Appendix Six

Internal Documents:

President's Council ad-hoc Committee on Public Service Report

Vice Provost Kwiram Proposal for Leadership Forum

Report of the President's Council Committee

on Public Service/Outreach

Dec. 21, 1995


President McCormick during the President's Council meeting in October discussed his commitment to developing strategic ways for the University to support and communicate its public service/outreach activities. Several members of the Council volunteered to serve on an ad hoc committee chaired by Dean Gordon. McCormick asked the committee to advise him on the current status of public service/outreach by campus units, to suggest membership of a task force on this issue, and to develop a charge for the task force.

Procedure. The Committee met five times as a group, with the membership increasing at each meeting. A draft of this report was prepared for the fourth meeting, and discussed at that meeting and with President McCormick at a final meeting.

Background. Early in his Presidential tenure, McCormick emphasized the University's need to stabilize its funding, and, in that context, noted a widespread perception that the University is "elitist" and "uninvolved" in the community as well as his belief that the University needed to do a better, more strategic job of both supporting public service and communicating those contributions to our constituents.

The Committee began with an effort to develop a comprehensive understanding of just what public service/outreach activities are currently underway involving University faculty, students, staff, and organizational units. This alone developed into a complex task, in part because there is a great deal of activity, in part because the data are being reported slowly, and in part because of definitional questions raised by Committee members as well as by those from whom we gathered information.

Faculty are expected annually to report their outside "professional and public service" activities on Form 1461, but while they were due October 15,1995, a significant proportion have yet to submit those forms for academic year 199t 95. Professional and classified staff are not asked to submit forms, yet many of them engage in service and outreach activities within the University setting as well as outside the University in their spare time. Many students engage in public service through the Carlson Center, through their living units, through their departments and Schools, and as part of their courses. Further, many units­programs, departments, schools-engage in collective activities involving many faculty, staff and students.

A complete census of activities engaged in by the University as a whole will take additional time and further conceptualization. Both the range and extent of activity is nothing less than staggering. Some are truly charitable activities such as departmental food drives and walks (or runs) for the Northwest AIDS Foundation. Other activities are more directly related to the substantive focus of programs, departments or schools; recent examples include design of a public playground by Architecture students, teaching of elementary school students about the Human Gnome Project in local schools by the molecular biotechnology department faculty, staff and students; and convening of a "Working Together" forum for newly elected Puget Sound area politicians by the Graduate School of Public Affairs. Then there are a myriad of ongoing services members of the University community and the public at large may avail themselves of being provided by a host of hospitals, clinics, and programs of the University's medical, nursing, pharmaceutical, public health, dental and social work schools; the libraries; the legal clinics and library; continuing education and summer programs; University Computing and Communications; University theatrical and musical presentations; sports and recreational events and opportunities; and University Relations and its publications, broadcasting outlets and speakers' bureau.

In some units there seems to be a widespread ethic of public service, while in others service seems to be purely a matter of individual choice. Some service and outreach contributions are donated, while others are provided at cost, for a fee, a fee on a sliding scale, or as paid consulting services. Still others are provided by students in the context of courses taught by faculty members and for which they earn academic credit as well as gaining valuable, hands­on experience or as part of action­oriented, applied or policy research projects.

The committee requested unit­level data from all chairs, directors and deans on public service activities, and to date we have received reports from about one­ third. Late reports are arriving nearly daily. Other current activities of the committee include: analyses of the 1461 forms for 1994­95; consideration of methods for systematic collection of information on public service activities of professional and classified staff and students; and estimation of the monetary and non­monetary value of these services to the community, state and region.

Another issue discussed, but far from resolved, is related to the structure of rewards and role of service in tenure, promotion, and salary considerations for faculty.


While the work of this Committee is not yet completed, we recognize the need to signal the priority of service in your administration, and the timeliness of giving the committee's work the status of a task force. Therefore, below are recommendations for constituting a Task Force on University Outreach and Service together with a suggested charge for its work. We intend that the work of the Task force will encompass service provided by faculty, professional staff, classified staff, students, and University units.

Recommendation 1: Convert the current committee into a Task Force on University Outreach and Service, adding members from the medical and science faculties, the branch campuses, professional staff (especially directors of major research centers), the Carlson Center, and the student body. In addition, direct the Task Force to consult constituencies from outside the University such as the City of Seattle and City Council, Seattle Public Schools, the County Executive and County Council, the State executive office and State Legislature and representatives of key civic organizations such as the Chamber, the Rotary, the Washington Roundtable, the Municipal League, the Puget Sound Regional Council; parallel groups in Eastern Washington; appropriate regional groups; and University alumni. These consultations should be as broad and inclusive as possible.Their purpose would be twofold: to provide quick feedback to the Task force, and to provide access and information channels to key constituents of the University.

