In 1993, the University of Wyoming created two entities focused on the environment and natural resources: the Institute for Environment and Natural Resources and the School of Environment and Natural Resources.

The University of Wyoming (UW) trustees established the Institute for Environment and Natural Resources in August of 1993 to focus on environment and natural resource (ENR) policy issues and associated multi-disciplinary research. University officials conceived of the institute as a way to make optimal use of UW's research faculty and facilities.

The institute is a UW entity that reports to the vice president for research; the UW Board of Trustees has ultimate authority for it. However, the institute relies primarily on private donations for funding. Since IENR's creation, 94 percent of the direct support for its operation expenditures has come from private sources. In addition, the university has supported the institute through in-kind infrastructure support.

The board has met to participate in forums on ENR issues. To implement these forums, UW faculty with expertise in the areas of forum topics have prepared papers presenting relevant technical and policy issues to inform the board's discussions. In its forums, members have discussed issues and developed consensus on recommendations for solutions to ENR problems.

The recommendations have been a by-product of the board's efforts to learn about the collaborative process, which has become an institute focus. The institute has no inherent authority, other than the ability to influence policy based on the quality of its recommendations.

• Safe Drinking Water Act as it relates to small towns
• Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee (GYIBC)
• Endangered Species Act and private property
• Open spaces

The UW trustees approved the creation of the School of Environment and Natural Resources in January 1993. The school's purpose is to help students in traditional majors develop knowledge and skills which will allow them to contribute to the resolution of ENR problems. By design, the school involves students and faculty from different disciplines in ENR studies. Although the school is organizationally separate from all existing university departments and colleges, it draws upon their resources.

The SENR offers students a concentration at the undergraduate level and a graduate minor. To obtain the undergraduate SENR concentration, students must take 25 credit hours in specified areas, including seven hours of classes offered by the SENR itself. The remaining hours come from existing classes offered by departments within the colleges. University officials note that the SENR curriculum is rigorous.

The school’s funding comes from a reallocation of existing university resources. The school does not have its own faculty, so professors who have taught in the SENR have been paid by their respective departments and colleges. The SENR expenditures have fluctuated between $59,000 and $85,000 over the past four fiscal years.

When establishing the institute in 1993, university trustees and officials intentionally left the institute's mission broad. Over a four-year period, the IENR board revised its mission and developed a strategic plan. However, it did not commit to any performance measures.

The trustees established a significant condition that influences IENR development: they stipulated that the institute be self-supporting. Advancing collaborative approaches to environmental decision-making is an idea that offers funding opportunities. IENR sought and received most of its operating funding in the last two fiscal years from private foundations with interests in advancing the collaborative process.

Board members and others closely involved with the institute expressed great enthusiasm about the institute's potential. However, others we interviewed viewed it with perceptions ranging from optimism to skepticism. We believe some of the concerns we heard expressed about the institute emanate from misconceptions about its purposes.

The trustees have given the IENR board considerable latitude in directing the institute. However, as the parent organization that provides infrastructure support, the trustees should require a degree of accountability that ensures the institute is accomplishing what it has set out to do, and ultimately, that it enhances university purposes.

UW officials have not systematically followed university procedures for the funding of IENR research sponsored by private gifts and grants. UW officials treat private gifts and grants processed through the UW Foundation as internal funds. Therefore, UW officials do not uniformly apply all existing university procedures for externally sponsored research. As a result, indirect costs have not been assessed, or always recognized, on past IENR research projects.

The university's block grant absorbs the costs of research overhead for IENR research and operations. In this manner, private funds can influence the expenditure of public resources. Privately funded IENR research projects must be consistent with the guidelines of the private award.

UW Office of Research and IENR staff should systematically apply all existing internal procedures to IENR research funded by private awards. In addition, perhaps university officials or the trustees could consider adding additional protocols to enhance the reporting and funding controls on privately supported IENR research. Steps such as acknowledging public funds' contribution to research overhead, preparing an annual report presenting aggregate expenditures and revenues, and funding research through a number of awards, when possible, could all improve the IENR research funding processes. Adherence to clear funding procedures can result in increased accountability.

Directly or indirectly, the combination of structure and limited resources causes difficulty attracting faculty, developing adequate course planning, and building desired enrollments. SENR's structure offers the advantage of interdisciplinary instruction drawn from existing academic colleges, but it also has limited the sense of faculty ownership.

Although there is no evidence of formal objectives for the school, enrollments since its inception are far below the informal goals which range from 60 to 200 students per year. Since there are no financial incentives for faculty participating within SENR, the school has found it difficult to recruit faculty. The advising boards have also not been used to their potential. Most other academic programs operate under established academic structures at UW. These structures allow for access to resources and the ability for college deans to influence faculty.

While we accept the unique design of the school as allowing for flexibility, we believe internal adjustments such as providing incentives to participating faculty would enhance the school's performance. Further integration of the institute board and SENR could foster additional opportunities for students, graduates, and faculty. Adjusted structure or directed effort by UW administration could provide the additional resources for direct compensation of SENR faculty. Finally, including the school in the university's regular academic program review may identify areas of weakness and opportunities for improvement beyond those identified in our evaluation.

