Minutes of meeting August 28, 2008, committee to design Institute for Environmental Management and Business (note: before today improperly labeled “EcoMission Committee”, correction noted in minutes.) Heritage Room, University Union, 9-10:40 a.m. 

Attending: Guest speakers Steve Dunn and Paul Linzmeyer, Bud Harris, Patricia Terry, Matt Dornbush, John Katers, Bob Howe, Kevin Fermanich, John Stoll, Scott Hildebrand, Greg Davis, Bob Wenger, Bill Laatsch, Paul Wozniak (recorder).  1.  Call to order – Meeting called to order by the newly appointed interim co-chairs of the Institute for Environmental Management and Business, Kevin Fermanich and John Stoll. Fermanich noted that it was only two days ago that he and Stoll were appointed to co-chair the Institute, the announcement coming at the annual Faculty and Staff Convocation. 

 2.  MEETING OBJECTIVES – Fermanich noted that while today’s meeting had originally been scheduled as part of a planning meeting for a Spring 2009 symposium, a new purpose has been assigned to today’s gathering: identifying design criteria for a proposed certificate program in Environmental Management and Business.  (a)  Creating a certificate program would, in effect, is the first work product of the new Institute. 

(b) Faculty would be identified after this meeting, said Fermanich, to work on the details of the certificate program. (c)  Wozniak noted that previous messages mislabeled the team as an EcoMission team when it should more properly have been labeled the Spring 2009 Symposium Planning Team. The “eco-mission” work of aligning the entire campus with sustainability education is being guided university-wide on a number of fronts that include groups working on campus branding and general education, part of which have a multi-year time frame. The Symposium Planning Team will continue its work with participation by Katers, Dornbush, Terry, Fermanich, Kraft and Wenger. 

 3.  SUSTAINABILITY IN MISSION – Provost Laatsch started the discussion by noting that the new institute is essentially about sustainability, and that we should be reminded that UWGB’s mission statement already mentions sustainability. Therefore, it’s not a radical innovation for the institution and should be broadly accepted.  4.  ELEMENTS OF A CERTIFICATE PROGRAM – Creating a certificate program is seen as a first step in improving educational offerings, Fermanich said, with new majors and minors as some future projects. Those future larger goals require substantially more incubation and review time. 

(a)  Davis asked how many credits were required (or allowed) in a certificate offering. Katers said there aren’t specific requirements on number of credits, but typically they require 15-18 credits of coursework.  (b) Laatsch said that number of credits should not be our metric, but that we should use criteria of rigor and high-quality experiences that would prepare each student with an adequate education. This implies a large percentage of courses required for the certificate would likely be upper-level courses. 

(c)  Wozniak noted that previous discussions with Harris revealed it is helpful to distinguish two categories of educational attributes: “skills” and “content.”   i.     CONTENT ATTRIBUTES – In April, the UWGB blog on the Institute (https:blog.uwgb.edu/excellence) carried comments by Harris and Wenger on clusters of concepts that were critical to the education, and that these clusters should drive curriculum formation. Examples include Ecological Concepts such as biogeochemical cycles and carrying capacity, and Industrial Ecology Concepts such as embedded energy and life-cycle perspectives. Other clusters include Sustainability Concepts, Energy Issue Concepts, and Global Climate Change Concepts. 

 ii.  SKILL ATTRIBUTES – To help UWGB identify skill requirements for the certificate program, Wozniak said, we invited comments today from Paul Linzmeyer (past member of workforce development boards at the state and regional level) and Steve Dunn (consultant to major corporations and leader of a UW-Oshkosh program that has an active industry internship program).   5.  PRESENTATION BY STEVE DUNN – Dunn, chair of UW-Oshkosh’s department of Supply Chain Management and Operations Management, used slides to give an overview of skill requirements that employers look for in new hires. (http://www.uwgb.edu/chancellor/CertificatePlanningGroupAug08.htm) 

(a)  Employability of graduates is part of any collegiate program goal, said Dunn, including education in sustainability. However, too many U.S. colleges approach sustainability education as primarily a matter of facilities management. Facilities management is indeed a part, he said, but the focus of a college should not be its physical campus. (b) U.S. businesses are very concerned today about issues they traditionally have ignored, including climate change and the impacts of waste. A recent example, said Dunn, was a recent UW-Oshkosh graduate who phoned him from his new job with PepsiCo in Chicago. While graduating only three months ago, the young man said he had been put in leadership of a team involving sustainable process improvement. PepsiCo has recently adopted sustainability as a corporate objective, and top leadership is driving it. 

(c)  Dunn said he recently visited Kohler of Sheboygan. Traditionally, Kohler has not hired many local college graduates, but today they are, with a view toward long-term retention of workers. (d) Internships and co-op arrangements should be a big part of UW-Green Bay’s program. At UW-Oshkosh there is a 100-hour internship requirement, but co-op work placements are more desirable, with 6-9 months of full-time, on the job training. Most large firms are headed to co-op placement, he said, with an end result being that many co-op students are hired full time later. 

