Although it was a new document, it drew largely on the actual language of the six task force reports as well as on discussions that the provost held respectively with task force chairs, the executive staff, and the academic council, and on memoranda sent by the deans. In spring 2001, the task force chairs vetted and suggested revisions of two versions of the synthesis. What follows reflects a synthesis that they collectively have edited and approved. Recorded discussions and submitted comments will be attached when it is presented to the new chancellor. A corollary assumption is that no matter what level of growth we might realistically assume for the next five years, it will not be sufficient to satisfy all the needs and wants the campus will have.
Choices have to be made, then, about the allocation of resources.
While strategic planning should provide the campus with opportunities to inform and advise regarding the utilization of resources, ultimately the chancellor 's role will be decisive. In addition, we should no longer proceed on the premise that infrastructure will be provided for by the state separately from the appropriation we receive to operate the campus. The state appropriation is the state appropriation and we will have to make choices in allocating appropriated funds in order to meet the major challenges that confront us. Back to Top C. Planning challenges and themes Five major challenges cut across the task force reports. These became clearer in the discussions that were held in December and January with the task force chairs and the deans.