A general view prevails that the IENR and the SENR rest on a worthwhile premise. That premise is harnessing the faculty’s extensive expertise in the ENR area to benefit the university. We believe university officials can support that premise by focusing on ways to better identify the institute with the university and more fully engage its faculty; requiring formal funding procedures that ensure the expected objectivity in IENR research; and systematically reviewing and supporting the SENR.

W.S. 28-8-107(b) authorizes the Legislative Service Office to conduct program evaluations and performance audits. Generally, the purpose of such research is to provide a base of knowledge from which policy makers can make informed decisions.

In December 1997, the Management Audit Committee selected the topic of the University of Wyoming's Institute for Environment and Natural Resources and the School of Environment and Natural Resources. The Committee inquired into the structure and activities of both entities. Our research centered around the following questions:

• What is the structure of the Institute for Environment and Natural Resources and who has authority for it?
• What is the mission and purpose of the institute and how has it evolved?
• To what extent does the institute follow applicable university regulations and guidelines?
• With what projects does the institute involve itself and how are those decisions made?
• What are the advantages and limitations to the university's design of the school?
• Does the university have defined expectations for the school and to what extent has the school met them?
• Are there identifiable improvements that either entity should make?

We limited our evaluation to the structure and some administrative processes of the Institute for Environment and Natural Resources and the School of Environment and Natural Resources. We specifically did not review either the content of any research performed or the academic content of the school's courses.

This evaluation was conducted according to statutory requirements and professional standards and methods for governmental audits. The research was conducted from January into March 1998.

In order to compile basic information regarding both entities, we reviewed relevant statutes, university regulations, policies, annual reports, budget documents, surveys, board minutes, professional literature, as well as other internal reports and promotional materials. We also interviewed key administrators, interested faculty, UW trustees, board members of the Institute for Environment and Natural Resources, members of the Citizens' Advisory Board for the School of Environment and Natural Resources, and several citizens representing related interests. Finally, we conducted a broad review of related interdisciplinary programs and research institutes at the University of Wyoming.

The Legislative Service Office expresses appreciation to those who assisted in this research, especially to members of the University of Wyoming Board of Trustees, administrative officers and faculty at the University of Wyoming, staff and board members of the Institute for Environment and Natural Resources, and members of the Citizens' Advisory Board.

The University of Wyoming (UW) trustees established the Institute for Environment and Natural Resources in August of 1993 to focus on environment and natural resource (ENR) policy issues and associated multi-disciplinary research. The UW Foundation Board, a nonprofit corporation created to raise and manage private funds for the university, developed the concept for this institute. Early IENR documents heralded its creation as a step to place the university at the forefront of education and research in ENR.

University and foundation officials conceived of the institute as a way to make optimal use of UW's research faculty and facilities. Over the years, the university has attracted many faculty members conducting research in disciplines related to environment and natural resources and developed exceptional research facilities in many of these areas. More than 200 UW faculty members involved in ENR research have voluntarily associated themselves with the institute.

A forty-plus member board made up of leaders from business, industry, environmental organizations, education, and government is a primary component of the institute (see Appendix B). Serving on the current board are Wyoming's Governor, two members of the Legislature, and one of the state's current U.S. Senators. University representatives include the president, vice president for research, one trustee, and the IENR director. More than half the members either live in Wyoming, are UW alumni, or are involved in business in the state.

University and foundation officials envisioned the board as a diverse and prestigious group that would meet to participate in forums on ENR issues. To implement these forums, UW faculty with expertise in the areas of forum topics have prepared papers presenting relevant technical and policy issues to inform the board's discussions. Most board members have paid their own expenses to attend the biannual forums, and faculty members prepared the briefing papers gratis.

In its previous forums, with the assistance of a hired facilitator, members discussed issues and developed consensus on recommendations for solutions to ENR problems. At the conclusion of the forums, IENR staff drafted the board's recommendations into document form. After a continuing consensus process in which board members offered changes to the drafts, those who agreed with the recommendations signed in support of them. IENR staff makes board recommendations public through the internet and through its mailing list. In at least one instance, the board chairman shared IENR recommendations through a congressional hearing.

The recommendations have been a by-product of the board's efforts to learn about the collaborative process. The institute has no inherent authority, other than the ability to influence policy based on the quality of its recommendations. Members maintain that the diversity and the stature of the board membership, backed by the research abilities of the university, provide credibility to their recommendations.

The UW president has appointed university employees to direct the institute. Since its creation, a senior faculty member and then the vice president for research have directed the institute. Both did so as an adjunct to their other responsibilities. Recently, the president recommended and the trustees approved the appointment of a new director, another senior faculty member, who will also direct the School of Environment and Natural Resources. A three-quarter time assistant director, funded by the UW Foundation, has also served the institute. University employees and private consultants have worked for the institute on an in-kind or contractual basis for specific projects.

While structurally the institute is within the university, it relies primarily on private donations for funding. Like all private gifts to any UW program, gifts or grants in its support are directed to the UW Foundation. Since IENR's creation, 94 percent of the direct support for its operation expenditures has come from the UW Foundation, private donors, and other private foundations.

In addition, the university has supported the institute through in-kind infrastructure support, including portions of the directors' time dedicated to the institute. The university also directly supported a portion of the institute's operations in 1996. We estimate a university contribution of more than $200,000 to IENR's operation and research since FY 1996. This does not include the in-kind support of UW faculty who prepared briefing papers for the board's forums.

