February 19, 2008 Meeting

Location: Sayles 252

Time: 4:00 pm

Present Mathias Bell, Mikaela Hagen, Mark Krusemeyer, Ray McGaughey, Mark Kanazawa, Adam Smith, Bessie Schwarz, Amy Sillanpa, Gary Wagenbach, Rob Lamppa, Alex Chohlas-Wood

Absent Steve Spehn

Secretary: Alex Chohlas-Wood

Paper (Gary):
• GoPrint software installed in all labs.
• Printing management may be completed in all departments over spring break.
• Multifunction printers installed everywhere.
• Capacity to scan to email soon; capacity to scan and send fax in six to twelve months.

PCC (Mathias):
• Greenhouse climate inventory still being completed – a large task. Once completed, data will be publicly available.
• Consultant visited; gave feedback on the price and feasibility of wind turbines and solar on roofs.
o Although wind turbine market has dipped recently, it should improve by 2009, which is when Carleton would be ready to install a turbine.
o Mikaela asks: where would money come from? Possible answers: The endowment, local contributors, local sources? Maybe borrowing against the investment? Carleton actually spends the income from the endowment, not the endowment itself.
o Comprehensive campaign is supposed to have a “sustainability” component of at least $10 million, but it’s unclear where that money should go. This ambiguity might be intentional – letting donors declare where they want their money to go.

Transportation (Adam:)
• Working on updates to the transportation aspect of the sustainability website.
• Still looking into ZipCar – discussions are continuing.
• Looking into transportation requirements for LEED certification of the new dorms.

SRF (Bessie):
• SRF committee is meeting for the first time later this week, for one proposal.
• Two other proposals have made significant progress, but aren’t ready to submit proposals yet. Should be ready in the spring.
• Ray has been putting together a few of the proposals: lighting upgrading in Cowling Gym – looking really promising, since the SRF fund might not even have to pay for the lighting (but will reap the savings). Thursday proposal will be a vending miser proposal.

Waste/Composting (Mikaela):
• Green Wars continue.
• Working on study break education: disposables, food waste, waste management, composting lessons.
• Hoping to help students become more conscious about waste. (Food Truth had a “Clean Plate Club”, eating food in the dining halls that would’ve been wasted.

Updates:

CRIC (Rachel English):
• Carleton Responsible Investment Committee drafts responsible investment proposals for Trustees to review.
• In the past, hasn’t had much of a relationship with the EAC.
• Recently disbanded due to loss of student involvement.
o A couple years ago, students were involved and accomplished most of the work.
o Recently, students didn’t put as much time in, so it fell apart.
o Was going to be disbanded completely but now will be re-established in the Fall. Hopefully it should have enough students in the Fall.
o These students usually need to do more work than usual – requires a good amount of homework outside of the committee, so students eventually became disinterested, or ran out of time.
o Thinking about accountability for student members? Maybe using faculty, alumni, or staff advising.
o Ideally it will draft up to 45 proposals a year – like Carleton’s peer colleges are doing.
o Students shouldn’t be recruited by CSA, but it might be the only way to get it done – the EAC is the only committee that doesn’t have to recruit through CSA.
o Committee is composed of five students, two faculty, and two staff, and Fred Rogers (as a non-voting member).
o Further suggestions: maybe give it more institutional standing; revise the charter so that it is more stable; make it a high priority for the college.

Talking Points from meeting with the Board of Trustees (Tim Singer):

• Fantastic meeting with the Board of Trustees.
o Tim & Bessie walked them through simple updates concerning CSA.
o Afterwards, they spent 30 minutes reviewing with the Career Center, then the EAC and Sustainability issues.
o They expressed excitement with the EAC’s smaller projects, but also encouraged trustee involvement with larger projects and issues.
o Closed meeting promoting more of similar interaction between trustees and students.
• Feedback for the EAC:
o For the trustees, it’s about dollars & cents. They saw some advances (like LEED certification, the SRF) as cost-effective measures.
o Maybe a cultural change isn’t as important to them, so in the future maybe these presentations should be focused on monetary savings so that the trustees have their questions answered.
o They then asked why there wasn’t a full-time faculty/staff sustainability position, to focus on these issues and projects.
o Keep in mind – trustees were on campus to resolve the budget for next year; knowing that budgeting is a long process, the EAC should be organized this spring so that they can get on the radar for next February’s Trustees meeting.
o Trustees were also uncertain how the yet-undecided Dining Contract would affect dining for Carleton in the coming years.
o They wanted to know whether ENTS should be a major, and if students are excited about that opportunity. Would the ENTS Major draw and attract students to Carleton?
o Trustees, overall, were very excited and he’s passing us those compliments.