(e)  In a surprising reversal, large U.S. businesses are looking at selflessness as a positive character attribute in new hires. In the past, selfishness was lauded as a contributor to maximizing shareholder value. For long term success, students should be trained how to check the match between their own personal values and a corporation/business’s value.  (f)   Among the trends rising in popularity among businesses, said Dunn, are Integrated Science, Knowledge Intensity and Productivity Improvement. (see slides for details) UW-Green Bay graduates should understand them as well as the Design for the Environment movement. 

(g)  Tools that are increasingly used to develop practical skills include “case analysis” and “team projects.”   i.     Studies of real world cases show how complexity confuses analysis, and it shows the value of a team with multiple view points and a diversity of background experiences.  

 ii.  Both these tools have “crossing boundaries” as a theme. In some ways, this approach is that of the classic liberal arts education. Hildebrand mentioned that past-Chancellor Shepard spoke to the UW Regents a few years ago and asked them what educational backgrounds they had. Liberal arts was the norm. Laatsch said that this brings up the place of arts and humanities in the talk of sustainability education.  6.  TALKING POINTS BY PAUL LINZMEYER –  

(a)  Linzmeyer said that creativity and innovation must be key attributes of any college graduate today. The certificate education should address these. (b) Awareness and understanding of other cultures is also a need, with many Wisconsin graduates found embarrassingly narrow in world view. Essentially, sustainability is about understanding the context of where you are.  

(c)  The issue goes beyond college education. Linzmeyer said that he and Steve are working with America’s Edge <http://www.americasedge.org/> described on its Web site as America’s Edge is a national non-profit organization established in 2007 to help engage leaders of the business community more extensively in support of local, state, and national efforts to improve the quality of public education. (d) Linzmeyer, a 1970s UW-Green Bay business alum, said his personal reflection on education is that arts and philosophy were valuable to success. Dealing with stress in the workplace is a major issue in the business world, he said, and sustainability education must include care for the inner self, else the professional career will not be as successful.  

 7.  DISCUSSION – (a)  Harris suggested an effort be made to review what UW-Green Bay originally was in the early 1970s. Many things may have simply been too far ahead of the market of that time. We could also learn by evaluating what sunk certain efforts like team teaching. A hands-on practicum was once a requirement, and it may have a role in the certificate or other improvement efforts.  (b) Another aspect of this is getting a comfort with the uncomfortable, Dunn said. Bud Harris recalled that early UW-Green Bay had “Liberal Education Seminars” that served this purpose. These used team teaching, breaking discipline boundaries. Dornbush said his personal education benefited from this approach; it included a multi-year sequence of coursework crossing discipline boundaries in the study of “people and prairies” and created a cohort of diverse students who worked through the study experience together. 

(c)  Wenger said there is evidence today of value in UW-Green Bay’s early approach, noting that the early decisions still help UWGB’s current reputation. As evidence, Wenger noted a recent Chronicle of Higher Education issue that reported UW-Green Bay as having an “exemplary program” according to the National Wildlife Federation’s “Campus Environment 2008: A National Report Card on Sustainability in Higher Education.” UW-Green Bay’s mark was in the interdisciplinary degrees category. Other Wisconsin Schools with marks on the list included: College of Menominee Nation, Edgewood College, Marquette, Ripon College, UW-Eau Claire, UW-Madison, UW-Milwaukee and UW-Oshkosh. <http://www.nwf.org/campusEcology/campusreportcard.cfm> 

(d) Dunn advised UW-Green Bay to get involved with AASHE – the American Association for Sustainability in Higher Education. (e)  Wozniak noted that Michigan State University’s June 2008 document on sustainability education should be looked at by the curriculum design team. In the MSU proposal, many elements mentioned today are included, such as “personal  development” and aesthetics as another. A diagram mapping MSU’s education plan is on page 4 of the Sustainability Specialization proposal. <www.ecofoot.msu.edu/> click on link right column MSU Sustainability Specialization Proposal by Terry Link (Office of Campus Sustainability), Geoff Habron (Fisheries and Wildlife and Sociology), and Laurie Thorp (Residential Initiative on the Study of the Environment) have issued this proposal in response to student demand to institute a sustainability specialization at MSU. > 

 8.  CERTIFICATE COURSE SUGGESTIONS – While a team is yet to be appointed to draft certificate course requirements, Howe and Katers suggested six course clusters are readily apparent. These include: (a)  Sustainability and Global Affairs – courses in philosophy and social geography. 

(b) Resources and Energy – courses in Energy and Society and in Resource Management Strategy. (c)  Logistics and Supply Management. 

(d) Environmental Science and Management – courses in Pollution Prevention and Control, and Landscape Ecology. (e)  Problem Solving and Creativity – courses in Organizational Behavior and Creativity. 

(f)   Internship/co-op MEETING ADJOURNED 10:40 A.M. 