IENR Research and Operations^*

* IENR staff did not estimate UW in-kind support until FY 96.

Source: LSO analysis of IENR data.

The institute has focused on four ENR areas:

• Safe Drinking Water Act as it relates to small towns
• Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee (GYIBC)


5


• Endangered Species Act (ESA) and private property
• Open spaces

The first three topics were subjects of IENR board forums, and resulted in formal recommendations that have either been shared with affected parties or led to subsequent staff-directed related activities (see Appendix C). With respect to open spaces, IENR contractual staff worked with the Governor's Office to produce a publication, Ways to Conserve Wyoming's Wonderful Open Lands. With a private gift, the institute also funded a portion of land use research in Sublette County.

The institute has used its work in these areas to advance the collaborative process as a decision-making tool for ENR issues. The institute board, faculty and staff have developed a focus on the processes through which solutions to ENR problems are developed. For example, in a forum on the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the board targeted recommendations at the processes through which decisions are made about species management on private property. Similarly, with respect to brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone Area, the institute made procedural recommendations to the interstate committee dealing with this complex resource management problem.

The UW trustees approved the creation of the School of Environment and Natural Resources in January 1993. The school's purpose is to help students in traditional majors develop knowledge and skills which will allow them to contribute to the resolution of ENR problems. The university's premise in creating the school was that solving ENR problems requires both disciplinary interaction and methodological strength. The school's objective is to involve students and faculty from different disciplines in ENR studies. Although the school is organizationally separate from all existing university departments and colleges, it draws upon their resources.

The SENR offers students a concentration at the undergraduate level and a graduate minor. UW officials define the SENR concentration as a group of courses students must take to receive the SENR recognition on their diplomas. SENR students add the concentration to the requirements for their respective majors, although many of the required SENR courses also count toward their major requirements. Twenty-nine majors in five colleges offer the SENR concentration.

To obtain the undergraduate SENR concentration, students must take 25 credit hours in specified areas, including seven hours of classes offered by the SENR itself. The remaining hours come from existing classes offered by departments within the colleges. University officials note that the SENR curriculum is rigorous. The intent is for students to have disciplinary depth in their major fields, as well as exposure to upper level courses in other disciplines. In some cases, completing the SENR concentration may require an additional semester.

To this point, a senior faculty member has directed the school on a part-time basis, with the assistance of a half-time support person. Recently, the university named one individual, a different senior faculty member, to direct both the SENR and the IENR.

The school, like other UW interdisciplinary efforts, is governed by a faculty committee which establishes its curriculum. A volunteer citizens' advisory board, composed of prominent individuals with Wyoming backgrounds who have scientific or management expertise in the ENR area, also provides curriculum advice.

The school’s funding comes from a reallocation of existing university resources. The school does not have its own faculty, so professors who have taught in the SENR have been paid by their respective departments and colleges. The SENR expenditures have fluctuated between $59,000 and $85,000 over the past four fiscal years. These funds have supported summer pay for the director, salary for part-time staff, outside speakers, student assistantships, equipment, supplies, support services, and travel.

In addition, over the past four fiscal years, a small number of SENR students benefited from academic scholarships funded through the Office of Student Financial Aid and the Office of Academic Affairs. Beginning in FY 98, SENR has used part of an allocation from a private endowment to fund approximately $20,000 in scholarships to both undergraduate and graduate SENR students.

In this report, we note conditions that impede both the school and the institute from achieving their potentials. Although the university created both entities almost five years ago, both are still working to establish themselves. We believe the university could address certain procedural and structural impediments to help them evolve.

Now appears to be an opportune time for university officials with responsibility for IENR and SENR to address these issues. Already, the university president and trustees have named a new director to lead both the institute and the school, with the intent of creating greater synergy between the two. There are opportunities to build on this momentum. Through the university-wide academic planning process scheduled to begin this year, and the institute's pending adoption of rules of governance, university officials could make modifications to the two entities to enable them to achieve their original purpose, which was to enhance the university.

When establishing the institute in 1993, university trustees and officials intentionally left the institute's mission broad. They believed that attracting board members with the stature necessary to give the university a national reputation required leaving the institute's agenda somewhat open. Over a four-year period, the IENR board revised its mission and developed a strategic plan. However, it did not commit to any performance measures.

Since IENR exists in an arena acknowledged by all as politically sensitive, university officials recognized that creating it might also cause controversy. They felt the benefits to the university would be worth that risk. However, without establishing benchmarks that indicate whether or not it is accomplishing its objectives, university officials are unable to determine those benefits. The institute's autonomy has not been coupled with criteria that enable university officials to judge whether or not the institute is complementing its parent organization.

In the original program statement approved by the trustees, the institute was to focus on supporting multi-disciplinary research and interaction between UW faculty. Striving to achieve a national and international reputation for university ENR research was also part of the institute's mission. The proposal called for a policy board to serve as a neutral forum to identify and clarify ENR issues. The policy board was also to identify funding sources for ENR research at UW, and serve as an advisory body to the SENR with respect to curriculum and placement of students, both as interns and graduates.

When they approved that IENR program statement in August 1993, the trustees voted to join with members of the UW Foundation Board to

According to board members and staff, the members needed time, both to build confidence in one another and to learn about the university and its faculty's capabilities. The institute undertook a multi-faceted strategic planning process that included a survey mailed to 1,900 state and national stakeholders. The planning process, which included meetings with the trustees, was concluded in late 1996, and the UW trustees approved the plan in February 1997.

