Environmental Council
Minutes of November 18, 2003
Old Chapel Room 401
Attending: Steve Trombulak (Co-Chair), Connie Leach Bisson (Vice Chair), Anne Knowles, Jeff Munroe, David Stoll, Diane Munroe, Charlotte Tate, Philip Aroneanu, Carolyn Barnwell, Erika Holsman, Suzanne Nagi, J.S. Woodward, Ashley Clark, Robin Dean, Kristin Fraser
Missing: Nan Jenks-Jay (Co-Chair), Gail Smith, Asher Burns-Burg, Andrea Hamre, Alysse Forrest, McKalyn Garrity
Guests: Ian Ausprey, Sam Rodriguez
The meeting began at 4:35 p.m.
1. Minutes of November 4, 2003
There was a motion and a second to accept the minutes of November 4, 2003, as presented. This motion received unanimous approval.
2. Announcements
Connie reminded members of the Environmental Fair on Thursday, November 20th from 5-7 p.m. in the lounge area outside of Ross Dining.
Connie also shared that the "Kick-off" event for the Town's climate initiative was tonight after the Environmental Council meeting at American Flatbread. The College's Carbon Reduction Initiative Working Group would be hosting an information table and Bob Huth would briefly describe the College's work to date.
Philip shared that the paper reduction subcommittee's collection of paper from the computer labs was underway. Collected bags would be weighed on Friday. Anne Knowles mentioned that paper reduction might become a more significant issue on campuses in the future due to changes in academic publishing (citing university presses as an example). With more electronic publishing, it transfers the cost of publishing to the college. Does Middlebury want to address this? Steve asked Connie to share this information with Carol Peddie. Charlotte asked if there would be any sorting of the computer lab paper – noting the amount double-sided vs. single-sided copies and the types of things being printed. Carol Peddie has indicated that they can already track the type of document being printed and that what seems to be most significant is printings for multiple users (multiple copies of the same material). Steve offered his assistance if the subcommittee wanted to explore sampling schemes since going through all the paper might be too cumbersome.
Steve mentioned Matt Biette's request for volunteers for the Midnight Breakfast. A sign-up sheet will be created for the Environmental Fair. J.S. said that he will be bringing the request to the InterCommons Council meeting.
Will Sustainable Fisheries information be available at the Environmental Fair? Connie responded that currently no one was responsible for that information. The Monterey Bay resource has not yet been updated to include the East Coast. Connie would check to see if she still had wallet cards from last year. She also said they were creating a wallet card on fruits and vegetables with high pesticide contamination. Steve mentioned Midd alum Ed Seidel ('88), Curator of the Monterrey Bay Aquarium, would be our best contact for an update on East Coast information.
Connie asked Steve if there were time in the agenda for Sam Rodriguez (President of SGA), who was attending today's EC meeting, to discuss the network printer initiative. Steve noted that there was not an appropriate agenda item later in the meeting so it would be best to have this discussion as part of the Announcements.
Sam shared that he came to the EC meeting because he was aware that many members of the EC were uncomfortable with the network printer initiative. He stated that he felt the issue had been brought to the EC prematurely as the initiative was one of as many as twenty-five on the SGA's agenda and it was still in a preliminary stage. He was planning to bring it to the EC at a later date. That being said, Sam noted that he had now revised the plan to only place a networked printer in each Commons and possibly one in Twilight. He had taken a map of the College and determined that this would enable a student traveling from any residence hall to intercept a building with a printer within a fairly short walk. Sam stated that he does not believe that these additional printers will create a culture of irresponsible printing. He asked for feedback from EC members on his proposal for adding 5-6 new printers to campus. "Do you believe the destructive environmental interests outweigh the enjoyment/benefits to students?"
Erika asked whether one could cancel the print request once it had been sent to another building. Phil mentioned the Pharos system that their subcommittee was exploring, noting that it is expensive but provides that second check before actually printing the document. Sam said he would consider this, particularly if this more environmentally friendly initiative were backed with EC funding. Sam's commitment at this point is to acquiring the funding for the printers.
Sam articulated that there would be benefits to the student body, particularly during J-Term (later broadening it to winter) when it is unpleasant to trudge through a snowstorm to print a paper.
Suzanne asked if it would be possible to run a test. Sam asked if this were necessary with the downsized proposal to 5 printers (one per Commons). Erika felt that the indirect outcomes are unknown. The physical act of having to be slightly inconvenienced (e.g. walking to the library) puts a check on printing behavior. With lots of people waiting to get things printed, one is less likely to be printing personal or unessential material. J.S. noted that he is not convinced that students would be responsible using the on-going dish removal issue as a case in point. Suzanne then asked if Sam might look at putting printers in the academic buildings and Sam indicated that it was a possibility worth exploring.
