Student Sustainability Initiative Review

1. Student Sustainability Initiative Review Presented to the Student Incidental Fees Committee FALL 2012

2. Agenda • Committee Introductions • Process Overview • Recommendations • SIFC Questions • SSI Comments & Questions • Open Discussion

3. Committee Members • Co-Chairs: • Drew Hatlen, Chair, Educational Activities • Alexandra Leziy-Miller, Finance Coordinator, AABC • Members: • Troy Snow, Operations and Events Manager, Recreational Sports • Victoria Redman, SIFC Member • Amanda Hartley, Finance Projects Assistant, AABC • Jackie Alvarez, Director, Counseling and Psychological Services • Tom Baker, Finance Projects Assistant, AABC • Josh Makepeace, Health and Wellness Advocate

4. Review Process • Charged by the Student Incidental Fees Committee (SIFC) • Timeline: Summer & Fall term • Committee Meetings: 15+ • Meetings with SSI: 5

5. Charge: Fully Assess Programs & Services

6. Charge: Conduct full analysis of green fee ballot referendum. Specifically, analyze the way the green fee is being used today and whether this is an appropriate use based on the language used in the referendum.

7. Charge: Conduct full analysis of green fee ballot referendum (1/3) Referendum Ballot: • QUESTION: Do you want to assess the student body a “green energy fee” of $8.50 per student per term to convert OSU to renewable energy beginning fall 2007? RESULT OF “YES” VOTE: • “Yes” vote requests the Oregon State Board of Higher Education assess the student body a “green energy” fee of $8.50 per student per term to convert OSU to renewable energy beginning fall 2007 as part of the 2007-08 OSU Incidental fee budget; directs the OSU Student Sustainability Advisory Board to administer the fee, contract the purchase of renewable energy green tags through the OSU contracting process, and recommend future “green energy” fee amounts to the OSU Student/Incidental Fees Committee.

8. Charge: Conduct full analysis of green fee ballot referendum (2/3) • Committee Discussion: • Language is very specific • “Convert OSU to renewable energy” • “Contract the purchase of renewable energy green tags” • Offers plasticity • “Directs the OSU Sustainability Advisory Board to administer fee, recommend future ‘green energy’ fee amounts.” • This freedom to administer is what caused the Board to shift away from the purchase of Renewable Energy Credits.

9. Charge: Conduct full analysis of green fee ballot referendum (3/3) • Committee Recommendation: • Maintaining the Green Fee at the specified level of $8.50 is not necessary. • Through the annual SIFC budgeting process, the Green Fee has been repurposed which nullified the 2007 referendum. • The Green Fee is no longer serves intended purpose.

10. Charge: Explore the possibility of creating two indexes for the SSI budget, to better differentiate how that money is used.

11. Charge: Explore possibility of creating two indexes for the SSI Budget (1/1) • Committee Discussion: • A second index would create transparency; however, the Committee has concerns over the proposed budget authority structure for the new index. Based on discussion with SSI leadership, the budget authority would be outside of the SSI organization. Additionally, the Committee believes that the creation of a second index at this time is not a pressing need and should follow after the recommendations outlined in this document if needed. • Committee Recommendation: • The Committee recommends that SSI clarify budget authority and advising structure before the SSI budget authority establishes this new index. Additionally, if a new index is established, the budget authority should be maintained within the SSI unit.

12. Charge: Review the student project grants program. Explore ways to make the process more effective, transparent, and more publicized on campus.

13. Charge: Review the student project grants program (1/2) • Committee Discussion: • The SSI Chair has informed the Committee that there is a spreadsheet for tracking grants. • SSI has also informed the Committee that efforts are being made to assess SSI’s impact on OSU through grants in the FY14 Assessment Plan.

14. Charge: Review the student project grants program (2/2) • Committee Recommendation: • Tracking should be implemented for all travel, project and wage grants. We recommend that the grants have joint monitoring by SSI and the Business Center. Documentation of board approval should also be submitted with each grant. • Additionally, while the grants are publicized effectively to the student body, the Committee believes that increasing publication of the grants to professional faculty through media outlets such as OSU Today would benefit the grant programs and increase awareness to students working for faculty in other departments across campus.