The IENR strategic plan incorporated much of the program statement approved by the trustees, but with modifications. The original trustee- approved statement portrayed the institute as a vehicle to further university academic endeavors, such as faculty research in ENR issues and the SENR. However, the IENR now focuses primarily on the collaborative process as a decision-making tool for ENR issues. The institute's original focus on ENR research currently appears ancillary to research and other activities in this emerging field.

Now, IENR's focus is on creating and sustaining integrated systems for informed decision making on ENR issues. Multi-disciplinary research plays a role in these systems but does not yet appear positioned with the same priority as first envisioned. University officials see this change in IENR focus as consistent with initial expectations, and the UW trustees have formally accepted the institute's stated direction.

The trustees established a significant condition that influences IENR development: they stipulated that the institute be self-supporting. As a result, the institute must be entrepreneurial, since as one official noted, "If we don't have ideas that bring in money, we don't exist." Private donors, according a university official who oversees private gifts,

expect to see that their money supports the purposes for which it was donated. Thus, while we recognize the UW trustees' final authority for the IENR, we believe private support can also influence institute operations.

Advancing collaborative approaches to environmental decision-making is an idea that offers funding opportunities. Furthermore, it is an idea that the IENR board apparently viewed as consistent with the trustees' desire to create a neutral forum to identify and clarify ENR issues. IENR sought and received most of its operating funding in the last two fiscal years from private foundations with interests in advancing the collaborative process. Together, the William and Flora Hewlett and the Charles Stewart Mott Foundations provided more than 75 percent of the institute's direct funding in FY 1998.

IENR's board chairman, a nationally prominent proponent of the collaborative approach, has had a defining role in shaping the institute's direction. In addition, the IENR interpreted responses to its stakeholder survey to indicate a need for collaborative decision-making processes that will work across a broad set of ENR issues.

Further, the Governor supports this focus, and his office is working with the IENR to assess the need and support for the development of a state collaborative decision-making instrument. The institute works closely with the Governor's staff to ensure that the issues it chooses to address are compatible with state goals and objectives. The institute director sits on the Governor's subcabinet for natural resources.

The Governor also influenced the institute's future project plans. Together with the President's Environmental Quality Council, he asked the institute to focus on the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). The institute is currently developing a work plan for this topic. IENR staff noted, "When the Governor requests a topic, we do give it more weight, as I am sure we would if the Legislature made a request."

Board members and others closely involved with the institute expressed great enthusiasm about the institute's potential. However, others we interviewed viewed it with perceptions ranging from optimism to skepticism. One observer working in the ENR field noted that it

Still others characterized it as a "catch-as-catch-can" operation that has not effectively engaged the UW faculty in its work. Another criticism is that the institute has focused upon immediate policy concerns rather than multi-disciplinary academic considerations. Some question the board's ideological balance, and the propriety of its university-supported activities in the ENR policy arena.

Some of these perceptions may not be surprising, given the controversial arena in which the institute operates. However, we believe some of the concerns emanate from misconceptions about the institute's purposes. The institute may encourage these perceptions by taking on new roles as it identifies them.

Although the IENR has a strategic plan stating its purposes, it has not established performance measures that gauge its success in meeting them. Similarly, the trustees have not established benchmarks for the institute; one trustee noted that enhancing the university's reputation is not a concrete result.

Without some tangible indications of progress, it is difficult to assess how the institute enhances the relevancy of the university (one of two IENR goals). Although IENR representatives reportedly brief trustees on a regular basis, and one trustee sits on the board, there are no specific criteria that the trustees can use to evaluate the entity it created.

The trustees have given the IENR board considerable latitude in directing the institute. However, as the parent organization that provides infrastructure support, the trustees should require a degree of accountability that ensures the institute is accomplishing what it has set out to do, and ultimately, that it enhances university purposes.

In administering IENR research projects, UW officials have not systematically followed university procedures designed to evaluate proposals and track research expenditures. In addition, UW officials have not assessed, or always recognized, indirect costs to the university as a result of IENR research. IENR has funded research with private awards, which may be either private foundation grants or individual donor gifts. University officials treat these private awards, collectively, as gifts, and have not consistently applied existing research funding controls to them.

Since IENR's inception, it has allocated $83,000 in private awards for three research projects. In contrast, more than $750,000 in private funding, largely donated by the UW Foundation, has supported IENR’s operations. UW and IENR officials state that the institute hopes to increase its research funding in the future.

Donors of private awards do not receive direct benefits for the money they give the university. They are entitled only to a report assuring them that the university applied the award in the agreed upon manner. By contrast, typical examples of sponsored research from governmental and business entities often include contractual deliverables, such as answers to specific questions or improvements to products or processes.

At UW, the Office of Research processes the funding for research projects. The UW Foundation, on the other hand, receives gifts for such purposes as setting up endowments or supporting other university interests. Each has its own procedures. IENR has received private funds through gifts and grants to the UW Foundation and has used some of the money for research. Office of Research officials decide how to handle IENR’s research proposals on a case-by-case basis. Without clear procedures for IENR research, questions may continue regarding the appropriateness of the research itself.