Recommendation 2:

Charge the Task Force to report to you by March 1,1996, with its preliminary responses to the following:

What is the nature and extent of outreach and service provided by the University to the community? Estimate its monetary and non­monetary value. This will require the Task force to work with faculty groups to establish definitions of public service and outreach as they relate to professional expertise and activity, payment, teaching, research, research dissemination, direct service, continuing education, and use of University facilities.

Recommendation 3:

Report to you by June 30, 1996, with its responses to the following

a) What should be the level of the University's service/outreach to the community? Is there, or should there be, an ethic of public service for all members and units of the University? Should we be committed to rebuilding "social capital" as described by Robert Putnam's, "Bowling Alone"? In a recent speech, Nannerl O. Keohane, President of Duke University, argued that faculties and leaders of colleges and universities have experienced a failure of nerve in recent years, and "have been largely silent about our obligations to the common good," and that "universities must renew our commitment to civic education, sustaining the traditions that have provided a durable basis for human interaction and collaboration for the common good." To what extent should the University of Washington articulate these sentiments and organize to deliver on them?

b) What are the specific substantive areas in which the University has special expertise to make unique, focused contributions consistent with its mission? Three emerging areas of focus are K­12 education, environmental education and international education. Are there others? Please suggest a process for determining priorities for the University's investment in services.

c) How can the University better and more strategically support public service and outreach activities, including suggestions for specific mechanisms with regard to faculty, students, staff, and unit activities? Special attention should be given to assessing and rewarding service in the context of faculty merit reviews, tenure and promotions. Within this context, there is a need to review the extent to which the current reward structure primarily recognizes the scholarship of discovery rather than the scholarship of application, especially as related to uncompensated service that contributes to the common good or public welfare (e.g. Boyer, 1991). The Kellogg Foundation recently sponsored a conference of university leaders on this topic, and participants subsequently held a meeting of AAU Land Grant provosts to discuss it further; their proceedings and reports also should be reviewed.

In addition to considering general support of service, the Task Force should consider mechanisms for strategic support of specific service requests and opportunities when they arise.

d) How can the University improve access to faculty expertise, students, staff, and facilities without promising more than it can reasonably expect to deliver? Suggest specific mechanisms.

e) How best can the University strategically communicate to its relevant constituencies:the relationship of service and outreach to teaching and research,
the relationship of service and outreach to University priorities,
its ongoing commitment to service and outreach,
how constituencies can gain access to services,
what the University cannot do; and
changes over time in University priorities and support for services?

f) How can outreach and service goals in identified focus areas-i.e., K 12, environmental, and international education­ be integrated with goals being developed in other related Task Forces and committees? This may involve overlapping memberships, joint meetings, sharing of minutes or newsletters, or other forms of collaboration so that the outcomes of the Task Force and committees can be integrated into a coordinated plan.

Suggest specific mechanisms. This should include a coordinated, integrated plan involving the news media as well as other mechanisms; a defined role for Presidential leadership; a definition of audiences (legislators, students, faculty business community, alumnae) and consistent messages for each; a clear statement of priorities and a process for establishing them; and the a statement of the relationship of service to other themes being emphasized by the President (e.g. K­12, environmental, international).

Recommendation 4:

Develop a strategy for reviewing approaches of peer institutions to outreach and service, establishing baselines, setting goals and monitoring progress toward integrated service and outreach activities which are supportive of University's goals and mission. Monitor public perceptions and understanding. This should include consideration of a range of issues including but not limited to: establishment of a campus survey lab, review of the 1461 form and the possibility of transforming it in a way that allows faculty to answer it via e­mail, as well as ways to gather consistent data about staff, student and unit­level activities. It may also prove useful to establish mechanisms to keep track of requests of service to which the University is unable to respond.

Recommendation 5:

Provide adequate resources to the Task Force to complete its work within the established time frame.

Committee Members

Margaret T. Gordon, Chair

Betty Bengtson

Robert Edie

Jerry V. Finrow

Allen Glenn

Nancy Hooyman

Christine Knowles

Richard Lorenzen

Steven Olswang

Margot Ray

July 7, 1989


TO: Laurel L. Wilkening

FROM: Alvin L. Kwiram

SUBJECT: A Center for Public Policy Issues

The University of Washington is the leading research institution in the Pacific Northwest, but it does not play a strong leadership role in addressing and illuminating public policy issues for the region. Although a number of good programs exist on campus, there is no focal point, no coordination and no strategy for our efforts. A number of points come to mind in this connection.

1. As the major public university in the region, it is logical for the public, the media and government agencies to look to the university for help and information on a broad range of public policy issues.

2. The University represents an enormous resource, not only in terms of its libraries and archives, but also in terms of the expertise of its faculty and the energy and creativity of its students.

