The Flat Hat

Article Tools
Share on Facebook
Seed Newsvine
Send Article
Print

Green roof not students’ burden

22 April 2008 | By Joanna Sandager, Flat Hat Staff Columnist | The Flat Hat » opinions

Last week members of the Sentara Green Roof Steering Committee approached the Student Assembly for a start-up grant of $10,000 for its energy sustainability initiative. If granted, this money would help fund a $200,000 green roof that could potentially cut the hospital’s energy spending by $50,000 per year. A contribution from the SA would jumpstart the project by spurring donations from other parties and would increase the internship and research opportunities Sentara offers to students.

It should be no surprise that the Sentara Hospital Health Act sponsored by Sens. Michael Douglass ’11 and Steven Nelson ’10 was not passed and sent back to committee. While the SA has over $100,000 in consolidated reserves, it is not the SA’s duty to fund community projects.

Yes, it is hard to say no to such a proposal because denying funding to Sentara would essentially deny our dedication to environmental sustainability, but I urge supporters of the bill not to be quick to cry hypocrisy. It is the SA’s responsibility to act in the interest of the student body. The money the SA has in reserves is potential funding for student organizations and activities, such as UCAB and Student Environmental Action Coalition. Fostering a positive relationship between students and the community is not a good enough reason to drop 10 grand in student funds.

There are many other ways to build a positive relationship between the community and students for free or at least at a lesser cost. We should not let Sentara bribe us with internships and good publicity. To consider the donation as a way to achieve these goals is to imply that College students will be penalized if the donation is not made. Our equal respect and treatment within the community is deserved through the service and time dedicated by almost every College student, not through the fiscal decisions of a small body of students.
Let us not forgot that last year the College received a “D-” in sustainability from the Sustainable Endowments Institute. The installments of green fees, would better equip SEAC and the College to tackle the ongoing issue of environmental sustainability. According to previous Flat Hat reports, the College currently spends $6 million per year on energy.

It takes a lot more than going trayless at the Caf and using a mug at the Daily Grind to cut back on our negative environmental impact. The compost tumbler and organic garden behind the Caf are small steps in reversing decades’ worth of waste. We must focus on solving our own internal energy problems before we can effectively tackle someone else’s.

In light of recent state-wide financial cuts, the College is already on a tight budget. In Interim President Taylor Reveley’s report to the Board of Visitors last week, he expressed his financial concerns for the College. Money, as Reveley metaphorically stated, is the food and water of the College.

Although the finances referred to in his address are not the same funds that would be given to Sentara, it is clear that we have little to spare. The College’s environmental sustainability, not Sentara’s, should be the number one priority of the SA.
We cannot be expected to sustain another until we can survive on our own.

Joanna Sandager is a freshman at the College.

1. Yup.

   
   — Devan Barber    Apr 22, 01:25 PM    #

2. Ditto.

   
   — Nick Fitzgerald    Apr 22, 04:00 PM    #

3. Thirded.

   
   — Nick ('09)    Apr 22, 04:25 PM    #

4. AMEN

   
   — Katie Dixon    Apr 22, 04:27 PM    #

5. Why should the SA give money to an organization that is non-profit in name only anyways? I do not have confirmed sources but from what I have heard the execs at Sentara are not exactly having to scrape by…

   
   — Dan    Apr 23, 03:56 AM    #

6. How can an organization be non-profit in name only? Sentara is a non-profit organization…they don’t make a profit, so they are ‘non-profit’.

   
   — student    Apr 23, 02:43 PM    #

7. student, An organization can be non-profit “in name only” in the sense that the company itself may not claim a profit, but the executives and other employees may earn such a large amount that it constitutes a profit (not legally, of course – this is all about public perception). Assuming that the Red Cross doesn’t claim a profit – if the Red Cross paid $100,000 to its top executive and the other employees earned accordingly, we would probably not call that a “non-profit in name only.” However, if the Red Cross paid its top executive $1.3 million, we would like label it a “non-profit in name only” (because clearly, if the company paid that amount, it’s just shifting its excess money around within the company, and that’s not quite the point of a non-profit).

   Obviously these are extreme hypotheticals, but it serves to illustrate the basic point.

   
   — A smarter student    Apr 23, 03:30 PM    #

8. So, ‘non-profit in name only’ as a phrase is completely arbitrary: you say the red cross is ‘non-profit’ (as opposed to ‘non-profit in name only’) because its top exec is paid less than sentara’s, which makes sentara a ‘non-proft in name only’ organization. By that logic then, if another non-profit organization could be found which pays its top exec more than sentara, sentara would become a ‘non-profit’ and the new organization would be a ‘non-profit in name only’, so long as the public perceived it that way. Interesting way of looking at things. So basically you simply toss the phrase ‘non-profit in name only’ around when it suits you.

