June 2004

An ENTS capstone project by

Miller Cochran Jamie Long

Lauren Miller Stephanie Pimm Damian Winters

Assessing Carleton’s Sustainability: A campus environmental audit

2

Table of Contents Introduction (Jamie Long et al.) Indicators:

1. Energy use, tracking and feedback (Damian Winters) 2. Greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory (Damian Winters) 3. Energy: Renewables and source profile (Damian Winters) 4. Water use, tracking and feedback (Stephanie Pimm) 5. Recycling systems (Jamie Long) 6. Food procurement and disposal (Stephanie Pimm) 7. Indoor air quality (Miller Cochran) 8. Hazardous wastes (Miller Cochran) 9. Custodial chemical use (Miller Cochran) 10. Grounds maintenance (Stephanie Pimm) 11. Conservation and Restoration (Stephanie Pimm) 12. Campus planning and construction (Lauren Miller) 13. Transportation infrastructure and incentives (Damian Winters) 14. Purchasing tools and strategies (Jamie Long) 15. Computer hardware purchasing and disposal (Lauren Miller) 16. Paper use and purchasing (Jamie Long) 17. Curriculum for environmental studies (Lauren Miller) 18. Campus culture and environmental awareness (Lauren Miller) 19. Governance for sustainability (Jamie Long) 20. Investment policy for endowment funds (Jamie Long)

Relative Performance (Damian Winters) Prioritized recommendations Appendices

3

Introduction

Colleges and Universities have broad impacts on the world around them, both negative and positive. The activities pursued by colleges can create a variety of adverse environmental impacts. But colleges are also in a unique position as educational institutions to be leaders in pursuing environmentally sustainable solutions. Carleton College expresses its commitment to sustainability in many ways. It has taken a number of positive steps to reduce its environmental impact. But many areas remain in which substantial improvements can be made. This report serves to highlight Carleton’s many accomplishments, and to make recommendations for improving the College’s environmental sustainability. The structure for this report was taken from the Good Company’s “Sustainable Pathways Toolkit.” The Good Company has conducted environmental audits at several institutions around the country and granted us permission to use its Toolkit in conducting this study, expressing an interest in expanding the number of colleges compared within the Toolkit format. The primary benefit of using the Good Company’s format is an increase in the ability to compare our findings to those for other colleges. In adapting the format from the Good Company’s report, we maintained many of their indicators, but also combined indicators where we felt it was appropriate and created our own where we felt their were gaps in analysis. The result is a report that is still largely comparable to those done for other colleges, but that is also uniquely fitted to Carleton. We focus on twenty indicators, covering an extremely wide range of environmental impacts. For each indicator, we establish a benchmark to evaluate Carleton’s overall performance. These benchmarks are often taken straight from the Toolkit, but were occasionally adapted to be more relevant to Carleton. We then examine the performance of Carleton on each of these indicators, and offer recommendations about how the College can reduce its environmental impact within each indicator. We hope that this report will provide an accurate snapshot of Carleton’s environmental impact at this point in time, and that it will aid the College in prioritizing positive steps it can take to improve overall sustainability. We intend this document to be revisited periodically and updated, perhaps by future ENTS students. A large number of people helped us in our efforts to gather the information presented in this document. We would like to thank: The Good Company, Myles Bakke, Phil Camill, Kirk Campbell, Chuck Carlin, Joel Cooper, Dennis Easley, Diane Fredrickson, Ari Guha, Fred Hagstrom, Randie Johnson, Issa Kawas, Robert Lampa, Brian Mars, Jim Pence, Mary Savina, Joshua Skov, Loretta Springer, Richard Strong, Alison Unger, Joseph Winegardner, and Global Change Biology students Eunice Ajambo, Caroline Krafft, Lindsey Stoddard, and Carrie Wolfson

4

Indicator: Campus Energy Intensity Benchmark:

Total energy use for heating, cooling, and electricity does not exceed 110-150 MMBtu per Scaled Campus User (SCU) per year.