Since 1993, IENR has funded UW faculty to conduct three different research projects. Two were $10,000 awards for research on collaborative decision models. The third was a $63,110 award for

University officials consider research funding processed through the UW Foundation, including some private foundation grants, to be internal funds. Since UW Office of Research officials consider these internal funds, they do not subject them to the same procedures that apply to external funds, such as federal grants or industrial research contracts. Instead, officials loosely apply university procedures, acknowledging that their process does not have "universal compliance."

• regularizes procedures
• makes clear what university commitments are involved
• obtains statistical data on UW research activities
• obtains the appropriate authorized university signatures

From the greensheet definition, it appears clear that privately funded IENR research by gifts and grants should be treated as external funds. The greensheet defines external projects as those supported by non-state appropriated funds, whether classified as contracts, grants, gifts, or consulting fees. This definition is not consistent with the university's informal treatment of private gifts and grants to IENR as internal funds.

The university assesses a variable charge, as high as 41 percent, on top of all direct costs to most federally sponsored research. University guidelines require state agencies sponsoring research to pay 20 percent for indirect costs of UW services. The university's budget requests to the state legislature incorporate estimates of the indirect cost reimbursement for each biennium as income. Recovered indirect costs are returned to the university to support general operations or to departments to compensate them for the impact of the sponsored projects.

University officials noted it may not always be possible to assess indirect costs on private gifts and grants, since donors can stipulate terms and conditions for the use of funds. Also, we recognize the importance of generating private contributions as a supplement to public appropriations. However, when it does not adhere to existing guidelines, the Office of Research cannot systematically identify the full costs associated with IENR research.

University regulations relating to research cover such areas as patents and copyrights; collection and disposal of hazardous waste; and regulations for the infrared observatory, the Enhanced Oil Recovery Institute, and Wyoming Water Resource Center. In addition, the university has numerous other regulations, such as employment practices, that apply to the performance of IENR research. However, we found no specific regulations governing the use of private awards for IENR research.

Since privately funded IENR research is not assessed indirect costs, private gifts and grants direct the allocation of public funds. Public funds (i.e. the university’s block grant) absorb the costs of overhead for institute research and operations. Over the past three years, the university has contributed more than $200,000 in direct and in-kind
¹W.S. 16-3-101(b(i) exempts UW from coverage under the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act.

Institute projects must be consistent with their private awards. As one IENR official stated, "We have to include those things for which we can get funding in our program." This is particularly relevant in the most recent fiscal year, since one foundation contributed nearly 50 percent of IENR's total direct costs.

Finally, we heard a number of questions from faculty with regard to the handling of IENR funding. From within and outside the university, we heard concerns regarding the appropriateness of the funding for a recent land-use survey in Sublette County. Additional steps to provide distance between IENR research and the funding source might have provided increased accountability and avoided at least some of these criticisms.

There are at least five other research institutes at UW. Among these, the Wyoming Water Research Center (WWRC) provides a comparator to the IENR, although we recognize the uncertainty of its future. The WWRC generates funding for sponsored research from external sources, including state and federal agencies, and occasionally private sources. WWRC formally recognizes the impact that soft money can have on research: its documents warn that relying upon soft money can distort an entity's original mission and compromise the development of high quality research.

WWRC implements a number of procedures to ensure quality control. For example, the WWRC conducts external peer reviews of research proposals. It disseminates a summary of fiscal operations and distribution of funds, which recognizes both direct and in-kind UW support. An internal committee guides the WWRC toward goals and objectives, as well as establishes quality control. Finally, this same committee generates competitive requests for proposals for new research projects.

IENR and UW Research Office staff should expand and apply research funding procedures for institute research supported by private gifts and grants. These procedures should include the acknowledgment of the contribution public funds have to research overhead. Procedures could also require a peer review process to evaluate proposals and select those for funding. Further, IENR officials could prepare an annual report presenting aggregate expenditures and revenues, including indirect and direct UW support. Funding research projects with a number of different awards, rather than one large award, could enhance the credibility of future IENR research.

Collectively, these steps can serve to ensure the maximum amount of openness concerning IENR funding, and can help protect research results from criticism. In addition, university trustees may wish to consider revisiting the university regulations governing private fundraising and research activities within the university.

This page intentionally left blank.

Opportunities exist to enhance the School of Environment and Natural Resource's performance. SENR's particular structure offers the advantage of interdisciplinary instruction drawn from existing academic colleges, but it also inhibits the school's potential. Directly or indirectly, the combination of structure and limited resources causes difficulty attracting faculty, developing adequate course planning, and building desired enrollments.

In January 1993, UW trustees established SENR to train graduates with knowledge grounded in science and tempered by social policy considerations. According to a school guide, resolving ENR problems requires disciplinary interdependence, thereby cutting across several colleges and academic units. From the school's inception, faculty designed it to offer a concentration, not a major, and did not intend to have it linked with any college. Traditionally, departments and colleges control most resource allocation decisions. However, SENR’s structure is separate from and not consistent with the conventional lines of academic authority.

Although nearly all of the individuals we interviewed praised the concept behind the School of Environment and Natural Resources, several different criticisms surfaced. UW faculty offered criticisms of the school ranging from the lack of administrative support to concerns with content and conflicts with other programs. From those outside the university, limited knowledge about the school appears to give rise to concerns regarding its direction. We did not consider the academic content of the ENR concentration. However, we noted that those concerns may also diminish its reputation in an already sensitive arena.

