The Decision Making Process at CSB|SJU

            The administrative structure of CSB/SJU  is much like other universities.  If CSB and SJU were to adopt a green building  policy, the process would be complex and certainly could be complicated by the coordinate relationship.  In order to understand how such a policy could be implemented, it is first necessary to identify the key institutional positions related to campus operations and to understand how the decision-making process works at each institution and in joint.

            The ultimate decision-makers on both campuses are the Board of Regents at SJU and the Board of Trustees at the CSB.   The boards at each school are separate.  They each consist of a forty-member group composed of men and women whose occupations range from sisters and monks, to CEOs and presidents of large corporations.  The two boards and their standing committees are responsible for planning the strategic directions of the institutions, while also serving as stewards of the financial operations.  Thus, any green building  plan would require the general support of both boards, and in particular support from the standing committees responsible for the physical plant and grounds.

            The tiers beneath the Boards are the Presidents of both educational institutions.  At CSB, the newly appointed President is MaryAnn Baenninger.  Dietrich Reinhart, OSB, is the President at SJU.   Each is responsible for the events that occur on campus and for overseeing the different departments within the institution.  They have many people reporting to them to assist with their responsibilities.

            Following the Presidents, the Provost, Vice Presidents, the Deans, and the Chief Officers, share the same level on the organization chart on both campuses.  They report back to the President in each of their areas.   Both CSB and SJU have separate administrative structures with only a few over-lapping positions.  These over-lapping positions include the Dean of Admission and Financial Aid (Mary Milbert), the Provost (Henry Smorynski), the Vice President Institutional Planning / Research / Communication (Jon McGee), the Associate Provost/Academic Dean (Rita Knuesel), and Associate Dean/Director of Academic Budgeting (David Lyndgaard).

            At CSB the other Vice Presidents include: Vice President for Institutional Advancement (Colman O’Connell, OSB), Chief Physical Plant/Facilities Management Officer (James Fredricks), Vice President for Student Development and Dean of Students (Mary Geller), and Chief Financial Officer and Administration Officer (Susan Palmer).  Before a new building program ever reaches the Presidents’ office or the Boards, one of these people have to approve of the idea and bring it to the attention of the people who have the power to make the final decision.

            SJU has an administration structure similar to CSB.  SJU has a Vice President for Institutional Advancement (Robert Culligan), a Vice President of Student Development (Gar Kellom), and a Vice President of Administrative Services (Cheryl Coryea).  Different from at CSB, the Director of Building and Grounds (Linus Ascheman) lies between the Vice President and President positions.  The Director of Building and Grounds at SJU is equivalent to the position of Chief Physical Plant/ Facilities Plant Management Officer at CSB.

            On both campuses, people in these administrative positions have support staff that help generate ideas and accomplish tasks.  Thus, many administrators and their staff would need to accept the idea of a green program before it could become a reality.  It is important that a majority of people are behind the green program.  If acceptance of the program is the norm, it will make the process much easier to accomplish.

            Once the key players in the building process have been identified, it is critical to recognize that the decision-making processes on each campus are completely separate.  If SJU decides to renovate an existing structure or build a new one, SJU pays for the construction .  The same holds true for CSB respectively.  The institutions do not share costs for buildings on either campus.  For example, CSB is paying for the planned 2005 renovation of the Benedicta Arts Center (BAC) located on the CSB campus.  All the money budgeted for the renovation is coming from CSB, either from institutional funds, donations, or grants.  Although the remodeling of the BAC will be a great improvement in the educational facility for both CSB and SJU students, Saint John’s is not financially supporting the project.

We know the positions that must say “yes,” but how do the ideas ever reach the actual decision-makers?  To best answer this question, an overview of the process will follow for a hypothetical expansion of the CSB dining space.

In this scenario, workers from the Main Cafeteria are having a difficult time serving the students, because they are running out of space for seating.  In order to make room for tables, they will have to expand the area of the cafeteria into other sections of the Main basement.  The workers bring their needs to their manager to see what she/he thinks.  The manager favors the idea, and establishes a formal proposal.  The manager then brings the proposal to the next line of decision-makers.  If everyone approves, the proposal will be given to the relevant administrator who is responsible for the department that formulated the idea.  If the proposal seems reasonable, it will be advanced.

The proposal will then be shown to the Chief of Facilities (CSB) or the Director of Building and Grounds (SJU).  They do a study on the feasibility of the project.  They determine whether the larger cafeteria is really needed on the CSB campus.  If the proposal was deemed feasible, they would develop a strategic plan and budget for the project.  There is never enough time, money, or space available to meet everyone’s needs, so they have to prioritize proposals to determine which ones should be completed.  Both institutions cannot satisfy every special interest group, so they need to make the best choices for their institution.  If the proposal passes this phase, the next steps are to be taken by the people with the decision-making ability.

At this point, the proposal goes before the President’s Cabinet.  The cabinet consists of the President of the institution as well as the Provost, the Vice Presidents, the Dean, and the Chief Officers.  This group takes their time to determine if the proposal meets the institutional needs and priorities.  Does the institution need to renovate an existing structure or to develop a new building?  The proposal stays at this step for a period of time.  These administrators need to make sure that this proposal is needed before it is brought to the attention of the Board of Trustees or the Board of Regents, and of course they spend the time determining how to fund the project.

If the Cabinet approves the proposal, then the next step is to bring the proposal before the executive committee of the board.   If the proposal is a positive addition for the institution, then they will hire a consultant to examine the feasibility of such a building or renovation project.  The consultant speaks to members of the CSB/SJU administration and community (alumni, professors, surrounding businesses, etc.) to see what direction they feel the economic forecast is heading.  They must determine how the project will be funded.  Can fund-raising cover the cost, or is taking on debt the only option?  From this dialogue with the CSB/SJU organization, the consultant decides the dollar amount that can be spent and where that money will come from.   As stated earlier, the campuses do not work together on this process.  However, there is no reason why both institutions could not share the financial burden of building a green structure or any building in the future.

            Once it has been decided that construction  on the CSB dining room is necessary, it must be determined how the cost will be covered. Both institutions have very limited budgets, and going in debt for a building is a risk that they will not take unless they have to. 

            Financial grants are good sources of revenue for the building projects.  They are an often used to pay for building renovations.  Donations from the alumni/ae are another source of funds for building projects.   One has to be cautious when dealing with this group of people, however, as they cannot be asked to donate too often, because they may become reluctant to respond.  The development staff can only ask for donations when the project is important.  Finally, the Chief Financial Officer is in charge of procuring any money that might be needed through a loan.   They begin a dialogue with the bank to determine the amount needed, the terms of the loan, and the interest rate they will be charged.

            This approval process of the building or renovation takes a considerable amount of time, anywhere from two to seven years.  It is an incredibly slow process because of all the necessary steps to be taken.  The CSB annual budget for building maintenance is much smaller than one might expect. With a $42 million dollar budget, $32 million is spent as financial aid, $8 million is spent on salaries for professors and staff, and only $2 million is spent on building upkeep, which is a low amount when considering the high cost of construction .  Since the budget is tight, every decision concerning building or renovation is scrutinized.

            If CSB and SJU were to make a commitment to green building , the Boards could simply adopt a green building policy.  This could be a policy stating that no new building or renovated spaces could be approved without attention to the environmental impacts.  If the Boards adopted such policies, green building could certainly be implemented as part of our on-going program of building development, operation, and maintenance.  As this overview demonstrates, however, the path to implementing such a proposal is long and complex, requiring the support of many people.