Minutes August 13, 2008 Meeting on UWGB Institute and Curriculum Improvements  

By Paul Wozniak  Phoenix Room A of Student Union starting about 9:05 a.m., majority staying until 10:45 a.m. Attendees: Scott Hildebrand, Barbara McClure-Lukens, Christina Trombley, Chancellor David Ward, Kevin Fermanich, Bud Harris, Denise Scheberle, Marilyn Sagrillo, Michael Kraft, John Stoll, Provost Bill Laatsch, Donna Ritch, Scott Furlong, Matt Dornbush, Larry Smith, Bob Howe, Ben Cruz-Uribe (alum), Paul Linzmeyer (guest speaker, ISO2050-NewNorth), Steve Dunn (guest speaker, UW-Oshkosh/ISO2050, Inc.), Paul Wozniak (facilitator, minutes) 

1   INTRODUCTION– Wozniak noted that this was the second meeting of the “drafting committee” for the proposed business-policy-science institute. The opportunity of today’s informative presentations resulted in extending the invitation to a broader faculty/staff audience. 

 2   PRESENTATION– Steve Dunn, currently chair of Supply Chain and Operations Management (SCOM) at UW-Oshkosh, described the cross-disciplinary program at UW-Oshkosh that has some similarities to what’s being discussed for UWGB.   2.1        Copies of Dunn’s slides are available online at http://www.uwgb.edu/chancellor/DunnpresentAug08x.htm. Dunn’s background includes an active youth of outdoor activities in Southern California that led him to get a  master’s in entomology followed by an MBA and, in 1992, a PhD in Supply Chain Management from Penn State. Bio/publications are listed at webpage: <http://www.uwosh.edu/faculty_staff/dunns/>    2.2        UW-Oshkosh’s concentration in Supply Chain and Operations Management (SCOM) has 135 students pursuing undergraduate concentration (1/3 major in environmental studies, the rest are business majors). A recent post-graduation survey found average starting salaries of graduates was $46,200 with a maximum starting salary of $68,000.   2.3        The program has field internships as a key feature, with teams of four students being placed in local companies to solve actual business problems.  2.4        Dunn reported there is a wave of similar programs being formed elsewhere in the US academe, saying that the UW-Oshkosh program has similarities to programs at U of Michigan, San Francisco’s Presidio School of Management <http://www.presidiomba.org/> , Seattle’s Bainbridge Graduate Institute <http://www.bgiedu.org/content/view/2/25/>. Michigan State University recently hired several faculty to teach sustainability <http://www.ecofoot.msu.edu/documents/sustainablity%20spec%20proposal%20june08.pdf> . Arizona State recently opened a college of sustainability offering degrees up to a doctorate, Dunn said, but unfortunately, they didn’t include a cross-disciplinary link to the business school.  2.5        A series of Dunn’s slides review lessons learned in efforts like the one UWGB is undertaking with creation of the institute. Among them are: Strong leadership support, education of faculty colleagues, addressing local issues, aggressive fundraising, and field internships for students. Relying on integrating sustainability into existing courses is difficult and often fails. Stand alone courses are needed, Dunn said.  2.6        COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION— 

 2.6.1            Harris reported that he and past-Chancellor Shepard had previously discussed an alliance with UW-Oshkosh that the institute could facilitate; Shepard was favorable. So it is one option.  2.6.2            Laatsch mentioned that a “virtual university” institute is one avenue/feature to consider.  2.6.3            Linzmeyer (a UWGB grad of the 1970s) noted that engineering education is today missing from the UWGB framework and that intercollegiate alliances to remedy this might be pursued.   2.6.4            Linzmeyer suggested one option for UWGB is to ally with an independent non-profit like New North’s Ecolution, whose board includes UWGB grad and state senator Rob Cowles, Chamber of Commerce executive director Paul Jadin (former GB mayor). A comparable model is the Golisano Institute for Sustainability at the Rochester Institute of Technology <http://www.sustainability.rit.edu/>.  2.6.5            Ward made five suggestions for the forthcoming institute: 