Lower than expected enrollments and difficulty attracting faculty characterize the performance of the SENR’s initial years. Given these

Although there is no evidence of formal objectives for the school, these enrollments are far from the informal goals we heard mentioned. Those goals ranged from 60 to 200 students per year. Moreover, students declaring the ENR option make up less than one percent of the total market of 2,600 undergraduates found in the 29 contributing majors.

Since administrators have to scramble to get professors to teach the courses each semester, there is little continuity in instructors. As one official stated, "We cannot plan until a few weeks before the courses start as to who does what, and that is difficult for the faculty."

Since there are no financial incentives for participating faculty, it is a zero sum game for instructors: When attracting faculty under the current structure, an instructor must either take it on in addition to other duties, or that instructor’s department will lose the benefit of personnel time and will not be compensated for the loss. As one university official stated, "The only payoff is to benefit the general good. There is no specific payoff, and there is an immediate cost."

This interaction and involvement has reportedly not developed to the extent originally intended. Citizen advisory board members acknowledge the meetings are irregular and poorly attended. Although the trustees' minutes reflect they set up the institute in part to advise the school, there has been little evident contact between the institute board and the school, or between the two boards.

UW majors, minors, concentrations, and interdisciplinary programs traditionally operate under established academic structures. Majors and minors offered at UW through departments are organized under colleges and, more importantly, under deans who control the allocation of resources and can influence faculty. Interdisciplinary programs are

The trustees' minutes indicate that if the administrative head of SENR is a director or associate dean, that individual will report to a relevant college dean on a two-year rotating basis. If the head of the school is a dean, the individual will report to the provost. However, the school does not operate in accordance with either of these structures. The administrative head is a director, yet he reports to the provost. Under this structure, the director does not have the status of a dean. Instead the director must rely upon the college deans and provost for resources.

If the University of Wyoming trustees are committed to the success of the School of Environment and Natural Resources, they should consider enhancing its performance by providing a system of incentives for participating faculty. While we accept the unique design of the school as allowing for flexibility, we also believe internal adjustments would help the future of the SENR program.

Providing incentives and acknowledgment can take many forms. For example, the structure could be adjusted to allow for more direct ownership from a college dean or the university provost, which could open up access to additional resources. Second, a closer and more developed relationship between the institute and SENR could provide research opportunities and funding to graduate students and professors alike. Third, better use of both the citizens’ advisory board and the institute board could assist in additional student recruitment, internships, and employment. Finally, including the school in the university's regular academic program review may identify areas of weakness and opportunities for improvement beyond those identified in our evaluation.

Although we heard criticism of the university's efforts in establishing both the IENR and the SENR, a general view also prevailed that they rest on a worthwhile premise. That premise is harnessing the faculty’s extensive expertise in the ENR area to benefit the university. Yet it seems as if university officials, by focusing the institute on the collaborative process and by tentatively supporting the SENR, have withdrawn from that premise.

The IENR's focus on the collaborative process may not disregard that premise, but neither does it proclaim it. Most of the 200-plus faculty who voluntarily associated themselves with the institute did so on the basis of their ENR expertise, not because they have done extensive work with the collaborative process. UW officials have both the authority and reasons for allowing the institute board to modify its direction. However, now those officials may need to focus on ways to better identify the institute with the university and more fully engage its faculty.

If the institute is going to continue as a publicly operated endeavor, it must be subject to the open scrutiny of any other public entity. Using public resources for research demands irrefutable objectivity. Notwithstanding the board's commitment to maintaining balance among its membership, we believe countering public perceptions in this contentious arena will require formal procedures that ensure the expected objectivity.

The SENR was the university's original vehicle to build upon university ENR expertise. Yet, the university has not systematically supported this effort. The recent turnover in both school and university administration and the pending academic planning process put the school at a crossroads. Establishing defined measurements of success, including it in the university program review process, and providing structured incentives for faculty participation, are some first steps to a more promising future.

Chapter 2: The Administration of the State System of Education at the State Level

Article 1: General Provisions

21-2-102.  Effect on functions and powers of board of trustees of University of Wyoming.

Except as provided in W.S. 21-4-304 [repealed], nothing in this code [§§ 21-1-101 through 21-13-721] shall be construed to limit or contravene the functions and powers of the board of trustees of the University of Wyoming as established by law in conformity with the constitution and laws of the state of Wyoming and the laws of the United States.

Article 6: Federal Aid

The board of trustees of the University of Wyoming is hereby authorized to accept any funds or grants made to the University of Wyoming by the United States to be used for education, research or other purposes. The board of trustees of the University of Wyoming is hereby authorized to accept the terms and provisions of any act of congress relating to any federal grants made for the purposes herein provided and said funds so granted or allocated to the said university shall be under the control of and expended by the said board of trustees of said university.

Chapter 17: University of Wyoming

Article 1: In General

There is established in this state, at the city of Laramie, an institution of learning to be known as "The University of Wyoming".