Some members felt there was adequate availability of printers already. Erika asked if it would be possible to do a survey, given that SGA has twenty-five things on its agenda it might assist the SGA in determining the best use of their time and money. Charlotte added that Sam might consider leasing them during January. Sam said it was worth considering a season approach. Anne suggested that if Sam were to make a formal presentation at a later date, it would be helpful to have a map that would allow one to measure distances between buildings.
Steve concluded the discussion with several points. Does SGA plan to fund this initiative? Sam indicated that it was his hope that it would be institutionalized like the airport shuttles. Steve emphasized the importance of doing a needs assessment. Given all the good ideas generated on this campus it is critical to determine which are the most important. As a rule of thumb it is also always a good idea to do a pilot. This will allow, in this case, better data on the economic consequences, convenience benefits, and paper consumption rates.
Sam concluded that while he felt the issue had been raised prematurely with the EC, there had been many good suggestions including the Pharos system, locating the printers in academic buildings, doing a survey and a pilot project. He indicated there would be a formal presentation of this initiative at a future date.
2. Broader Role for EC
Steve introduced the discussion of a broader role for Environmental Council by noting that the agenda for the EC has traditionally been self-generated and that the discussion tends to occur within its own circle. This form of operation has allowed the EC to be proactive and produce many good, effective things by concentrating on its committee work. However, this fall there have been several examples involving outside issues (dish recovery, network printers) in which the EC was reactive – responding to things not generated internally. Is it of interest to develop the latter role without jeopardizing the former?
Erika asked if it might depend on the new president of the college? Steve felt that, given the status of the Environmental Peak as part of Middlebury's unique profile, there would be little shift in trajectory of EC under new leadership.
Steve noted that currently there is no clear mechanism for soliciting input to the EC. Charlotte added that there would be some benefit in raising the EC's profile among staff and faculty. She supported putting the EC out there as a tool for people to consider using. It might help them think about their project in new ways. Jeff asked how other councils worked and there was some discussion about both the Faculty and Staff Councils. Phil shared that he thought we were missing issues by not being better organized. Anne noted that if there were a mechanism for being better plugged in, we may also need to have more policies or power for handling the issues brought before the EC. Erika suggested an open forum, prefaced with a suggestion period at the beginning of the year or each semester. JS thought the students may be more tuned in due to the Environmental Liaisons in each Commons and the Director of Environmental Affairs position within the SGA. The need may be to be more visible within the offices (employees). Jeff asked if we were actually missing things? Phil brought up the temperature setback initiative as one issue that the EC had not discussed. Charlotte shared that she saw it as an opportunity to raise the environmental profile and provide more visibility for the environmental ethic and environmental ramifications of daily actions on campus.
Ian added that the many environmental organizations on campus have no structure for how they communicate with each other. Should the EC be aware of everything going on at the grassroots level? Steve replied that he was less concerned with the EC having its finger on the pulse of every environmental initiative. Rather, could it operate more as a resource for reviewing environmental implications of policies and projects being considered on campus. One suggestion was for students to go through SGA and then it is brought to EC. Anne wondered how to extend this framework to the rest of the community. Phil raised the point that we don't want to create a huge bureaucratic process for moving projects forward. Steve suggested experimenting by using MiddPoints and The Campus to tell people about the EC and how it could be used as a resource for those with initiatives in the works. There was some discussion about not wanting to overload our agenda so that we remain effective in what we accomplish. Steve stated that we are able to control how much we take on. Our role would primarily be to provide feedback rather than taking on the responsibility of the solution. We are not trying to require that all projects go through an EC filter. Erika noted that those lacking an environmental ethic may not be motivated to bring their project before the EC. Connie offered to solicit input from those attending the Environmental Fair (a suggestion box).
Steve felt the Transportation agenda item should be delayed until another meeting.
3. Environmental Assessment
Connie distributed a preliminary outline of the environmental assessment focus areas. She asked that EC members provide feedback on other data they should collect, requesting that the remaining time in the meeting be dedicated to brainstorming. Three sections were discussed before the end of the meeting. In the academic area Steve encouraged research into how many hours of each faculty member's 36 lecture hours per course included an environmental theme. In addition ideas included documenting guest speakers, facilities for environmental studies, independent study and senior thesis work, and teaching outside the building (field class and field work).
Under the Administration section, integration of the Earth Charter and Talloires Principles would be important. Are we managing the College within a larger set of socially accepted environmental principles?
Anne Knowles asked if there were a place in the assessment to address the physical measures of quality such as air quality, soil conditions, noise. Steve pointed out that two state highways dissect the college. How does congestion and travel volumes affect the quality of life? How does the central power plant affect the quality of life?
Connie thanked everyone for these ideas and Steve suggested continuing the process at the next meeting on December 2nd.
The meeting adjourned at 5:50 p.m.