 2.6.5.1                 TIMING – There are others in the UW System considering similar innovation, and UWGB should be the first. Action is needed very soon, preferably in the coming weeks. Ward would like to announce the creation at the upcoming Convocation (Aug 26) as something UWGB is doing, not what UWGB is planning to do. He added that, in six months, the Regents expect UWGB to present an academic plan, another prompt for timely action.  2.6.5.2                 ENGINEERING EDUCATION- The gap in engineering offerings at UWGB can be addressed through alliances with other institutions, including those made with the help of NWTC President Jeff Rafn.  2.6.5.3                 ALLIES– NewNorth (a regional economic development organization) would be a good partner <http://www.thenewnorth.com/> to clear the path and gain important support.  2.6.5.4                 CERTIFICATE, NOT NEW DEGREE- Getting approval for a new degree is a lengthy and complex process. A better path would be creation of a certificate program or modification of an existing degree. Also, it is relatively easy to establish a “center” or “institute.” The requirement on UWGB would be to notify Central Administration what we were doing.    2.6.5.5                 INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE– Other UW institutions are starting 501(c)3 organizations to provide a tax-exempt organization that encourages contributions. Naming of the institution for a benefactor may be facilitated by this.  2.6.6            Scheberle said students are waiting for something like this, and that institutional support be given in the form of release time for a faculty member to work on it. Furlong commented that there was money earmarked in the budget for such release time.  2.6.7            Sagrillo urged that the institute be introduced with “a human face” (a name/person with responsibilities) even if this is an interim director until a permanent director is recruited.  2.6.8            Hildebrand said that a marketing plan needs to be developed for community support, including the important New North connection. Smith added that an internal marketing plan is needed, as well as an external plan, to market the effort to existing faculty.  2.6.9            Smith suggested the institute creation team consider two meeting process methods: one being a non-mathematical systems dynamics method pioneered by MIT’s Jay Forrester, the other being a tool named “Dialogue” that promotes collaboration. Smith is ready to provide details.  2.7        NEXT MEETING: The next meeting of the drafting committee will be Thursdsay, August 28, starting at 9 a.m. In the Student Union’s Heritage Room. The meeting is open to other staff interested.   2.7.1            One topic of the meeting will be a presentation on “skill sets” needed by graduates of the new program/emphasis. This information will guide review of existing courses offered and identification of any gaps. Paul Linzmeyer (formerly chair of the Wisconsin Workforce Development Board) offered to facilitate, sharing input he gave recently to UW-Madison Business School in developing a certificate program.

This post is a summary of a June 23, 2008  meeting of the working group on the Growing Academic Excellence-Sustainability initiative. 

Attending today’s meeting were Dean Scott Furlong, Mathew Dornbush, Mike Kraft, Scott Hildebrand, John Katers, Mike Zorn, Ron Stieglitz, Bud Harris, Bob Wenger, Marilyn Sagrillo, Bob Howe, Kevin Fermanich, Greg Davis, Paul Wozniak, and Bill Niedzwiedz.

The meeting convened at 2:06 p.m. in the 1965 Room of the University Union. Bud Harris said the purpose of today’s meeting was to discuss the next step in moving the proposed Institute for Environmental Management and Business forward. He said a previous discussion focused on having faculty develop a curriculum. But Bud said we first need to identify the issues the curriculum would address. He said a university/community symposium would help identify some of those issues.

For the benefit of faculty attending their first meeting of the working group, Bob Howe explained that the Growth Agenda for UW-Green Bay and the University’s environmental programs are driving this environmental/sustainability initiative. He said the Environmental Science program has not been attracting a surplus of students so if UW-Green Bay is going to continue its environmental mission the University must go beyond environmental science and also incorporate policy and business. Bob said we must identify a niche in the marketplace we can fill productively.

Bud Harris described an effort by the Brookings Institution to develop a Great Lakes fresh water initiative. He mentioned that Brookings senior fellow John Austin recently visited Green Bay (including UW-Green Bay) to connect with regional leaders. The Brookings effort, which includes UW-Green Bay as a partner, is ongoing. Contacts made during Austin’s visit to campus also have connected UW-Green Bay to the upcoming U.S.-China Water Symposium. All of this fits in with what UW-Green Bay is attempting to do with the proposed institute, Bud said.

Community member and UW-Green Bay alumnus Paul Wozniak said John Austin’s regionwide work seems so obvious that Paul wonders why no one has done it before. Paul said when people connect a UW campus to environmental issues they tend to think of UW-Stevens Point. UW-Green Bay has an opportunity to carve out a niche, he said.

Ron Stieglitz said we must begin moving on the proposed Institute for Environmental Management and Business. He said the symposium could be used to kick off the institute. “Green is ready to go,” he said. “Sustainability is a buzzword. It would be a shame if it passed us by because we were too tentative to get our feet wet.”

Mike Kraft agreed that we need to get a structure for the institute in place. He said UW-Green Bay must reclaim a position of leadership on environmental issues. But, he said, if businesses come to a symposium and say they have certain needs, it would be difficult to respond without  the center in place. He also said we need to know what businesses on the cutting edge in the areas of the environment and sustainability are doing and how we can educate students to meet their needs.

The discussion then turned to the possible scale and scope of a symposium. Nationally or internationally known speakers would attract people to the symposium and send the message that this is something big. However, questions were raised about our ability to plan and execute a symposium of that magnitude with a short timeframe.

Scott Furlong said the next step is to establish an advisory group of 4-5 people to work with Paul Wozniak in establishing the symposium. Because of the timing, we’re probably not looking at an elaborate conference to start with. Mike Kraft said we could start with something smaller and regional and do something that “makes a bigger splash” later.

