ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES COMMITTEE
May 10, 2004
EMU Board Room

ATTENDEES: Dorene Steggell, Julia Heydon, JR Gaddis, Christine Thompson, Robyn Hathcock, Kay Coots, Bob Jones, Steve Mital

• Dean Melnick and couple of faculty members are meeting with Dan Williams on 5/17 to discuss obtaining a commitment for CASL house.
• Recycling will be set up at the Willamette Valley Folk Festival in a similar manner to last year, which proved very successful.

Fund Raising

Alan Price, Vice President for Advancement, explained the fund raising process. He started with an overview of how campaign priorities have been set and what that means in terms of fund raising. After President Frohnmayer conferred with many parts of campus, the Strategic Directions Document was written to clarify criteria for decision making and priority setting. Four strategic areas emerged – quality, student experience, opportunity and access, the connection between research and economic development. A campaign was designed to include broad ideas and to focus on how philanthropy could best be used to move UO down the road furthest and fastest.

A solicitation then went out to the campus community for ideas. Seven hundred initiatives and over two billion dollars worth of ideas were received and a database was created with all the viable proposals. The Internal Campaign Advisory Committee then met and worked on grouping the proposals into four areas – research, teaching and learning, student access, and connections to community, state and society. These four cornerstones were distilled into discovery, inspiration, opportunity, and connection. They then tried to determine the best examples of the way philanthropy could advance these ideas. The crosshatch between the ideas of the committee, deans, and vice presidents are identified in the case statement. Alan said that a web site containing the majority of the proposals will be available to everyone this fall.

Development Officers are divided three ways – by units, regionally, and functionally (i.e. corporate and foundation, etc.) At this time there are no general-purpose fundraisers. Alan feels proposals focusing on sustainability are viable for the right donor and that this meeting is a good way for EIC to promote it. Also suggested communicating with Dan Williams and academic leadership, as well as development officers. If EIC members know of people in the community who would be interested in donating Alan would be happy to know about them.

The following units would be best aligned to EIC issues and goals: Sciences (Shauna Widdan), Social Sciences (to be hired), Humanities (Heidi Shuler), AAA (Karen Johnson and Shelley Winship), Environmental Program in Law (Matt Roberts and Jane Gray) and the regional fundraisers. They may be approached directly. Alan concluded and offered to return for further discussion at a future meeting.

The committee discussed the next course of action to include the following ideas: determine specific priorities, view the web site when available in the fall, put together a presentation, contact the fundraisers, and attend one of their regular meetings. JR hopes that once the web site is accessible, searching for environmentally or sustainability oriented proposals will be straightforward. Will proposals such as the one Karyn wrote standalone or be imbedded in a larger proposal?

If the committee wants to put forward fund raising initiatives, Julia suggested that a brief case statement be prepared outlining the projects, cost, and fund raising goal. A case statement also explains goals, why it’s important, and the value to the institution and the community. Bringing more attention to the UO as a green campus can make us unique in the eyes of donors and help in the overall competition for funds. It was suggested that Alan Price be invited back again to discuss the concept of making sustainability a more prominent focus in the overall campaign.

Kay asked for clarification on the two approaches and EIC’s role in the overall process: 1) initiating new projects such as CASL, and/or 2) act as an advocate to integrate sustainability into as many existing proposals as possible. Would EIC have more impact through educational efforts to try to incorporate sustainability into proposals rather than creating new ones?

Is the greening of campus acknowledged as a campus-wide priority? If we bring the assertion to University Advancement, is it an accurate representation or should the level of priority be cleared up first? We can ask Dan whether he views sustainability as an institutional priority, and if it’s not EIC may need to work harder to make it a priority. Once clarified we can proceed with certainty in trying to have it integrated into the overall campaign.

Dorene reads the Comprehensive Environmental Policy as sufficient proof that it is a priority. Steve questioned whether this means that it is accepted to the degree that EIC can make a statement promoting sustainability as it relates to the campaign on behalf of the university. This discussion will be continued at the next meeting.

Final Report

Dorene distributed a draft of the 2003-2004 year-end report and asked for feedback by May 20th.

The next Environmental Issues Committee meeting will be held on June 7, from 2:30 – 4:00 p.m. in the EMU Board Room.