decisions making

& democracy at ASU

 

WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH SUSTAINABILITY? 

Current decision making structures have allowed for ASU to operate in ways that often do not benefit the community as a whole. The current concentration of decision making power into the hands of the privileged few, both at Appalachian State and throughout every level of governance in our country, consistently fails to center the needs of our communities. Decision making structures that privilege the individual above the collective materially and culturally reify existing structures of power and wealth within our society. 

 

This pattern is what allows governing bodies, including App State’s, to continually do harm to our communities and ecosystems. Though students make up the majority of the university population and are most immediately impacted by its decisions, they are allowed little input on key decisions. This structure discourages students from participating in democracy at large and sends a message that a student’s monetary value through tuition is their only value in the eyes of the university. By not creating systems through which students and other stakeholders, including faculty, staff, alumni, and Boone citizens, can democratically participate in University decisions, Appalachian State is able to operate in ways that oppose stakeholder values. This goes directly against the intended and express purpose of Appalachian State and other universities. Universities are supposed to support students in becoming active and engaged citizens who create a more just and sustainable world. Why not let that engagement start there, at the universities themselves, through the democratization of university decision making processes.

 

It is clear at this point that our society and culture have become deeply polarized and spaces for conversation across ideologies are becoming more contentious. While this is a result of many entangled problems in our culture, one key avenue for creating change is providing more access to and fostering responsibility around participating in decision-making processes. Creating more space for deliberation within our universities can help us avoid increasingly dangerous levels of polarization and find ways to collaborate on the problems we collectively face.

​

SO HOW COULD WE DO IT?

One way we might begin to democratize App State is through empowering the Faculty Senate and Student Government Association to co-decide with administrators on key decisions for the university. This would mean that SGA and FS decisions would be enforceable, rather than operating as recommendations.The nature and extent of these participatory processes should be determined collectively by all stakeholders. However the logistics of voting are determined, the administration and these representative bodies should meet a few times per semester to inform participants about and discuss key issues, wants, needs, values, etc., in addition to holding one or two major meetings for collective voting.

 

Another simple option would be to empower the full student, faculty and staff bodies to participate in key decisions through referendum. This would allow the whole university community to vote on both major and minor university decisions. Depending on the issue, this process could be expanded to alumni and Boone citizens. Voting could be done with simple online polls using student numbers, names, or some other form of identification. Voting could even be held in person on a regular basis. Universities across the world have begun setting this precedent by holding elections for important positions, such as deanships, in their administrations (Leuscher 2012).

 

While these types of interventions may seem distant from issues of sustainability, the concentration of power within Appalachian State’s decision making structures are created within the same ideological and material systems that built the climate crisis. The students, faculty, and town citizens have been calling for substantive action on climate for years. The undemocratic concentration of decision making power in the hands of financial managers, administrators, and state level boards and committees has blocked action not only on climate issues, but on many welfare and equity issues. Democratization is a key step on the path to creating a more just and sustainable world. We have a collective responsibility and opportunity to find a better path. 

​

​

low and zero-interest lending for

community cooperatives

 

As economic disparity grows in the nation and our communities become more vulnerable to economic and climate change, we must find ways to create a resilient community. We must also determine just and sustainable ways to organize our work and our resources.

 

Cooperatives typically operate in sustainable and socially responsible ways as they are owned by groups of workers and community members who make decisions democratically. Cooperatives are also powerful economic development tools that allow for economic growth, greater levels of equity and development of leadership skills and strong relationships. Cooperatives are organizations that are owned by those who either work at the organization or are consumers of the organization.  As such, cooperative owners make decisions about the finances and operations of their organizations. Typically, this leads to decisions that value workers and the community as a whole. Additionally, this ownership structure ensures that profit is distributed across a wider group, rather than accumulating with one or two conventional owners. And, because start-up costs are distributed amongst owners, individuals have more potential for upward mobility using this business model. 

 

By investing in cooperative development using non-extractive lending structures, ASU can help develop strong, equitable economies that value the resources, workers, and ecology of our region.

​

​

divestment & reinvestment

 

Per ASU’s 2019 financial report, Appalachian State has an endowment of $16 million, in addition to $7.4 million in “other investments” (Wood 2019). This funding represents money that could be invested in the growth of our community and development of economic, technical and social infrastructure that protects us from the impacts of climate change, gives healthy returns and maintains the vitality of the region. Yet, these resources are invested with no regard to the value of human life, ecological health, or social wellbeing (UNCMC 2019).