   
   — an even smarter student    Apr 23, 04:15 PM    #

9. I didn’t claim it was relative to other organizations. I just used the example of the Red Cross to illustrate that, when an executive or employees are paid CLEARLY (not relatively) exorbitant amounts at non-profits, we might consider them non-profit in name only, as opposed to a non-profit that paid clearly reasonable salaries.

   Nowhere in my original claim did I state that it was relative to another organization. You incorrectly inferred that.

   “Non-profit in name only” is obviously a largely normative judgment based on the public perception.

   
   — back to the smarter student    Apr 23, 07:03 PM    #

10. You’re still using relative terms (exhorbitant, reasonable) to define the phrase, making the phrase also relative. You even say the term is based on public perception (yet again relative). Each time you try to define the word objectively you are forced to use subjective or arbitrary terms, so the phrase is, as I said earlier, arbitray.

    
    — still an even smarter student    Apr 23, 07:17 PM    #

11. Regardless of the position you take on supporting the green roof initiative or not, the bigger question is why is the SA just sitting on students fees and not spending them on student projects….
    When you have informed students seeing this “pile of money” stting there while the SA debates internal affairs, then the SA is just inviting community members to ask for money. Because what else are they spending it on? You have students graduating, that do not have the benefit of the fees they paid and will never see that benefit because the SA won’t spend it…...

    
    — SA still sitting on a large reserve of money    Apr 23, 08:24 PM    #

12. the definition of a non-profit is not the issue here…non-profit or not the reserves belong to the students no matter how long they sit in the bank…

    
    — -rational student    Apr 23, 11:37 PM    #

13. The students do not get any benefit of the money while it is sitting in the bank. There should not be a large reserve, if the SA was truly doing it’s job…...

    
    — SA still sitting on a large pile of money    Apr 24, 01:08 PM    #

14. If the SA spent a lot of its large pile of money, it wouldn’t have as much left. That’s a problem because then they wouldn’t feel as important. Then they’d all get depressed and lose confidence in their ability to affect change for the better. You don’t want to be led by a bunch of mopers, do you? Let them sit on it, then.

    “Governing amounts to robbing, as everyone knows.”
    -Caligula

    
    — Alex Kyrios    Apr 24, 06:01 PM    #

15. I just read the article and feel the arguments fairly weak. To clarify an issue that the editorial seems to confound, the SA’s money in no way comes from tuition, and despite the college administration running low on money, the SA’s is currently sitting unused in a bank account. The funding certainly wouldn’t have been our inherent burden or moral obligation. However, the image it would have projected to our williamsburg community, which has elements that are fearful of transient 4-year students wanting only to shake up the system, would have been priceless. My position was that giving money for a worthwhile one-time donation (with physical permanence) would remind the community, at a crucial time, that we do contribute positively. Community service hours are great, but are old news. This would have been a flashy headline and an unexpected act of generosity. I was pretty embarrassed that 3 doctors and a professor had to stand during a 2.5 hour interrogation. There was also a communications representative present who provided a press strategy to express thanks. I realize that some senators had legitimate issues with the bill, in my brief experience most large appropriations are voted down or vetoed. Frugality is fine, but this would have been money well spent. The misleading editorial is disappointing.

    
    — Steven Nelson    Apr 24, 07:47 PM    #

16. It would have been nice to show the Williamsburg community how much students care and how they’re not transient 4-year students not wanting to shake up the system, that’s fine.

    However, this hospital is neither in Williamsburg or even gives opportunities to that many W&M students. Money being spent for permanent things in the Williamsburg community is debatable, however, it comes down to the fact that these are student funds to be spent on student activities. Not a hopsital in a different county.

    
    — Katie Dixon    Apr 24, 09:13 PM    #

17. Katie, really quick: funds are often not spent on student activities (VT tree, purchases are re-labeled as events, employing students to register others to vote). I’m not judging these decisions, but they were not activities. If SA had little money it would be common sense not to do this. Since there is a lot, it would be a great investment for the student body. Plus, the idea would have essentially been a protracted student activity (see below).

    The professor who spoke had planned to take his very large intro to environmental studies classes every semester for 6 years. SEAC was told that members would be welcome. The VIMS senator said that it would be a great reason for VIMS students to visit Williamsburg to do research.

    Sentara is the only hospital I know of in the area and serves Williamsburg-but isn’t within city limits. I believe it also employees 100 students for the sake of job experience(may be a little off). And then the huge, timely PR consideration…

    No offense, but I think it is horrible that this proposal faced such opposition. The unscrupulous critics and their lockstep cohort should be embarrassed.