3. The University itself is a public agency. However, in contrast to the short term horizons characteristic of agencies with elected officials, the University has a long term stability and perspective. This represents a unique quality that should not be underestimated.

4. There is far too little long range planning in state and local government agencies. The University could play a leadership role in fostering such an approach and provide the institutional memory of actions taken in the past.

5. The orientation program for new legislators last fall is precisely the kind of activity we should be doing more. We have the resources, the credibility and the connections.

6. By developing such interactions with State and local government, we not only enhance the quality of the decisions that are made in our region, but we also build the kind of relationships with legislators and staff that can help us considerably in the long run.

7. We­have spent some time and energy in the last year or so establishing a more proactive relationship with the private sector and the economic development players in the region. WTC has also played a major role in building bridges to the high technology community. Despite some internal problems we may have with WTC organizationally, I think it is fair to say that their efforts (as part and parcel of the College of Engineering initiatives) have been helpful to the University. Nevertheless, we have seen examples of players in the high tech community who have been frustrated by the lack of a well defined entry point for corporate interest at the University.

8. It is not unreasonable to think of having an analogous public policy entry point at the University as well. We currently have several modest efforts of this sort, but there is little coordination or cooperation between them.

9. There are several programs that come immediately to mind:

*The Institute for Public Policy and Management (GSPA)

*The Northwest Policy Center (GSPA)

*The Pacific Northwest Executive (Business School)

*Health Policy Analysis (School of Public Health)

*CINTRAFOR (Forest Resources)

*Institute for Social Research (Arts and Sciences)

*The Executive MBA Program (Business School)

*TRAC: WA State Transportation Research Center (Engineering)

*And others that can be added to the list in due course

10. These already form a strong base for a more integrated and visible program. However, even though many of these have important connections with key agencies and legislators, we do not tend to know about them centrally. Moreover, in many cases the University is represented without any central input, and in many cases without faculty input.

11. Some overarching structure with a University­wide advisory committee could help to give these efforts greater coherence. That cannot be easily located in one of the colleges for obvious reasons. There has to be some level playing field. Therefore, this kind of activity should either be centered in the Office of the Provost or in the Office of the President. Given the strong public overtones of such an effort, it may be that the latter would be appropriate.

12. In addition to better coordination of the general public policy representations made on behalf of the University, one can also imagine the creation of a public policy service office or applied research office. In other words, there are many cases where public agencies are interested in contracting with either consultants or universities for short term research projects. Here again, we would have an opportunity to provide a service to complement the activities now going on and those outlined above.

13. Such a program would have to have a its own special organizational structure; it can not be left to the faculty or the advisory committee. Such projects require a professional staff who can respond promptly to requests and produce the data and analysis in a timely fashion. The time frame for faculty and graduate student projects is incommensurate with the time frame for such agency requests. The worst thing we could do is pretend to have the capability to produce and then fail to follow through. We would either have to do it right or not do it at all.

14. Such a center would have a regular publication program of its own as well as the publication of the reports that are produced by the center. It would also help to mount conferences and symposia on topics of interest. In due course it would be known in the entire region as the center to contact for any of a range of public policy issues.

15. The key to the success of such a center is an individual who is both politically well connected, academically respected, understands the importance of such an activity to the university, is well organized and gets work out on a timely basis, and is an articulate spokesperson for the institution and the issues. This person should hold a tenured faculty position, and would be a member of the President's Cabinet. I would expect that the individual would work closely with Bob Edie's office and with any others who interact significantly with Olympia. This person would also chair the advisory committee.

16. One advantage of such a center is that it would make better use of the time of our faculty who now have to respond to numerous inquiries on matters of public interest but without the resources to respond adequately. A center with a staff could do the legwork while at the same time call upon knowledgeable faculty for advice and guidance. Such a system would tend to relieve faculty of the temptation to get involved in too much applied and routine work, leaving that to the center staff.

17. On the other hand, the work of the center would provide new data and analysis that could be of considerable value to the members of the faculty as they pursue their research in more general terms. The service studies can provide the raw material for their more fundamental studies.

18. In time, such a center would become sufficiently well known that people would turn there first whenever they wanted information or analysis. We already have evidence of one alternative: this year Evergreen State was authorized to select several public policy fellows. Members of our faculty are applying to be fellows at Evergreen next year to work on public policy issues.

19. A broader organizational structure for our activities in this arena would also mean that UW interests are represented in the public arena by individuals in closer touch with the views of the Central Administration rather than by staff without any guidance or understanding of the those views.

20. In any event, we should probably try to achieve more coordination between some of our public policy purveyors and the Office of University Relations and the Development Office. I'm not even sure that these people know each other now.



Return to the TOC

Return to the University of Washington Home Page