University Relations Committee Meeting
15-16 April 2003
Stanford University
Palo Alto, California

Agenda

~end of agenda~

Attachment A.

Ideas for discussion with the URC on the 2003 UCAR Annual Meeting and Forum
(Agenda item 9)

A. Plenary keynote speech by an inspiring person such as Lew Branscomb or James J. Duderstadt (President Emeritus of the University of Michigan author of "A University for the 21^st Century")

Sample title: "Future of U.S. Research Universities"

B. Six to eight breakout sessions on topics of interest to various sectors of the community. For example:

1. Private/Public/Academic Sector interactions (follow up to last year's forum)

NCAR Initiatives (and how to get more university involvement)

2. Biogeosciences

3. Water Cycle Across Scales

4. Climate Assessment Science

5. Cyberinfrastructure, GIS, and the Data Challenge for Atmospheric Sciences

6. Education and Outreach

7. Next Generation Community Observing Platforms and Systems

8. Research opportunities arising from the creation of the new Department of Homeland Security

9. Links to astrobiology, if any

10. Future of chemical weather forecasting.

---

Attachment B

Background for discussion of URC role in improving UCAR/NCAR intellectual interactions with the universities.
(See Agenda item 12)

The following is Section I from the NSF panel report on the December 2002 review of NCAR and UCAR proposal to manage NCAR. We hope to engage the URC in a substantive discussion about enhancing research, education and service interactions between NCAR and the university community.

I. Intellectual Interactions between UCAR/NCAR and the University Community

Finding:Universities use NCAR/UCAR facilities and services, and provide oversight to UCAR (and indirectly to NCAR). Intellectual interactions between the universities and NCAR enhance the research, education, and service efforts of both. Excellent examples of fruitful interactions between the university community and NCAR include CCSM and HIAPER and these activities could serve as models for interactions in other areas. The university community was engaged in the development of the strategic plan and made major contributions to it. However, the panel believes that the potential for fruitful interactions between the universities and NCAR has not been fully exploited. The University Relations Committee could play a stronger role in developing the long-term vision for NCAR and its intellectual exchanges with the university community

Panel Recommendation: The role of the University Relations Committee should be expanded to examine and recommend improvements to mechanisms for intellectual exchanges between NCAR and the Universities.

UCAR Response: We agree with the Panel that intellectual engagement of the university community in the development and implementation of NCAR’s program is essential. We will strive to improve and optimize such interactions in several ways, including by reviewing the role of the University Relations Committee (URC), in consultation with the membership of that group and the UCAR Board of Trustees. The URC is a very important part of UCAR interactions with the universities, but not the only mechanism. For example, we have instituted a new undergraduate student leadership summer workshop to address a component of this issue and we hope that the early career faculty fellowship program will also play a valuable role. We will discuss this recommendation with the URC at its upcoming meeting in April.

Attachment C

Role of the URC resource people—Background for discussion (See agenda item 12 & 13)

The current URC resource appointees, Mary Barth, Ginger Caldwell, and Joanne Graham, have asked that this position's role be examined at the upcoming URC.

As background: The following is an excerpt from April 1991 URC minutes regarding creation of NCAR resource role:

"C. Wakimoto letter and recommendation

A letter from Roger Wakimoto to Rick Anthes dated 14 November 1990 addresses the need for increased communication among the NCAR staff in relation to the discussions and actions taken at the University Relations Committee meetings. Wakimoto recommends appointments of NCAR staff on the committee. He stressed that this person(s) should be someone from the trenches, possibly a Scientist I or II from NCAR. It was suggested that this member(s) be nominated for at least a year. The committee agreed with the importance of letting this representative know that they would be expected to be an active participant and not just an observer. The Committee formally recommended to the UCAR president that two NCAR scientists be invited as active observers to future URC meetings. It was noted that the two scientists would be selected from the facilities and scientific programs at NCAR and should not include an NCAR director or senior scientist."

In the intervening 11 years, the function of these positions has changed from an active one to more of a passive observer--most likely it hasn't been entirely clear to the resource people when they are appointed what their role is to be, or where they can best contribute to the work of the committee. Ginger, Mary and Joanne ask that the URC revisit the original rationale, and look at the present function of the resource role.

Some options:

1. Maintain the status quo. Define and post the expectations of the position on the web (ref. the NCAR liaisons) so that these expectations would not get lost over time.

2. Re-define these positions and post the expectations of the position on the web (ref. the NCAR liaisons) so that these expectations would not get lost over time.

a. Formalize a more active role.

• Resource folks could provide background information on agenda or other topics of interest the URC?
• Resource people could be responsible for pulling in other UCAR staff for a given topic of discussion as appropriate.
• Are there ways that they can supplement/enhance the division liaison's interactions with their designated division?
• Should resource folks advise subcommittee on the proposal reviews?
• Is the URC interested in UCAR/NCAR staff issues (e.g. early career scientist issues, how staff believe the scientist ladder is working)?
• Resource folks could identify opportunities for collaboration with, or support of/for, university colleagues.
• Is the original intent still a viable one? Should we go back to first principles?

b. Formalize a part-time role

• Call on NCAR or UOP resource folks on an "as-needed" basis.

3. Eliminate the resource role and positions.

| Meeting Home |