    
    — Steven Nelson    Apr 24, 10:56 PM    #

18. I would like to reply Steven. I was in no way part of a lock step cohort and I did not see anything of the sort from other members. Despite my weariness that this was not a student activity and would not directly benefit students, I more than gave this bill a fair hearing. I listened to the presentation by Morris, Douglass and the Sentara staff as to how this could be considered a student actvitiy. Both Douglass and Morris made some fair points about the extention of an internship program, the use of the facilities for an intro class, and other benefits. But neither philosophically nor in reality was I satisfied by the proposal by the end. There were many unanswered questions by the Sentara staff on points of clarification of benefits and I feel they could have been better prepared for this presentation. I made the point this was project not even in Williamsburg so it would not even directly benefit our relationship with the town, and there was no acknowledgement of the precedent this would set for non profits in the future by the presenters. Senator Fallon made great point after great point, including the fact the the internship opportunities currently offered are not even filled by students as it stands. There was not enough justification in my mind to overturn the fundamental point made by Fallon, Barber, Rojas, et. al. This is not a student activity and while its a worthwhile project it’s not the SA’s place. While I actually enjoy our differences of opinion Steven, I think that it is silly that you often say people should be emebarrased for such differences in opinion, particulalry when there were many people who tried to come in with an open mind to the proposal. I think you know there are open minded people out there because people like myself supported your most recent bill despite inital misgivings. However I will say that I respect the effort level you have already put into the SA since being elected and I look forward to future agreements and disagreements.

    
    — Ross Gillingham    Apr 25, 08:22 AM    #

19. Mr. Nelson you make very valid points and it’s a shame that more elected senators didn’t see your point of view. What a missed opportunity. Mr. Gillingham, as a student still in college, I would have to say you that you are displaying the same arrogance that was felt by the members of Sentara and others when you are telling professionals that “you felt they could have been better prepared for this presentation”. These are trained professionals that have already graduated from college and perhaps graduate school, so what you said is an inappropriate comment and it would appear to an outside observer who is interested in this debate, that you really need to get over yourself….That was an unprofessional and derogatory comment directed at true professionals, who are accountable for millions of dollars and thousands of lives. When you graduate from W&M and are in the shoes of those professionals that you criticize, then perhaps you will realize that an arrogant comment that was…...

    
    — Mr. Nelson makes a good point    Apr 25, 10:58 AM    #

20. I was there. The people from Sentara could indeed have done a better job preparing for their presentation, especially if they were asking for $10k from the student body for the pet project on the roof of their hospital. Come on.

    I have a feeling a lot of these pro-green roof comments are written by the same person…

    
    — Are you serious?    Apr 25, 12:10 PM    #

21. Agreed.

    It is completely unfair to say that because the individuals from Sentara are older and have “real” jobs, they should automatically receive money from our student government. We senators were elected by the student body to distribute student activities funds appropriately — we are not here to fund off-campus projects, or to give money to non-student groups simply because they deserve it. If students feel their senators are not representing their interests properly, then they should run for SA and vote differently.

    Again, it is unfair to claim that we are immature or greedy simply because we chose not to approve this particular request (and please take note: we did not DENY the request, we simply deferred for a week and the sponsors of the bill did not want to re-address the request).

    
    — Devan Barber    Apr 25, 05:21 PM    #

22. Devan, I will assume you have been celebrating blowout a bit too hard. Your affirmation of an anonymous post alleging all comments to be my work points a finger directly at yourself. I was in no position to influence the editorial board as you, and I did not rope in friends to comment in support of my own comments. I am offended by your comments, your vote on this issue, and your conduct in general.

    
    — Steven Nelson    Apr 25, 08:21 PM    #

23. Steven,

    What are you talking about? The anonymous comment didn’t say “Steven Nelson is making all these comments!” it implied that the same ANONYMOUS person was writing under different non-names.

    Also, I have no idea why you are offended by my “conduct in general,” but if anything I would say YOUR behavior at the last senate meeting showed immaturity and over-defensiveness.

    I’d appreciate it if you’d consult me directly next time you have a personal problem with my actions, instead of posting an inappropriate and bizarre comment on the Flat Hat website.

    Devan

    
    — Devan Barber    Apr 25, 08:43 PM    #

24. Just in case anyone in the SA was wondering why almost no one on campus takes our student government seriously, internet-based anonymous bickering and mud-slinging might provide some useful insight. But at least no one threatened any lawsuits this time.

    
    — Max Fisher    Apr 28, 02:08 PM    #

25. No one takes our student government seriously because our student government is useless. You can cite all sorts of examples of things they’ve done, but citing them is already proof that they’re useless. You shouldn’t have to remind me, a student, of what you’ve done for me. I’d already know if it were useful.

    Posting on the Flathat to Procrastinate from Final Exams,
    -X

    
    — x    Apr 28, 02:27 PM    #

26. To be fair, the SA has accomplished a lot this year (voting rights, getting the BOV on campus, etc). But that’s mostly been the work of a handful minority within an SA more concerned about threatening to file lawsuits/honor council charges against each other and padding law school apps than actually doing any work for students.

    
    — Max Fisher    Apr 28, 04:58 PM    #

27. True Max, if they had been truly doing the work of the students, they would have spent more money on them…..

    
    — SA still sitting on a large reserve of money    Apr 28, 09:01 PM    #