research Center, which has supported programs in alcohol and substance abuse, osteoporosis, prostate cancer, tick-borne diseases, AIDS and glaucoma. We also just received a $4 million grant, also from NIH, to develop a computer system that will allow scientists to model the inner workings of a cell; this so-called "Virtual Cell" program will help biologists, neuroscientists, and drug designers and will be a valuable teaching tool. The Health Center has recruited several outstanding new faculty. John Dempsey Hospital is now ranked as the most cost-efficient hospital in the state, building on the heels of last year's Accreditation with Commendation from the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. The new curricula at the Medical and Dental schools have attracted nation al recognition. This year's corps of new students was, as always, academically outstanding--but also more diverse, reflecting a concerted effort by the Health Center to increase the representation of minority groups.

I mentioned earlier my budget testimony before the General Assembly's Appropriations Committee. Funding of the Health Center's new five-year strategic plan was also a subject of detailed discussion with the Committee. It is clear that the Health Center's many accomplishments are a direct result of successful implementation of the previous strategic plan, and State support for the new strategic plan will help us maintain our momentum.

Nevertheless, we face some major challenges at the Health Center. These challenges have been the subject of recent news reports, and given the complexities of health care delivery in our region we can anticipate further media coverage of this topic in the months ahead.

Medical and dental programs are expensive. John Dempsey Hospital plays an essential role not only as a site for instruction, but as a critical revenue source, providing more than $40 million to educational progress of the medical and dental schools. Yet in the current managed care environment, we are running into revenue problems that are only exacerbated by the intense competition that prevails among health care providers in the greater Hartford area.

The Health Center has done about everything it can to reduce costs and eliminate inefficiencies, while insuring the highest quality of care. It will never do anything which compromises the well-being of patients. The next step is for us to work on collaborations with our peer institutions that serve the public while maintaining our ability to offer excellent medical and dental training and excellent professional care. We are working closely with state government in that effort. Additionally, Health Center and University leaders are joining others in the state who are encouraging the General Assembly to establish a Distressed Hospital Fund. Such legislation would provide much-needed relief to small- and medium-sized hospitals by returning to them some of the funds these organizations are now paying into the Uncompensated Care Pool. John Dempsey Hospital, for example, paid over $8.3 million into the UCP in 1997, more than any other hospital in the state. This is not only a considerable hardship, but places John Dempsey Hospital at an unfair disadvantage to other hospitals in the region.

Athletics

UConn athletics continues to be a source of pride, not just for the University, but for the entire state. For thousands of Connecticut residents, and for millions of people across the country, basketball may be the initial point of contact with the University of Connecticut, as has been the case since the late 1980's. From that initial contact comes, increasingly, a greater understanding of our academic program and, in large measure, a greater appreciation of the University's value as a center of research, learning and service. This is a perception that the leadership of our Athletics program advances both on and off the court or the field. Two notable examples came this fall, as Coach Geno Auriemma contributed $125,000 to Homer Babbidge Library, and Coach Jim Calhoun contributed $125,000 to the cardiology program at the Health Center.

For about the past year and a half we have been engaged in the NCAA certification process. Under the direction of Dr. Peter McFadden and Professor John Allen, a broad-based University committee completed the massive self-study that is at the heart of that process. In January we were visited by the NCAA peer review team, who were with us for four days and interviewed 51 individuals. Those meetings went well. We expect the NCAA's certification report this spring. I am confident that it will confirm what we already know--that athletics at UConn is well-run and is devoted to the highest standards of integrity. In key areas we have moved into a position of national leadership.

As the UConn community is well aware, UConn is a major element in the proposal to build a new stadium for the Patriots at the Adrian's Landing site in Hartford. Assuming no unexpected obstacles, within the next three years that stadium will be ready to accommodate a Division 1-A University of Connecticut football program. Early in January I wrote to Big East Commissioner Michael Tranghese and Rutgers President Francis Lawrence, Chair of the Big East Football Conference Presidents, indicating that we were ready to commence the formal application process. The response from Big East members has been highly encouraging.

I want to repeat now what I said a year and a half ago, when we made our earlier effort to build a Division 1-A stadium in Storrs. I believe that a Division 1-A football program, like a nationally successful basketball program, can be an asset to the University. It can enhance our national visibility, add to the sense of excitement and community on campus, help us raise private funds, and win friends in the legislature. But--again, as I said in 1997--I am committed to the proposition that no resources will be diverted from the academic budget to support Division 1-A football. Within that clearly-recognized constraint, I am prepared to work to make the Division 1-A promise a reality.

The PricewaterhouseCoopers Management Study

Internal and external assessment is the norm in academic institutions and it is certainly the norm at the University of Connecticut. I mentioned the reviews of Dempsey Hospital and the NCAA evaluation of our athletic program. Every academic program at the University is undergoing a full-scale assessment process, beginning with a self-assessment. The University as a whole is accredited by the New England Association of Schools and Colleges. Many of the people in this room, myself included, have been part of external review teams at other institutions.

The study of our administrative processes that we undertook about fifteen months ago is part and parcel of that process. We need to know where there are opportunities for savings and where there are opportunities for more efficient service. And we need to know how we compare with our peer institutions, and with institutions in whose company we would like to be mentioned.

To no one's surprise--and certainly not mine--the PricewaterhouseCoopers report issued in February showed that in most areas we are operating relatively well in the context of higher education and, particularly, in the context of an institution that was until very recently operating under all the constraints of a typical state agency. The fact that we are doing as well as we are is not due to our processes, but to our people.

Also to no one's surprise, there is room for improvement. We are doing much better in fundraising; we should do better still. Our research revenue should be higher. We can deliver services to students and faculty more efficiently, with less travel across campus and less paperwork. We can and indeed we must upgrade our information technology capability, as must virtually every university in the country.

The report is a solid, competent document with over 100 specific suggestions, some of them very good indeed. It is not sacred scripture. All members of the community will have the opportunity to look at the recommendations, determine if they make sense, and where they do, develop ways to carry them out. Some of us may ultimately do our jobs in different and more productive ways as the result of this study. That will be all to the good, not just of our students and the public, but of those of us who work here and want the satisfaction of performing service at the highest possible level.

Some Concluding Thoughts

Let me close by sharing with the community the concluding comments in my statement last month to the General Assembly Appropriations Committee, in which I sought to summarize a strong record of institutional achievement that warrants continuing state support. My words to our elected leaders were as follows:

• My view of our respective responsibilities is quite straightforward. The General Assembly sets the policy goals and the bottom line. We at the University man age the resources to achieve those objectives.
• You said stop the "brain drain." UConn freshman enrollment is up 17%, with greater diversity and academic skill.
• You said rebuild the University's physical plant. Our magnificent new infrastructure speaks for itself.
• You said bring in private funds. UConn's endowment has grown from $53 million to $145 million in fewer than four years.
• You said focus your institutional priorities. We have enhanced our undergraduate program and laid the foundation for centers of academic excellence - and we did it with reallocated dollars while simultaneously eradicating a structural deficit.
• You said tighten administrative operations. Based on information provided by the Office of Policy and Management we reduced the number of administrators at the main and regional campuses by 19% and at the Health Center by 10% since 1994.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have done what you asked us to do, and we are proud of our accomplishments. Much remains to be done, but we are already a University transformed. We believe that our track record over the past few years demonstrates that we are worthy of further investment and continued confidence.

I ask for your continued support as together, we provide Connecticut's young people access to a public university education of unequalled quality. The return on the investment is Connecticut's future.

cc: Board of Trustees