Chair Matthews: It takes exceptional wisdom to understand one's own motivations, but maybe I can list some of the components. The most obvious is a sense of duty: the University pays my salary, so I should agree to a request from the Provost. This obligation should neither be under-estimated nor undermined by tenure.

A second motivation is belief in shared governance. The AC4 is all about shared governance. It includes administrators who seek and manage resources, faculty members who control the curriculum and direct most of the research, students who enrich our lives and pay our salaries, and staff who make it all happen. Shared governance is about respect, shared values, and a shared mission. It depends on participation. How could I not participate when asked? I think these are the reasons I said "Yes" when asked.

Editor: Are there any rewards that come with being the founding chair of the AC4?

Chair Matthews: The short answer is "No," there is no title, no salary, no parking privileges. In fact, one gets asked to sit on yet more committees -- just like most other Academic Senate service. Beyond this short answer, though, is an opportunity. Thinking back to my time as Chair of the Committee on Academic Personnel, the Committee's major achievement that year (in addition to the normal tenure and promotion decisions, which should never be routine) was the completion of the Merit Equity Review (http://moby.ucdavis.edu/CAP/meqfinal.htm) begun while John Poulos was chair. During this process, which was a shared 2-year effort between the Committee and the Vice-Provost, many faculty members, almost all women, were moved up to the rank and step they deserved based on their accomplishments. There were tough and lonely times during this process but the overall results, and their eventual widespread acceptance by the Academic Senate, are a shared achievement that is important to me.

Editor: Will the AC4 have to address issues as contentious as gender equity?

Chair Matthews: I hope not. My initial and overriding aim, of course, is to establish the Council as a valuable part of our shared governance structure, and this by itself is challenge and achievement enough. At this time, I don't know what, if any, other overarching issue will emerge. There is the Plan for Academic Computing, already underway. There is the challenge of developing academic computing so that we exploit synergy between systems rather than fighting incompatibilities. And there is the issue of universal student access to computing (USA).

I guess the other short answer to the rewards question is: "Here is an opportunity to make a difference."