Exhibit 4 PRESENTATION BY: DR. MARK EMMERT PRESIDENT NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION Dr. Mark A. Emmert Became the Fift
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Exhibit 4 PRESENTATION BY: DR. MARK EMMERT PRESIDENT NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION Dr. Mark A. Emmert became the fifth president of the NCAA in October 2010. As president he has championed greater support for student-athlete wellness and academic success. His commitment to the academic success of athletes is also reflected in newly heightened academic standards for initial eligibility. Additionally, he ushered the Association into a new Division I governance structure. Prior to assuming his current role, Emmert served as president of his alma mater, the University of Washington, beginning in 2004 and has been named president emeritus. During his tenure, the university rose to its standing as second among all public and private institutions in research funding with $1.3 billion in annual grants and contracts. Under his leadership, the university concluded a $2.6 billion fundraising campaign. Prior to returning to his alma mater, Emmert was chancellor of Louisiana State University from 1999 to 2004. He served as provost and chancellor of the University of Connecticut (1995-1999), provost and vice president for academic affairs at Montana State University (1992-1995), and associate vice chancellor for academic affairs at the University of Colorado (1985-1992). A Washington native, Dr. Emmert earned his bachelor’s degree in political science from the University of Washington and has both a master’s degree and a Ph.D. in public administration from Syracuse University. Emmert holds an honorary doctorate of humanities degree from Monmouth University and an honorary doctorate of laws degree from Molloy College. Emmert and his wife, DeLaine, have two adult children and two grandchildren. Exhibit 5 Discussion of CICP Strategic Priorities 2015 As a result of several member conversations, CICP has examined how and where its resources can be best utilized to advance opportunities and tackle challenges important to our regional economy that are not specific to a sector. In these pre- reads you will find information for four specific issues of regional concern. Three of the pre-reads are short issue descriptions and a fourth pre-read, specific to the “Image” breakout, is a set of statistics illustrating the RFRA fallout of the last few weeks. Each of these provides background for break-out discussions of each issue and potential impact of and role for CICP. It is our belief that each of these issues will serve to improve the perception of our region for talent and companies in the short and long term. In some cases we have highlighted where our current sector- based initiatives are playing a successful role; this Board-level discussion should focus on the role of CICP from a cross-sector, Partnership-level perspective. Each member will be assigned to one issue in order to provide enough time for a substantive discussion. At the end of the discussions, we hope to make a determination as to whether CICP has a role to play on the issue that would be widely supported by its membership and what that role might be, from a convening and educational role to an active program development and execution role. Issues for discussion on a cross-sector basis: · Talent & Workforce Development · Innovation Ecosystem · Regional Image · Civic Leadership Succession Planning 15-C16 March 2015 Innovation Risk-taking, entrepreneurship, and support of a start-up culture and innovation are increasingly viewed as essential components for a thriving regional economy and a key element of a talent attraction and retention strategy. In the New Geography of Jobs, Moretti describes the connection between innovation and economic success by comparing Menlo Park and Visalia—two similar cities prior to the advent of the Silicon Valley. He concludes that innovative places have these significant effects on economic growth in a region: • Jobs are plentiful and there is low unemployment. o Moretti suggests that each innovation jobs creates 5 indirect or spin-off jobs. • There are high average wages, even in the service sector—Moretti suggests that: o College graduates in innovative places earn $13k more than those in non-innovative regions, and o High school graduates in innovative regions make $33k more than their peers in non-innovative regions. • Crime rates are lower. • School districts are high performing. • Educational attainment is very high. • Small, medium, and large businesses thrive. Perhaps most importantly, these innovation hubs keep attracting and growing more talent and more companies, and as a result the economic performance gap between innovative regions and others continues to grow. Underlying the successful innovation ecosystem is a culture that has a significant degree of risk tolerance and understands that to successfully capitalize on innovation, there must be capital flowing through the system. This capital must be willing to take risks and sponsor innovation across various industry sectors and creative models, and convert this energy into start-ups and eventually midsized companies. The Challenge for Central Indiana is not viewed as particularly attractive to innovators and entrepreneurs. Regions compete intensely for innovative talent. While the local innovative community is optimistic about central Can central Indiana overcome the perception that it lacks an Indiana’s progress and potential in building attractive lifestyle innovative culture and successfully develop a nationally and amenities and support for an innovative culture, it should globally recognized innovation ecosystem? How might this come as little surprise that the image of Indiana as a whole be accomplished? Innovation Ecosystems and Districts Key elements to a thriving innovation ecosystem include: • People who have developed innovation and people that have failed while trying to innovate; • Strong research and development sector, both at the academic and private sector level, with a focus on the commercialization of innovation; • Supportive and involved companies; • Talented human capital; • Supportive social and physical networks, places attractive to innovators; and • An environment encouraging of newly formed businesses. 1 Since Richard Florida’s Creative Cities notion, cities have In 2013, the Brookings Institute published a more detailed been investing in place-making as a strategy to attract report on Patenting and Innovation in Metropolitan and retain creative and innovative talent. Innovation America (www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/2013/ districts attempt to directly link place-making, creativity, metropatenting) showing the following: and innovation in a specific area. The Brookings Institute • 42 out of 358 – Indianapolis rank on # of patents, 5-year defines innovation districts as “geographic areas where average (2007-11), Rank of metro areas leading-edge anchor institutions [research universities and • 108 out of 358 – Indianapolis rank on Patents/1,000 jobs, research-oriented medical hospitals with extensive R&D] 5-year average (2007-11), Rank of metro areas and companies cluster and connect with startups, business • 116 out of 358 – Indianapolis rank on % of workers with a incubators and accelerators. They are also physically STEM BA, 2011, Rank of metro areas compact, transit-accessible, technically-wired and offer • 122 out of 358 – Indianapolis rank on GDP/worker, 2011, mixed-use housing, office, and retail” (www.brookings.edu/ Rank of metro areas about/programs/metro/innovation-districts). For innovation • 29 out of 100 – Indianapolis rank on # of jobs in advanced districts to function, economic, physical, and networking industries, 2013, Rank of largest metro areas (www. assets must all be present. brookings.edu/research/reports2/2015/02/03-advanced- While not all innovation districts thrive, their success is industries#/M26900) a function of intentional design, organic evolution, and The figures below show how the Indianapolis metro area the support of the region’s innovation ecosystem. When compares with some other metro areas that include state innovation districts, thrive the benefits are significant. capitals using the Brookings data. • Boston’s innovation district has transformed a vacant section of the city’s waterfront into a district with 200 companies and 4,000 jobs. • Based on that success, the city is working to transform 1,000 acres in South Boston into a live-work-play innovation district with over 30 million square feet of development. A recent draft of the Greater Indy Chamber’s Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy noted that central Indiana’s innovation ecosystem is highly fragmented. An innovation district or a series of linked innovation districts provides a significant opportunity to physically link and create a more connected innovation ecosystem, while potentially transforming a neglected neighborhood into a talent attraction and retention destination. How Innovation is Measured/How Does Central Indiana Compare? While the local innovation community is optimistic about our potential, and certain companies are leading innovators in their industries, in most instances central Indiana is not a leading region in innovation. Measures of innovation in a region can include the number of new start-ups, the number of patents applications/approvals, and dollars spent on R&D. Using its innovation index, in 2010, the Indiana Business Research Center reported that Marion County scored slightly higher than the national average for innovation (www.incontext.indiana.edu/2010/jan-feb/ article1.asp). 2 According to the National Science