 

ASU’s endowment funds, as well as many investments from other UNC schools, are managed by the UNC Management Company (UNCMC). About 6%, or $363 million, of the the UNCMC’s portfolio is invested in energy and natural resources (UNCMC 2019). While it is extremely likely that much of these funds are invested in oil, natural gas, and other extractive industries, we can not be sure because the UNCMC does not easily provide this information. A UNCA Divest activist I spoke with explained that even their Vice Chancellor of Finances was unsure how exactly UNCMC was investing their money. While this lack of transparency is in itself a huge issue, it can safely be assumed that hundreds of thousands of ASU’s investment dollars are supporting extractive industries and as such, contributing further to climate destruction. 

 

Organizations and funds divesting from fossil fuels already shifted $8.05 trillion from the fossil fuel industries (Smith & Bain 2019). Notable divestments worldwide include the country of Ireland, New York City, London, England, The University of Massachusetts system, the University of California system, and the University of Maryland system. In North Carolina, Warren Wilson and Brevard colleges both divested from fossil fuels (ibid.)

 

At North Carolina State University, a small portion of their endowment is already divested, and has been reinvested in socially and environmentally responsible (SRI) funds. From 2015-2018, the $50 million portion of the endowment consistently outperformed its other traditionally invested counterparts (ibid.). This means that not only does divestment and reinvestment mean less risk for the planet and its inhabitants, but also less risk for our portfolio.

 

In October, Kelsey Hall, UNCA Divest organizer told me about the process of divestment at UNCA, Divest activists were recently successful in doing the same. With the help of a supportive administration, they established a $10,000 Environment, Social, and Governance (ESG) fund. The fund was managed by the Student Environmental Center, which is funded and run by students. This fund served as a “test run” for several years. When they realized that this fund had reasonable returns, an investment working group was founded, consisting of a financial manager, UNCA divest organizers, faculty members, the director of sustainability, the CFO, and other administrators. This working group evaluated and chose which company they wanted to manage their ESG investment, ultimately choosing Walden Asset Management. On January 1st, UNCA passed a resolution to reinvest 10% of the UNCA endowment to be managed as an ESG by Walden Asset Management. UNCA also developed guidelines with Walden for how their money could and could not be invested.

 

Appalachian State should do the same thing with its endowment, reinvesting in things that benefit rather than destroy the planet and communities. Additionally, these investments could be diverted to serve as “non-traditional investments” such as any of the initiatives listed in this document.

 

Additionally, some of ASU’s endowment funds may be invested in institutions and organizations such as the industrial prison system, the military industry, and other extractive, unjust organizations. UNCMC board of directors is composed almost entirely by people who appear to be older, white males. This would make it difficult for UNCMC to accurately and adequately consider the perspectives and needs of marginalized groups. 

 

As such, ASU should follow the lead of UNCA and withdraw their investments from UNCMC and form a working group composed of relevant stakeholders to create investment guidelines and find a new management company. Surpassing UNCA, however, ASU should withdraw all of their funding within the next several years, reinvesting millions of dollars in the prosperity and health of our community and planet.

​

​

daylight boone creek

 

The National Climate Assessment (2018) highlights that one of the main risks for the Southeast is increased flooding due to an increase in precipitation. This is exacerbated by current land use norms that increase pavement coverage and enclose streams and waterways in culverts, eliminating flood management potential of natural riparian ecosystems. Boone is at risk for such flooding, both considering the great flood of 2017 that caused serious property damage and stranded people in their homes and the length of waterways that are constricted in culverts. Boone Creek flows through downtown Boone and Appalachian State’s campus, in and out of culverts and into culverts down US Highway 321. The areas around the corridor of the creek often flood when stormwater overwhelms the area. In previous discussions at Appalachian State to daylight the creek, biology professor Dr. Shea Tuberty was cited in urging for consideration of 500-year floods, as 100-year floods have become much more prevalent (Oakes 2019). As the climate crisis exacerbates, these floods will continue to increase (NCA 2018).

 

Creek daylighting is a process that restores natural riparian environments by releasing creeks from culverts and coverage, helping restore a natural meander, and establishing a riparian buffer of native plants. This process helps manage stormwater by providing an environment where water can permeate into the ground and the creek can adapt to higher volumes of water; it makes for a more resilient environment. 

 

Creek daylighting has positive effects beyond mitigating risks and threats of the climate crisis; it also supports native biodiversity by providing more suitable environments for native species, aquatic and otherwise, and the trees and shrubs that are able to repopulate the riparian buffer sequester carbon. Additionally, creeks and waterways provide social and cultural goods for the community because they are beautiful and people want to be around them, especially as they cool the nearby air in the hot summer months which are projected to get

hotter.