Home
Advising
CERF
EcoHouse
Environmental Audits
Environmental Groups
EnviroThursday
Graduate Programs
Honors Thesis
In the News
Related Links
Scholarships
Student Projects
Sustainability Office
Talloires Declaration
Presidents Climate
    Commitment
Three Rivers Center

Environmental Studies Department
Olin Rice 249
1600 Grand Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55105
651-696-6274
Comments & questions to:
esson@macalester.edu

Campus Environmental Issues Committee

February 10, 2004
Campus Center 214, 4:30 p.m.

1.  Attendance  

Brett Smith, Co-Chair and ES Chair
Mark Dickinson, Co-Chair and Head of Facilities Management
Danny Kaplan, Resource Committee
Sally Weivoda, Secretary and ES Dept
Ashley Ayres, official MPIRG representative
Gretchen Solomon, official E-Funk! Representative
Katie Ashton, official ES Dept Representative
Jesse Mortenson, official Mac Greens and MCSG representative
Danny Schwartzman, official Mac Dems representative
Daniel Ungier, official MULCH representative
Richard Graves, official MacCARES representative
Lindsey Lund , ES Dept and MULCH
Christina Jones, E-Funk!
Julia Eagles, E-Funk!

2.  Mission Statement Discussion

A.  Mortenson presented the Mission Statement Draft created by the subcommittee for the full committee’s approval.

B.  Individuals presented concerns about the draft.

1.  Ungier:  Use of “environmentally conscious community” in place of “environmentalist community” as the latter is more political.

2.  Ungier:  Include the explicit creation of a document from the audit of Macalester Campus

3. Solomon: Include a mention of the Environmental Director Position, yet to be created or approved.

4. Kaplan:  Use a new format with standard section/subsection headings to avoid confusion.

5. Kaplan:  Use more simple wording at times so the document can be understood by anyone.

6. Smith:  Use of “environmental impacts of college decisions” instead of “ecological decisions” in order to have a broader range.

7. Ebaugh (via email):  Include the Ordway in some way as it is the College’s only off-campus facility.

C.  It was decided that the subcommittee would reform to address these small issues privately, then rewrite a draft in one week to be emailed to the CEIC.  In two weeks, at the next meeting, the full committee would reexamine the document.

D.  The subcommittee presented a few issues that came up during the creation of the document that they felt were important enough to bring before the full committee.

1.  Should the Environmental Affairs Director (EAD) be included as a member of the committee in the section on membership, as it does not currently exist and we do not know if it ever will or even if we would want it to chair the committee?

a.  Jones:  Drop the membership section altogether and make it a separate document.  Passed by consensus.
b.  Smith:  Job of EAD does not necessarily include chairing the committee.
c.  Kaplan: Rosenberg will not approve of the language as he has not yet approved of the creation of the position.
d. Dickinson :  Drop the membership section as having “members” excludes the greater community.
e.  Solomon:  Add an Ordway representative to the members.

  2.  What terms should be used: ecological or environmental?  Should a definition of the terms be included? 

a.  Smith:  “Ecological” is more narrow, suggests Biology and is incorporated in “environmental."
b.  Mortenson:  Proposal—No definitions will be included in the document.  Passed by consensus.
c.  Solomon:  Proposal—Leave “institutional ecology” as it is a technical term, use “environmental” for the other places where one term is needed.  Passed by consensus.

3.  Should section IV of the mission be cut?  The section discusses including environmental awareness outside of the ES Program.

a.  Mortenson:  Section IV is redundant as the topic has already been covered in other sections of the document.
b.  Mortenson:  Proposal—Cut section IV of the mission statement.  Passed by consensus.

4.  Should the Resources Document, not yet created, be included in the mission statement?

a.  Smith:  Push the issue back to the next meeting.
b.  Smith:  A subcommittee will be created to come up with some ideas for the next meeting, made up of Kaplan, Dickinson , et al.  

3.  Schwartzman Report on Campus Environmentalism

1. A.  For a class assignment, Schwartzman researched Macalester’s attitude towards the environment.  Schwartzman explained his project and presented his findings.
2. There is a general concern but lack of action on campus for environmental issues.
3. An EAD will pay for itself.
4. The CEIC must be formalized by the president in order to become more effective.
5. An outside consultant should be brought in to complete an audit and show how much money the EAD could save Macalester.
6. The trustees should be questioned about the investments made by Macalester and how they relate to the environment.

4.  Energy Audit

Smith raised the issue of whether or not an energy audit should be completed for Macalester.

Graves:  Proposal—Move to empower a subcommittee to investigate the realities of an audit, headed by Graves, Dickinson, and Smith.  Passed by consensus.

The next meeting of the CEIC will be on Tuesday, February 24, 2004, at 4:30 p.m. upstairs in the campus center.

Minutes taken by Sally Weivoda.

Macalester College · 1600 Grand Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55105  USA · 651-696-6000
Comments and questions to esson@macalester.edu