Scott said he will send out an e-mail soliciting names of people for the advisory group. The group can develop numerous alternatives for the symposium. Marilyn Sagrillo suggested that we also ask alumni to get involved.

The meeting adjourned at 3:24 p.m. 

Toward the end of the last meeting on March 14 it was suggested that a curriculum committee be appointed and begin by surveying appropriate courses in the various academic units.  I suggested that another approach might be to identify clusters of concepts relevant to “the goals” and objectives and let the concepts “drive” the curriculum formation.  To that end Bob Wenger and I have shared notes and offer some thoughts below.  We intend these thoughts to be a catalyst for further discussion.

Ecological Concepts

We believe that a student of “Environmental Management and Business” must be grounded in appropriate ecological concepts.  Perhaps a place to start is with the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and how these laws are related to economic and ecological systems.  Other concepts which we think to be particularly relevant are:

·        Biogeochemical cycles

·        Hydrologic functioning

·        Primary production, energy transformation, food webs

·        Biological diversity, maintenance

·        Vegetation succession and disturbance

·        Soil and Decomposition processes

·        Population growth and regulation

·        Carrying capacity, limits of tolerance.

Further, an understanding of Ecological Services and their value to human societies is paramount to furthering sustainable systems, both economic and ecological.

Economics

There are likely fundamental economic concepts that must be addressed but we leave that to others.  However, our own readings suggest to us that a comparison of classical (mainstream) economics with both environmental economics and ecological economics is needed.  Students should have an exposure to all three approaches as they address the question: what is a sustainable economic system?  Rather than taking classical economics for granted, they should be exposed to the work of scholars and practitioners who find shortcomings in this system as a basis for addressing the serious environmental problems and issues that face us.  See, for example, “Seeding the Sustainable Economy” by Gardner and Prugh in 2008 State of the World: Innovations for a Sustainable Economy.  Ecological economics provides a basis for integrating economic and ecological systems, a perspective to which students should be exposed. The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics are also an integral part of this perspective.  Major issues to be addressed are: In what ways do classical, environmental, and ecological economics agree and how do they differ?  What are the implications for business practices?  What are the implications for resource management? An introductory article by Robert Nadeau can be found at www.ecoearth.org/article/Environmental_and_ecological_economic_growth.  Another, more in-depth reference is Ecological Economics: Principles and Applications by Daly and Farley.

Industrial Ecology

Both economic and ecological systems can be studied by measuring how efficient they are in processing energy and materials. This has led to a field called Industrial Ecology or, one with the more striking handle, Industrial Symbiosis.  A whole set of “tools” has been developed to assess and guide management of energy and materials through an industrial complex.  Some of these elements and tools are:

·        Embedded energy and materials

 ·        Life cycle perspectives

·        Loop closing ,Tracking materials flow

·        Etc. These systems can be developed on different scales from industrial parks to regional collaborative efforts.  These complexes are clearly business enterprises.  They differ from convention because there is more than one bottom line as a measure of “efficiency”; see www.eoearth.org/article/Industrial_symbiosis.  Some of these concepts have been extended to farming systems (Life cycle Assessment) www.eoearth.org/article/Life_cycle_assessmet_of_farming_systems. Other business interfaces are evident in the development of the European “Global Reporting Initiative” (GRI) which develops sustainability reporting guidelines for business and industry, www.globalreporting.org/guidelines/2002.          Green design and construction principles also fit under this general concept.  Key areas of environmental and human health that are addressed by these principles are: sustainable site development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection, and indoor environmental quality.  These categories are the basis of the U.S. Building Council’s LEED – Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design – system, a rating system that seeks to ensure standard measures and accountability in green building efforts.  Topics that fall in this area are life cycle analysis mentioned above) and biomimicry, an approach that invites designers to turn to the natural world for inspiration (see Biomimicry by J. Benyus). Another innovation along these lines has been developed at the Center for Sustainable System Studies at Miami University.  Here methods of rating the value of ecosystem services enhanced (or put at risks) by a range of company products or production processes have bee researched.  Ideally investors in conservation-oriented companies would enjoy a broad range of environmental and financial returns.  This concept has been termed “environmental value creation thru investment” (EVCI).  See the paper “Regional Ecosystem Services and the Rating of Investment Opportunities” by Orie L. Loucks and Ramond Garman in Front Ecol Environ (2004), 2(4), p.207-216.

This post is a summary of a March 14 meeting of the working group on the Growing Academic Excellence-Sustainability initiative.

In attendance at today’s meeting were Paul Sager, Scott Furlong, Bud Harris, Fritz Erickson, Marilyn Sagrillo, Mike Kraft, Ron Stieglitz, Bob Howe and Scott Hildebrand. The meeting convened at 8:05 a.m. The group reviewed the proposed Vision/Mission Statement for the environmental/sustainability “center” or “institute” detailed in the previous post on the blog. The group thanked the subcommittee of Bob Howe, Marilyn Sagrillo, Denise Scheberle and Greg Davis as well as Paul Sager for laying the foundation for this Vision/Mission Statement.

