November 23, 2009
President Wilson convened the SPBC meeting at 12:06 p.m. He asked if there were any questions or comments on the notes of the November 2, 2009 SPBC meeting. With no comments, the notes were approved by common consent.
President Wilson welcomed several members of the GREENetwork (Meg Miner, Sandra Lindberg, Abigail Jahiel, Given Harper, Carl Teichman and Kelly Peterson {from Sierra Student Coalition}) and thanked them for their patience, since their report to SPBC had been deferred on several occasions while the SPBC dealt with retiree health care and budget issues.
Meg Miner, GREENetwork co-chair, read from a statement prepared this semester, which summarized ten years of effort and outlined five recommendations for action by the University administration. The recommendations are as follows:
1. Appointing an IWU Sustainability Coordinator.
2. Contracting with an Energy Consultant to review IWU’s campus energy use.
3. Implementing a method to compost campus food waste.
4. Contracting with Sodexho to use only biodegradable take-out supplies.
5. Installing additional campus bike racks.
Meg noted that the only department in the University that has institutionalized sustainability appears to be the Office of Residential Life. The entire report is posted on the GREENetwork section of the Digital Commons - http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu.
Given Harper spoke about results from recent energy audits conducted both locally and nationally by a firm called Energy Education and gave two examples: Unit 5 recently realized $4,000,000 in energy savings after a 5-month period (net savings of 3.9 million after subtracting fees) and Oklahoma State University realized a $6,000,000 savings over a two-year period and were able to bring six new buildings online without additional costs. This particular firm guarantees that energy savings realized will be greater than fees paid. He also reported on some individual efforts made in the CNS and noted that while piecemeal approaches may save some energy, the University needs a concerted effort in these regards.
Kelly Peterson from Sierra Student Coalition reported on some of the initiatives they have undertaken over the past three years, including the Talloires Declaration, the tall grass prairie plot, reducing paper consumption, placing stickers on paper towel dispensers to raise environmental awareness and a program they call Friday Night Lights, where students go through campus buildings and shut off lights and computers for the weekend. The SSC is also trying to initiate a tray-less cafeteria and estimates that the University would use 249 gallons less water per day and reduce food waste by more than 40,000 pounds per year. Student Senate is slated to vote on this topic soon.
Abby Jahiel thanked the SPBC for the opportunity to present today and acknowledged that the Committee had been dealing with the budget shortfall caused partially by the drop in enrollment. She noted that students are beginning to look at institutions’ “greenness” ratings when they apply and believes we have the potential to attract more students if we revamp some of the things we are doing and improve our performance in some of the categories that college guide books are rating us on (e.g., campus quality of life, preparing students to be employed in the green industry, and environmental responsibility). The GREENetwork believes that it is time for the University to either live up to the commitment of sustainability that is listed as a goal in the Strategic Plan or to remove the statement altogether. Abby noted that it is demoralizing and embarrassing when she has prospective students come to campus and has to acknowledge that we don’t have the resources to support the goal.
President Wilson thanked the group for their presentation and asked for questions and comments from SPBC members.
1. Q: Is there an action plan? A: Yes, outlined in the five recommendations presented above.
2. Q: What is the cost of an energy audit? A: Unsure what the initial cost would be, possibly about $40,000, but can investigate. The firm mentioned previously guarantees that you won’t lose money.
3. Behavioral changes often take time and there is value in students debating issues, such as a tray-less cafeteria.
4. Of the five recommendations, pursuit of an energy audit seemed to be the most favorable although it was cautioned that the results of an audit are recommendations for improvements, which can be quite costly. It would not be in our best interest to engage in another initiative that we cannot fund, like the current Americans with Disabilities Act recommendations.
5. Several Committee members expressed support for restricting students’ access to free printing.
President Wilson expressed frustration that there doesn’t seem to be much acknowledgement of the things that we are doing, such as the geo-thermal system in the Welcome Center, bamboo flooring in the Main Lounge, the University farms no-till plan, University properties being leased to wind farms, our commitment to using paper with 30% post consumer waste and our support of the high speed rail project. More education, both on- and off-campus, needs to be engaged in order to make the community aware of our efforts.
He also noted that some elements of the rankings are problematic, e.g., giving institutions credit for signing the Presidents Climate Commitment even if nothing is done. His approach has been to implement sustainability initiatives in meaningful ways (hence signing the Talloires Declaration because we knew we could accomplish the goals). He added that we may also find it necessary to build buildings that are certifiable, but not LEED-certified due to the cost of getting a building certified (approximately $100,000). He thanked the GREENetwork for their hard work in preparing this report and they left the meeting.
Attention turned to the last agenda item, the IWU Enrollment Projection Model. Michael Thompson presented several tables that categorized the University’s current students by their entering first-time, first-year cohort and entering transfer term. Students’ expected graduation terms for the current year (i.e., December, May) were also presented. Based on historical data concerning entering first-time, first-year students, average retention rates and an estimation of new and returning transfer students, three enrollment projection scenarios were presented (low = 2,000; medium = 2,025; high = 2,050). In order to reach the budgeting goal of a FTE of 2,050 (high-range scenario), a total of 600 first-time, first-year and transfer students would be required for Fall 2010. A Committee member expressed concern that budget figures were projected using a high-range enrollment scenario. It was noted that positive variances in retention, as well as new students entering in the spring would assist the University in reaching the budgeted FTE. The Enrollment Projection Model will be updated in late January, which should provide firmer enrollment estimates for the Fall 2010 semester.
President Wilson noted that the tuition policy proposal discussed earlier in the semester by the SPBC had been pulled from the October Board of Trustees meeting because of uncertainty concerning enrollment figures. While we have historically declared our next year’s tuition in the fall semester, we have learned it is not necessary to take action that early in the year. The topic will come back to the SPBC for discussion. With the attention and cooperation of many departments on increasing the number of available slots, admissions will be as aggressive as possible this recruitment year, which should help us meet our enrollment target.
The meeting adjourned at 1:30.
Distributed to all faculty and staff on December 7, 2009