Role of the EAC (Mark Kanazawa):
• Mark was invited to Budget Committee with Mathias, the first time this has happened, for a meeting in April.
• The EAC should collectively prepare for this meeting.
o What would a Sustainability Position be like?
o For Rob Lamppa (the closest person to a “sustainability ombudsman” that Carleton has), there are some things unrelated to Sustainability that he’s having to take time on. Mathias and others have been willing to crunch numbers and do some of the busy work to free up time.
o Two initiatives – changing behavior and technology – will take enormous amounts of time.
o Ultimately, there’s a lot of work to be done, and it’s going to be impossible to get everything done without a dedicated coordinator. This only with a goal of becoming carbon neutral: things get even more time-consuming when we start thinking about adding turbines and other components.
• The EAC should be focusing on the most pressing issues and strategies: rather than having each initiative isolated from all others, we should re-organize and re-prioritize so that we become directed and focused on a strategic larger goal.

o Toni Cortese feedback:

• We’re doing a lot of good work, but he’s not sure that the governing structure (i.e., the EAC) is optimal for the task.
• The EAC has been great with small-scale reform, but has shied away from larger projects. Fred Rodgers is willing to receive budget proposals from the EAC, but he’s not getting any. If the EAC sent in a careful, thoughtful proposal, it would be seriously received.
• Pushed for a sustainability coordinator, although he didn’t necessarily call it that.
o Again, what would a sustainability coordinator position look like?
• Successful precedent set by Middlebury and Bowdoin.
• The coordinator should be equally accessible to faculty, students, and staff, a rather unprecedented position for Carleton.
• Bessie: A similar position was proposed a couple years ago, but it was drafted by a class, so the college might not have taken it very seriously.
o The EAC should take a more proactive role in advancing serious projects, and should unify our various projects into a focused set of goals under one umbrella. We should be projecting into the future – have large goals – then project these into the present and have projects that address our long-term goals.
o Mark Krusemeyer: for the coordinator, the EAC would be their first priority (as opposed to the rest of us); maybe we could have a subcommittee to draft a proposal for this job that would include a description of the first few months on the job in a proposal.
o Also, should allow flexibility so that we hire someone who would come in with their own ideas; self-starting instead of just executing what we’ve drafted, taking leadership on these issues.
o We need to make a case for the position: what is not getting done now that this position would help accomplish? Detailed specifics would be essential in any proposal!
o Fred Rodgers should know about the monetary implications: how could the position even pay for itself? If the savings would pay for the position, what is the loss?
o Tim Singer: Like the Career Center, we could have top-down reform: one person is hired who reforms the institution and eventually establishes an office (in this case, difficult because it’s unprecedented).

EarthTub (Shawn):
• SOPE plans to install an EarthTub over spring break with last year’s grant money from the EPA.
• All schools that were presented with the grant will be invited to Washington to present on their progress so far; SOPE doesn’t have enough money on hand yet to make the trip.
• Trip is also for a competition to win the second phase of the grant, which if won, would be used to improve Northfield’s EarthTub network with an additional $75,000. High school environmental club is already excited about the project.
• Bessie: it’s a fantastic opportunity for the students; also, a good thing to get Carleton involved with other similar schools to share ideas.
• Ideally, Northfield schools would take care of their own compost, eliminating liability concerns.
• Chances of winning are small, so this should be seen as a valuable opportunity for these students to bring back information and ideas rather than a chance to win money.
• Motions:
o Gary makes a motion to give $1000.
o Mathias makes a motion to give $600, with $400 later if they don’t get other sources of funding (from ENTS or the President’s Office).
o $1000 motion approved 3-2.
o $600/$400 approved unanimously.
o In a joint vote, $600/$400 wins unanimously.