Ron Stieglitz noted that there was no mention of agriculture in the draft vision/mission statement. He said we should keep that in mind because of the importance of agriculture in Wisconsin and Northeastern Wisconsin. He also said there should some reference to the  rural environment as well as the urban and natural environment.

Bob Howe said the statement’s emphasis is on the interface between ecology and the economy. He said it stresses the economic importance of the environment. The discussion then turned to the importance of the center’s title in capturing the connection between the environment and business. Fritz Erickson said it cannot be interpreted solely as a “tree hugger” kind of entity. Marilyn Sagrillo said businesses are looking for expertise that combines these areas. Mike Kraft added that MBA programs with an environmental components are rare, as are environmental science and policy programs with a business component.

The group reached a consensus around the title of “Institute for Environmental Management and Business.” This title would set the institute apart from other programs, including UW-Madison’s Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies. The group hopes to get some campus feedback – through the blog – to this proposed title.

The group then turned to next steps. Paul Sager said tasks and priorities must be identified.  Sager asked whether the institute would include a stand-alone major, would be more of a research-based institute or a combination of service/research/outreach. Bob Howe said we need to analyze student interest and seek help from external interests, including business, in how to construct the institute. Paul Sager said we need a core of faculty from various academic units to “carry the ball.”

Scott Furlong noted that UW-Green Bay’s new Select Mission Statement specifically mentions sustainability. He said it would be nice if the general education curriculum would have a sustainability component and that the institute could play a role in making this happen.

Before adjourning, the group agreed that the next steps should include convening a faculty group to work on curricular issues. This group could go through UW-Green Bay’s catalog, identify appropriate courses that already exist, and determine what we’re missing. The faculty group could work on this over the summer and bring something forward during the 2008-’09 academic year.

The working group adjourned at 9:17 a.m.

The following is the revised Vision/Mission Statement recommended by the working group.

The (DONOR Name) Institute for Environmental Management and Business is a center for the study and development of management solutions for environmental problems.  The goal is to help sustain and restore productive natural, rural, and urban environments, while at the same time improving the quality of life for all generations. 

The Mission of the Institute 

The Mission of the Institute is to apply a unique interdisciplinary approach for understanding and solving local, regional, and global environmental problems.  Educational initiatives, research, and outreach sponsored by the Institute will combine perspectives from the sciences, public policy, and business.

Specific objectives include the following:·  

• Establish interdisciplinary academic programs that analyze environmental problems and seek practical, cost-effective solutions to these problems.
• Provide outreach services to businesses and agencies that seek options for addressing environmental problems. Whenever possible, students will be enlisted to participate in these campus-community collaborations.
• Promote research by faculty and students aimed at solving local, regional, and global environmental problems. 
• Facilitate interactions among faculty from all academic disciplines to kindle a deep understanding of environmental issues and to help produce effective resource management strategies.
• Enrich student learning through field experiences and innovative teaching methods that integrate concepts from the sciences, public policy, and business.
• Serve as an academic resource for improving environmental sustainability of the UW-Green Bay campus.  

Below is a new version of the Vision / Mission statement based on the framework introduced by Paul Sager and modified by a committee consisting of Greg Davis, Bob Howe, Marilyn Sagrillo, and Denise Scheberle.  A list of potential names for the “Institute” is given at the end.   Additionally, I’ve incorporated two minor revisions (including a proposed name) based on discussions on the morning of March 14th.     

 A Vision Statement 

The (DONOR Name) Institute for Environmental Management and Business is a center for the study and development of management solutions for environmental problems.  The goal is to help sustain and restore productive natural, rural, and urban environments, while at the same time improving the quality of life for all generations. 

The Mission of the Institute 

The Mission of the Institute is to apply a unique interdisciplinary approach for understanding and solving local, regional, and global environmental problems.  Educational initiatives, research, and outreach sponsored by the Institute will combine perspectives from the sciences, public policy, business, and socioeconomics.

Specific objectives include the following:·        

• Establish interdisciplinary academic programs that explore environmental problems and practical, cost-effective solutions to these problems.
• Provide outreach services to businesses and agencies that seek options for addressing environmental problems.  Whenever possible, students will be enlisted to participate in these campus-community collaborations.
• Promote research by faculty and students aimed at solving local, regional, and global environmental problems. 
• Facilitate interactions among faculty from all academic disciplines to kindle a deep understanding of environmental issues and to help produce effective resource management strategies.
• Enrich student learning through field experiences and innovative teaching methods that integrate concepts from the sciences, public policy, business, and socioeconomics.
• Serve as an academic resource for improving environmental sustainability of the UW-Green Bay campus.  