(a)  The objects of the university are to provide an efficient means of imparting to men and women, without regard to color, on equal terms, a liberal education, together with a thorough knowledge of the various branches connected with the scientific, industrial and professional pursuits. To this end it shall embrace colleges or departments of letters, of science and of the arts together with such professional or other departments as in course of time may be connected therewith. The department of letters shall embrace a liberal course of instruction in language, literature and philosophy, together with such courses or parts of courses in the college or department of science as are deemed necessary.

(b)  The college, or department of science, shall embrace courses of instruction in the mathematical, physical and natural sciences, together with such courses in language, literature and philosophy as shall constitute a liberal education. The college or department of the arts shall embrace courses of instruction in the practical and fine arts and especially in the applications of science to the arts of mining and metallurgy, mechanics, engineering, architecture, agriculture and commerce, together with instruction in military tactics, and in such branches in the department of letters, as are necessary to a proper fitness of students for their chosen pursuits, and as soon as the income of the university will allow, in such order as the wants of the public shall seem to require, the courses in the sciences and their practical applications shall be expanded into full and distinct schools or departments.

The president and professors of the university shall be styled "the faculty", and may enforce rules and regulations adopted by the trustees for the government of students, reward and censure students as they may deserve, and generally exercise such discipline, in harmony with the regulations, as is necessary for the good order of the institution. The faculty may present to the trustees for degrees and honors such students as are entitled thereto, and in testimony thereof, when ordered by the board, suitable diplomas, certificates or other testimonials under the seal of the university, and the signatures of the faculty. When, in course of time, distinct colleges or departments of the university are duly organized and in active operation, the immediate government of such departments shall, in like manner, be entrusted to their respective faculties.

The president of the university shall be president of the several faculties and the executive head of all the departments. As such, subject to the board of trustees, he has authority to give general direction to the instruction and investigations of the several schools and departments, and, so long as the interests of the institution require it, he may be charged with the duties of one (1) of the professorships.

The legislature shall appropriate monies intended for the support and maintenance of the University of Wyoming. The appropriations shall specify the purposes for which the monies are intended and may be used. The appropriations shall apply to and include all monies received by the university from the United States for the endowment and support of colleges for the benefit of agriculture and mechanic arts. No expenditure shall be made in excess of an appropriation, and no monies so appropriated shall be used for any purpose other than that for which they are appropriated.

(a)  In addition to other powers granted to the trustees of the University of Wyoming, the trustees may enter into agreements with other institutions, universities, colleges, community colleges, boards of trustees of school districts, agencies, associations or corporations, within or without the state, providing for the offering of courses or programs of instruction, in whole or in part, at, or in cooperation with, such other institutions or agencies, or for the delivery of instruction, performance of services, or provision of materials or facilities. Such agreements may provide for the granting of University of Wyoming credit or degrees for collegiate work completed pursuant to such agreements.

(b)  Nothing in this section alters or otherwise affects any other law authorizing the board of trustees of the University of Wyoming to offer or provide any programs or courses of instruction or to enter into agreements with other institutions, universities or colleges to provide such programs or courses of instruction, nor does any other law limit or otherwise affect the board of trustees' authority under this section.

Article 2: Board of Trustees

The government of the university is vested in a board of twelve (12) trustees appointed by the governor, no two (2) of whom may be residents of the same county of the state. At least one (1) trustee shall be appointed from each appointment district pursuant to W.S. 9-1-218. Not more than seven (7) members of the board shall be registered in the same political party. The governor, the president of the university, the state superintendent of public instruction, and the president of the associated students of the university are members ex officio, having the right to speak, but not to vote. A majority of the board is a quorum.

(a)  The term of office of the trustees appointed is six (6) years. During each session of the legislature, the governor shall nominate, and with the advice and consent of the senate, appoint successors to those trustees whose term of office has expired or will expire before the next session of the legislature. Any vacancy in the board of trustees caused by death, resignation, removal from the state or otherwise, shall be filled by appointment by the governor as provided in W.S. 28-12-101. No member of the faculty, while holding that position, shall ever be appointed a trustee. The governor may remove any trustee as provided in W.S. 9-1-202.

(b)  Effective July 1, 1979, appointments and terms shall be in accordance with W.S. 28-12-101 through 28-12-103.

The board of trustees and their successors in office constitute a body corporate by the name of "the trustees of the University of Wyoming". They possess all the powers necessary or convenient to accomplish the objects and perform the duties prescribed by law, and shall have custody of the books, records, buildings and all other property of the university. The board shall elect a president, secretary and treasurer, who shall perform the duties prescribed in the bylaws of the board. The treasurer shall execute a bond, with approved sureties in double the sum likely to come into his hands, for the faithful discharge of his duties. The term of office of board officers, their duties severally and the times for holding meetings shall be fixed in the bylaws of the board. A majority of the board constitutes a quorum for the transaction of business but a less number may adjourn from time to time, and all routine business may be entrusted to an executive committee of three (3) members subject to such conditions as the bylaws of the board prescribe. The board may from time to time appoint and authorize a person to examine and approve for payment all legal claims against the corporation. The person shall give bond with surety approved by the board, payable to the state of Wyoming in such sum as the board may fix, conditioned for the faithful performance of his duties. A certificate of appointment signed by the president and secretary of the board and the bond shall be filed with the state auditor. At each meeting of the board all action taken by the person so appointed subsequent to the immediately preceding board meeting shall be submitted to the board for its approval or disapproval. The actual and necessary traveling expenses of nonresident members in attending the annual meeting of the board may be audited by the auditing committee thereof and paid by warrant on the treasurer out of the general fund of the university.