15. Charge: Review the purpose of the Revolving Loan Fund (RLF), how effective it is, and the appropriateness of it.

16. Charge: Review the purpose of the Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) (1/2) • Committee Discussion: • The RLF has not been put into practice. • Historically, there have been obstacles to the RLF success such as the availability of Federal funding for sustainability projects. • Several RLF projects have been in the queue, but as a result of alternative funding have fallen through.

17. Charge: Review the purpose of the Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) (2/2) • Committee Recommendation: • It is recommended that a one-year timeline be placed on the RLF funds at which time the RLF be discontinued with re-purposing of funds. • If after one year there is no progress, SSI should prepare and present a plan to SIFC as to how the funds will be used.

18. Charge: The status of the fund balance (working capital levels), its purpose, how it is being used how it was accumulated, and whether or not the current idea of using the fund balance to fund a budget deficit is an effective way to draw down the fund balance to OUS recommended levels.

19. Charge: Status of fund balance (working capital levels), purpose, how it’s being used, how it was accumulated, etc. (1/6) • Committee Discussion: • Committee completed an analysis of the fund balance levels and how it has evolved to the current level (Tables 1 and 2, to follow). • Committee is of the opinion that utilizing the fund balance to fund a budget deficit is appropriate at this time. • However, at the current fee level of SSI at $10.08 ($11.07 - $0.99 transit), and without any progress for the RLF or renewable infrastructure projects, the fund balance will continue to accumulate to levels that far exceed appropriate working capital levels.

20. 20

22. Charge: Status of fund balance (working capital levels), purpose, how it’s being used, how it was accumulated, etc. (4/6) • Committee Recommendation: • Committee is recommending a fee reduction for the FY14 budget based on a SSI needs analysis. • The current level of the fee far exceeds the necessary funding for SSI operations and its various grant programs offered. • It is recommended that the SSI and the SIFC continue to discontinue capitalizing the RLF as the initiative has been unsuccessful and place a one-year timeline on the RLF funds. • The renewable energy infrastructure fee allocation was identified as an area where funding should be discontinued.

23. Charge: Status of fund balance (working capital levels), purpose, how it’s being used, how it was accumulated, etc. (5/6) • Committee Recommendation (cont’d.) • Currently, approximately 75 percent of the SSI budget is requested for the renewable energy infrastructure projects. • The current balance available for renewable infrastructure projects is nearing $1.0M. The Committee believes that SSI has the opportunity to broaden the scope of environmental project focus and utilize the funds available to undertake these projects. • In the event that SSI has identified projects which require funding, it is recommended that SSI approach SIFC with a proposal to increase their fee in future years with a long-term plan and process. In addition, if SSI partners with another student fee funded unit, both parties should approach SIFC together to show funding support for the project.

25. Charge: Status of fund balance (working capital levels), purpose, how it’s being used, how it was accumulated, etc. (6/6) • Outlining the fee decrease: • Increase its operating budget to account for the overspending over the past three years. • The operating budget should account for the recommendation of a potential FTE shift in these recommendations, mandatory increases for inflation and salary/OPE increases and additional funding for grants through a needs analysis. • NOTE: this recommendation will require a thorough needs analysis to be completed by SSI to determine the appropriate and required level of funding for FY14. The Committee is not recommending a certain level of fee however; the Committee is recommending a significant fee reduction for the FY14 budget.

26. Charge: Clarification of administration goals for a sustainable campus and student’s goals for a sustainable campus

27. Charge: Clarification of admin goals for a sustainable campus and student’s goals for a sustainable campus (1/3) • Committee Discussion: • SSI’s mission includes cultural change. Administration goals focus on institutional change. There is an overlap in goals, but distinct set of goals. • Focus for SSI is on students – specifically student outreach and engagement. • SSI mission is to build a student culture around sustainability. Committee didn’t find clarity around which ideas are student founded vs. OSU administration founded. • Large focus of SSI is on infrastructure projects.