Possible names: 

1. Institute for Sustainable Environmental Management
2. Institute for Environmental Sustainability
3. Institute for Environmental and Sustainability Studies
4. Institute for Environmental Affairs
5. Institute for Environmental Stewardship
6. Institute for Sustainable Business and Environmental Management
7. Center for Environmental and Sustainability Studies
8. Institute for Environmental Stewardship through Science, Policy, and Business
9. Institute for Environmental Management and Business

This post is a summary of a Feb. 25 discussion involving senior and retired faculty in the areas of environmental science, policy and planning; natural and applied sciences; business administration; and the academic deans.

This meeting continued a discussion that started Jan. 16. That initial meeting is summarized in a previous post by Chancellor Shepard with the title, “Getting Started.” In attendance at the Feb. 25 meeting were Bob Howe, Marilyn Sagrillo, Greg Davis, Denise Scheberle, Bud Harris, Ganga Nair, Scott Hildebrand, Mike Kraft, Scott Furlong, John Stoll, Bob Wenger and Fritz Erickson.

Bud Harris called the meeting to order and informed the group that a meeting summary would be posted on the “Growing Academic Excellence-Sustainability” blog (https://blog.uwgb.edu/excellence/). Bud said one goal of the meeting is to help identify a mission/vision statement of a center or institute that would house and lead the effort to grow academic excellence in the areas of the environment/sustainability. He hoped this group would appoint a four-person committee to draft a mission/vision statement and bring it to the larger group for consideration. Bud said Paul Sager’s piece already posted on the blog (“Thoughts on a direction…Env Excellence”) does a good job of presenting a potential vision. He said he likes the concept of a triangle, with environmental science, policy/economics and business components.

Numerous participants commented on the importance of economic development/business to this effort if it is going to be something that stands apart and has the potential to gain financial support from the region. Others said the concept of sustainability must be included and be spelled out. Greg Davis said the word “sustainability” does not have to be in the title or mission statement of the center, but information containing that word should be included on the center’s Web page. Mike Kraft said we have to make sure “sustainability” is not interpreted as something that undermines business. Bob Wenger and Bud Harris supported the integration of concepts into the mission statement from ecological economics, e.g., life-cycle assessment, true cost accounting and environmental efficiency. Marilyn Sagrillo said it’s great to have Business Administration at the table. She thinks the Business faculty is ready to start “new adventures.”

The discussion then turned to whether or not to narrowly focus this initiative or develop it into something that touches all parts of the University. It was suggested that freshman seminars be developed that would focus on all parts of the previously mentioned “triangle.” Fritz Erickson said the proposal must be owned by people from across the campus and that it be seen as “truly a unifying theme of the campus community.” He said we should look for opportunities for many entities on campus to have a role. Referring to similarities with UW-Green Bay’s founding faculty, Bob Wenger responded, “Fritz, you’re sounding like it’s 1969.” Others expressed caution about moving away from a narrow focus, but said we may be able to develop a focused program that also provides opportunities across campus. Bud Harris said he also would like to see something that encourages team teaching, which he said can be an expanding experience for faculty and students. However, he said team teaching has “real costs” in terms of time and budget.

The group then appointed Denise Scheberle, Greg Davis, Marilyn Sagrillo and Bob Howe to draft the mission/vision statement. Discussion continued over what should go into the statement. Bob Howe said the name must suggest innovation in order to capture the attention of the business community and those who will provide funding. John Stoll asked whether we are drafting a statement for an institute, a center, or an academic program. Bud Harris preferred institute.

Deans Furlong and Erickson said we should move quickly on this for budgeting purposes. They said we should not miss opportunities for Growth Agenda funding.

The general tenor of the meeting was that there is support and enthusiasm for moving ahead with the concept of an institute/center. After the group agreed to meet again in two to three weeks, the meeting was adjourned at 7:49 p.m.

Additional Thoughts : Posted by Ganga Nair

Center for Environmental- and Sustainability StudiesNearly every Institution of Higher Learning worldwide, has now a “Sustainability Center or Institute, in one form or another.

I would like to see the word “Sustainability” in the name of our new Center.

How about :

Center for Environmental- and Sustainability Studies This center should be a cross faculty institute, providing a multidisciplinary arena for research and education on environmental and sustainability issues.

The objective is to promote cooperation across faculty boundaries and facilitate contacts between researchers – students from all different disciplines – as well as the North Eastern Business Community – and all our global contacts.

The research themes should include sustainability in the contexts of agriculture, climate change, water policy, forestry management and sustainability assessment methods on a global basis.

Of course all this can be addressed, when crafting our clear mission and vision statements to communicate our intensions.

Our mission today — is not so much different as defined in 1974 by the Regents :

In 1974 the Regents defined UWGB ‘ S purpose and character by naming it one of two ” Special Mission” Campuses in the State.

UWGB – was charged with a Statewide Mission to offer :

” A focused, institutionwide academic program, that is substantially unique in both it’s goals and organization,”

emphasizing interdisciplinary, problem- centered study of humans in their environment.

Sounds quite contemporary — 34 years later.