(a)  The board of trustees shall prescribe rules for the government of the university and all its branches, elect the requisite officers, professors, instructors and employees, a director of finance and budget and a superintendent of buildings and grounds, any of whom may be removed for cause, and fix the salary and term of office of each. The board of trustees shall prescribe the studies to be pursued and the textbooks to be used, and determine the qualifications of applicants for admission to the various courses of study. No instruction either sectarian in religion or partisan in politics shall ever be allowed in any department of the university, and no sectarian or partisan test shall ever be exercised or allowed in the appointment of trustees or in the election or removal of professors, teachers or other officers of the university or in the admission of students thereto, or for any purpose whatsoever. The board of trustees may:

The trustees of the University of Wyoming, through their president, shall report to the governor as required by W.S. 9-2-1014 respecting the progress, condition and wants of the university and of each school or department thereof, the course of study in each, the number of professors and students, the nature, costs and results of important investigations, and such other information as they deem important or as may be required by any law of this state, or of the United States. The secretary and treasurer of the board of trustees shall prepare an itemized report to accompany the report showing the receipts and disbursements for the year, the appropriation resolution for that year, the purposes for which the revenue was expended, and the amount of revenue expended upon each school or department of work, including the experiment station. The reports are to be printed and not less than one hundred (100) copies filed with the secretary of state for distribution among the members of the legislature and other public officers.

(a)  The secretary of the board of trustees of the University of Wyoming, before entering upon the duties of the office, shall take the oath of office provided for elective officers under the constitution of this state.

(b)  The secretary of the board of trustees of the University of Wyoming may administer oaths and affirmations to any person or persons in connection with the business of the university.

Chairman: William Doyle Ruckelshaus, Chairman, Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc. and Principal, Madrona Investment Group, L.L.C.

Director: Harold Bergman, Professor, University of Wyoming.

Philip Dubois, President, University of Wyoming.

Stanley Hathaway, Of Counsel, Hathaway, Speight, and Kunz.

Tom Jensen, Attorney, Troutman Sanders, LLP.

William Johnson, Private Consultant, Land and Community Planning.

Donald M. Kendall, Co-founder, Former Chairman and CEO, PepsiCo Inc.

Robert McGee, President, Occidental International Corp.

G. Jon Roush, Senior Fellow, The Conservation Fund.

Jack Turnell, President and General Manager, Pitchfork Ranch Co.

John Mack Carter, President, Hearst Magazines Enterprises.

Richard B. Cheney, President and CEO, Halliburton Co.

William R. Corbin, Executive Vice President, Timberlands and Distribution, Weyerhaeuser Co.

Brian Croft, Region Manager, Environmental, Health and Safety, Amoco Corp.

Charles Duncan, Jr., Director, Duncan Interests.

Hank Fischer, Northern Rockies Representative, Defenders of Wildlife.

Jim Geringer, Governor, State of Wyoming.

William Gern, Research Vice President, University of Wyoming.

James Hageman, Wyoming State Representative.

David L. Harrison, Partner, Moses, Wittmeyer, Harrison and Woodruff, P.C.

Erivan Haub, CEO, Tenglemann Group of Germany.

Helga Haub, President, Haub Foundation.

John Hughes, President and CEO, AMCOL International Corp.

Daniel Kemmis, Executive Director, Center for the Rocky Mountain West.

Forrest Kepler, Summit Exploration and President, University of Wyoming Trustees.

William J. Kirby, Senior Vice President, FMC Corp.

Jonathan Lash, President World Resources Institute.

Thomas Lockhart, Vice President, Wyoming Engineering and Dispatch, PacifiCorp.

Cynthia Lummis, Private Consultant.

Whitney MacMillan, Director Emeritus, Cargill, Inc.

Alan Maki, Environmental Advisor, Exxon Co., USA.

Dwight Minton, Chairman of the Board, Church & Dwight Co. and Chairman, Greater Yellowstone Coalition.

Patrick Noonan, Chairman, The Conservation Fund.

Terry P. O'Connor, Vice President, External Affairs, ARCO Coal Co.

Richard Perrine, Professor Emeritus of Engineering and Applied Science, UCLA.

Edward Pollak, Vice President, Asia Pacific, Witco Corp.

Theodore Roosevelt IV, Managing Director, Lehman Brothers.

John Schiffer, Wyoming State Senator.

Alan K. Simpson, Retired U.S. Senator, Wyoming.

Shane Smith, Director, Cheyenne Botanic Gardens.

Larry Spears, Executive Director, North Dakota Consensus Council.

Polly T. Strife, President, Enviro Strat, Inc.

Theodore Strong, Executive Director, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission.

Jane Sullivan, Board Member, National Wildflower Research Center and Wyoming Nature Conservancy.

Mike Sullivan, Partner, Brown, Drew, Massey, and Sullivan.

Craig Thomas, U.S. Senator, Wyoming.

John Turner, President, The Conservation Fund.

Robert K. Turner, Senior Advisor, National Audubon Society.

Thad Wolfe, Lt. Gen., U.S. Air Force, Retired, and Chairman and CEO, International Youth Institute, Inc.

Source: LSO compilation of IENR information.