28. Charge: Clarification of admin goals for a sustainable campus and student’s goals for a sustainable campus (2/3) • Committee Recommendation: • The Committee would like to see an evaluation of the SSI mission, and how they plan to focus their goals towards greater education among the OSU student body as well as community building. • It is recommended that SSI find similarities between student goals and administration goals and determine ways to make a greater impact.

29. Charge: Clarification of admin goals for a sustainable campus and student’s goals for a sustainable campus (3/3) • Committee Recommendation (cont’d.) • The SSI’s charge should be to focus on the student aspect and what students can do to make a change through education while Administration’s focus should be systematic change and large scale sustainability infrastructure projects to support campus.

30. Charge: Strategic Plan and Assessment Discussion

31. Charge: Strategic Plan and Assessment Discussion (1/2) • Committee Discussion: • The assessment and strategic plan documents are well written, detailed, and contain metrics that can easily be measured via data collection, interviews with staff and employees that exit the organization, usage and attendance levels, and programmatic growth. • The Committee believes that some of these objectives can be achieved on a shorter timeline than a 3 to 5 year plan [i.e. event attendance, social media hits, website hits]; however, the Committee understands that the typical format by which student fee funded organizations structure such planning and assessment is predicated upon 3 to 5 year windows. • Metrics could be refined and the plan is highly numbers driven rather than outcomes driven.

32. Charge: Strategic Plan and Assessment Discussion (2/2) • Committee Recommendation: • Identify goals which can be reached more quickly and those which are long-term. In addition, goals should be reviewed to be more specific. For example: “teach students valuable skills”. This is very broad and skills should be specified within the document. • Additionally, the assessment plan should focus on learning outcomes and points of impact, more than on simple descriptive data such as percentages and number of people in attendance.

33. Charge: Renewable Energy Projects

34. Charge: Renewable Energy Projects (1/3) • Committee Discussion: • Overall, discussion of the solar panel infrastructure projects brought forth many conversations among the Committee and led to several recommendations. • Committee observed a lack of planning and communication around the solar infrastructure projects and a rushed approach in order to spend down a large fund balance. • Second, communication issues between the SIFC, SSI and departments were apparent. • Third, university policies and procedures around budget authorities and approval of transfers were not followed.

35. Charge: Renewable Energy Projects (2/3) • Committee Discussion (cont’d.) • The review of the solar infrastructure projects led the Committee to the discussion of the heavy project focus and a greater need for collaboration across campus. • Committee believes that SSI places too much focus on solar infrastructure and not enough on other methods to make an environmental impact such as smaller scale projects like water collection systems, low flow toilets, and others. • The Committee sees an opportunity for SSI to create more relationships across campus, collaborate with other units and bring more minds together to achieve goals.

36. Charge: Renewable Energy Projects (3/3) • Committee Recommendation: • Committee recommends expanding and creating a coalition of sustainability across campus. • This will enable SSI to create relationships, generate ideas in which students can become increasingly involved in sustainability, diversify their approaches to sustainability, learn from peers and contribute to greater education outcomes for the student body.

37. Charge: Committee Discussion of student fees funding infrastructure on non-student fee funded buildings

38. Charge: Committee Discussion of student fees funding infrastructure on non-student fee funded buildings (1/2) • Committee Discussion: • The Committee has been informed of the obstacles in solar panel installation. Factors such as location, position, age, and condition of buildings dictate the ability to mount solar panels. There are several fee-funded buildings on campus; however, many structural and orientation obstacles prevent the installation of solar panels.

39. Charge: Committee Discussion of student fees funding infrastructure on non-student fee funded buildings (2/2) • Committee Opinion: • The use of student fee dollars to fund infrastructure on Education and General (E&G) buildings is not an appropriate use of student fees. • Historically, student fees have not been used in this manner. There is a clear distinction between student incidental fees, their purpose and uses versus tuition dollars, purpose and appropriate use. • This decision was made as the Committee believes this would set precedence for the future use of student fees. • There are other avenues of funding solar infrastructure on campus such as administration’s use of the RLF. • This would essentially benefit both the OSU Administration and SSI through a partnership. Administration would benefit from the availability of low interest funds to undertake sustainability projects while SSI would benefit from the return of interest to students.