See you tomorrow — Ganga

All,

I was asked as part of the budget process to put together a short document on an “Environmental Studies” Center. It is based on discussions that some of us had last fall.

Perhaps something to discuss (along w/ Paul’s recent post).

Scott Furlong

Proposal

UW-Green
Bay

“Environmental Studies” Center

Background and Rationale 

This proposal has been in response to recent strategic planning discussions regarding the growing of academic excellence at UW-Green Bay. Specifically, there have been numerous discussions among the Chancellor, Administrative Council, faculty and staff on the UWGB’s recommitment to its environmental roots. During its early history, UWGB was often referred to as “Eco-U” for its strong environmental focus. People from around Wisconsin, the nation and world often looked toward UWGB to help solve environmental problems. The commitment to environmental issues continues to this day with important programs, innovative faculty, and a number of opportunities in which we can take advantage.

Much of the expertise and resources that existed thirty years ago continues to be a part of today’s UW-Green Bay. Unfortunately, it is often difficult for those outside of the university structure to know how to access this information and expertise. An “Environmental Studies” center will provide a place where people can come to access the expertise that we have to offer. It will also serve the faculty and staff in its continued work on environmental issues and provide a mechanism for people to come together and discuss research, community outreach, teaching, etc.

Mission and Goals 

The mission of the “Environmental Studies” Center would be to foster faculty research and collaboration to enhance the teaching of environmental issues, science and policy and dissemination of information by

·        Serving as a resource for the identification, development, writing, and implementation of environmentally related research grants;

·        Arranging and sponsoring environmentally related conferences for professional, student, and community audiences; ·        Interacting with the community on environmental concerns and serving as a liaison with other experts; ·        Working with existing academic programs to examine and implement curriculum; ·        Disseminating information and research  

Organization of the Center 

The “Environmental Studies” Center will be housed within the College of
Liberal Arts and Sciences under the supervision of the Dean of Liberal Arts and Sciences. A Center director will be responsible for day-to-day activities that address the goals listed above.  The Center director will be an experienced and respected member of the faculty who will receive a nine-credit reassignment from teaching. 

The Center will also have Board of Faculty Advisors to help in the planning of Center activities.  In its advisory capacity the Council will provide advice to the Director on all maters related to the Center and assist with workshops, seminars and training sessions.

Proposed Budget 

This proposed budget assumes that the funds required to support the Center will be drawn from the UWGB Growth Initiative allocation and placed in the appropriate Provost Division account.   

1.      Compensation for Center Director·        Ad Hoc faculty funds                                                                            $10,000 

2.      S&E                                                                                                                 $ 3,000 

Grand Total:     $13,000 

Notes:  I think we need to consider a 1/9^th summer stipend.

            Do we want to designate director as Sustainability Committee Chair?

I cannot be at the next meeting of this group on Feb. 25 so I will offer some thoughts which may or may not be usefull in your discussions that night.  First, there is a format for composing an initial description of what seems to be the next step in these discucssions.  It is typical at this stage to write a Vision Statement and a Mission Statement.  The first is a  statement of what this center or institute will be in the future, usually stressing the excellence of what it will be doing in the future.  The Mission Statement describes in general what we will be doing.  Putting these statements together keeps the discussion on track and helps us to decide what this program will look like if anything. My little contribution then is a draft of ideas (in the attachment) intended only to be talking points if that is the way the discussion is going and I obviously feel it should be going in this direction. 

Notice that details such as curriculum, major/minor combinations, academic structure are not part of this yet. 

I favor the conceptual model of the triangle, however I suggest that the uniqueness of this idea lies not in the science or policy parts but in the business piece.  As Bob Howe mentioned you don’t have to look far on the internet to find numerous centers or institutes based on science and/or policy.  I suspect you won’t find many if any programs based on the three elements in our triangle.  If we want this interdisciplinary program to be unique in academe, the business part somehow must get top billing or emphasis. 

Some thoughts follow:

A Vision Statement 

The  (DONOR Name?) Institute for “Environmental Affairs” will be a center of excellence for the analysis and study of management options for environmental problems with the goal of protection and restoration of natural and urban environments for present and future generations

The
Mission of the Institute 

The Mission of the Institute is to conduct  a unique interdisciplinary approach for understanding and solving  environmental problems, local to global, by combining perspectives from natural science, environmental policy and business (or socioeconomics?) in education,  research and outreach  activities.

• Provide an interdisciplinary degree program of study for undergraduate and graduate students that will give them new tools for advanced understanding of environmental problems and their solutions.

• Provide an outreach/service program to private sector interests seeking options for improving their environmental positions.

• Promote a continuing interaction of faculty from the three principle academic themes to kindle a new level of understanding of issues and solutions.

• Encourage team teaching, especially at upper levels, to present an integration of concepts and thought  from  all academic themes

• Promote involvement of faculty and students in understanding and seeking solutions to local and regional problems at both private and public sectors.

• Serve as the sounding board for improving the environmental footprint of the campus

Paul Sager