40. Charge: Explore alternative funding when possible

41. Charge: Explore alternative funding when possible (1/1) • Committee Discussion: • There is lack of a clear attempt to seek alternative funding sources. • Committee Recommendation: • SSI should explore alternative funding sources and provide an explanation to the SIFC if alternative funding is not available. • A periodic analysis and justification would be sufficient. • State and federal grants are an example for potential supplemental funding.

42. Charge: Examine all funding sources and their present/future impacts

43. Charge: Examine all funding sources and their present/future impacts (1/1) • Committee Discussion: • The sole funding source for SSI is student fees • Committee Recommendation: • No Committee recommendation is provided

44. Charge: Examine interactions of SSI Board with SIFC. Review and assess SSI board membership and budget authorities. Also including review of SSI Bylaws in coordination with SIFC Bylaws.

45. Charge: Examine interactions of SSI Board w/ SIFC. Review &assess SSI board membership & budget authorities (1/8) • Committee Discussion: • The Committee heard from a former SIFC Chair and his experiences with SSI. Overall, the experience was not positive and after a SSI fee reduction in the budgeting process, the relationship deteriorated. • A large factor contributing to the frustration between the two groups was the lack of a SIFC liaison presence during the budgeting process. • In FY12, the SIFC implemented a liaison program for all of the budgeting boards; however, for SSI the liaison relationship was ineffective and absent. This created a great disconnect between the SIFC and SSI.

46. Charge: Examine interactions of SSI Board w/ SIFC. Review & assess SSI board membership & budget authorities (2/8) • Committee Recommendation (SIFC): • Committee recommends that the SIFC continue to hold greater accountability among its SIFC members and the important liaison relationship they hold. • Liaisons should be communicative with the budgeting boards, responsive to questions and inform the SIFC Chair in the event that they are unable to meet their responsibilities.

47. Charge: Examine interactions of SSI Board w/ SIFC. Review & assess SSI board membership & budget authorities (3/8) • Budget Authority Discussion: • There are currently two budget authorities for SSI. • The role of a budget authority requires an understanding of policies and procedures, a great understanding of the unit and reliance on experts within the unit to educate the budget authority when signing purchases. • Throughout the conversations with SSI, it became apparent to the Committee that the budget authorities for SSI do not always have a grasp on the full scope of decisions and purchases nor are they informed by the experts.

48. Charge: Examine interactions of SSI Board w/ SIFC. Review & assess SSI board membership & budget authorities (4/8) • Budget Authority Discussion (cont’d.): • While budget authorities within student fee funded units may not always be directly involved in decision making, it is necessary that they are informed and ultimately make the budget authority approval through their signature and granting of the use of student fee funds. • The Committee appreciated that SSI leadership was transparent and straightforward with the Committee that they are heavily reliant on an SSI advisor expertise and do not always fully know the projects or decisions that are being made; however, an expectation of a budget authority is to seek out information prior to the approval process. The budget authority role is a process that is documented and that is followed by all student incidental fee units and all OSU departments.

49. Charge: Examine interactions of SSI Board w/ SIFC. Review & assess SSI board membership & budget authorities (4/8) • Budget Authority Discussion (cont’d.): • The Committee followed with a conversation about the co-advising structure of SSI and budget authority roles. With this structure and after discussion among the Review Committee and with SSI, it was evident that budget authority roles and processes are not clearly outlined and the current co-advising structure presents ambiguity around budget authority. Budget authority roles need to be outlined, maintained within the SSI organization and communicated to all parties (i.e. SIFC, the Business Center and the budgeting board).

50. Charge: Examine interactions of SSI Board w/ SIFC. Review & assess SSI board membership & budget authorities (5/8) • Committee Discussion SSI Advising Structure: • The SSI leadership/advising structure is decentralized across the campus community within and outside of Student Affairs and Student Fee funded departments. The co-advising model implemented by the SSI organization is unique and the Committee believes that there is a need for a consolidated structure to better support the students of SSI.