Performance:

In order to compare Carleton’s energy use with that of other colleges we are using the Good Company’s weights for different types of campus users. Calculations A and B represent two different weighting scales used by Good Company—details on these calculations are included in Appendix A.

Carleton College (2001-2002)

Vassar College (2001-2002)

Reed College (2001-2002)

Total MMBtus used in academic year 193,073 282,634 96,461

MMBtus per SCU (Benchmark: 110-150)

Calculation A 119.1 137.9 131.6 Calculation B 110.6 120.8 112.1

Since 1995 the college has employed several measures to save energy including; conversion to T-8 bulbs and electronic ballasts, replacing small horsepower motors, and installing a Building Automation System on most HAVC equipment. These projects have helped to reduce the overall energy consumption on campus.

Carleton’s commitment to the Minnesota Sustainable Design Guide has also

created awareness for energy conservation when renovating and building new structures on campus. In the two most recent projects on campus, the Student Housing Project and the Academic and Dining Project, energy consultants were used in evaluating energy saving options, and all appliances were Energy Star rated. In the Academic and Dining Project, the installation of a program called Energy Assets helps optimize the buildings thermal performance and clerestory windows and light sensors were added to reduce the amount of artificial light used.

Measuring individual buildings on campus is still a problem for Carleton. For all buildings on the central campus grid there is only one meter. Also, there are 43 houses and buildings located off-campus that are individually monitored by the electric company. Records for these buildings are not immediately available and are not combined with total electrical use data.

Recommendations:

The College should improve its monitoring and reporting of energy usage and provide information to campus users. In order to do this the College must install meters for campus buildings. Also, many schools have begun posting the amount of electricity use in individual dorms. Since the off-campus houses are already individually monitored it would be easy to start doing this.

Goal: To encourage efficient energy use and reporting.

5

Indicator: Green House Gas Inventory Benchmark:

Conduct GHG inventory for all campus options (at a minimum, campus utilities use; preferably, include waste stream impacts)

Performance:

The Carleton facilities department is provided with a yearly report on the type and amount of emissions from the steam generator plant. This report does not account for all utility use on campus, especially the off-campus buildings, which are monitored separately.

During the winter semester of 2004, Carleton students administered a full report of Carleton’s GHG emissions for campus utilities. However, this report is not yet available online.

Lewis and Clark College conducted a GHG inventory which included

commuting to school, transportation of garbage to the landfill, air travel, fertilizers, animals, and wastewater and solid waste. Such an inclusive study has not yet been accomplished at Carleton.

Recommendations:

Carleton should encourage students to undertake a project similar to the Lewis and Clark GHG inventory. This would supply the campus with a full inventory of GHG emissions and enable the College to look into areas where high levels of GHG emissions exist.

There are now guides available that make conducting an estimated GHG inventory relatively easy. The Good Company used a similar guide in their GHG inventory for Reed College. Carleton should use such an estimate until an in depth report is available.

Goal: Encourage full accounting of GHG emissions in all areas of campus operations.

6

Indicator: Renewable Energy Purchasing Benchmark:

A percentage of energy purchased and/or produced from renewable sources (wind, low-impact hydroelectric, geothermal, solar, etc.)

Future plans for setting and attaining a higher percentage. Performance:

Carleton does not purchase renewable energy. There has been little discussion of purchasing renewable energy in the future.

However, Carleton College has coordinated with the local public school system

to install wind turbines in the area. These wind turbines will produce 100 percent of the energy necessary for the public schools and 40 percent of the energy necessary for Carleton College. No college of Carleton’s size has built such a large-scale wind turbine. The wind turbine will produce energy that Carleton will sell to the local company (Xcel energy) and will, over time, finance the construction of the turbine. This is a big step in producing green energy for the local grid. While it does not mean that Carleton is putting the green energy into its own grid, it does mean that the electric company does not have to provide that energy. This system seems like a reasonable contribution to renewable energy and the reduction of non-renewable energy production.

Future plans mainly depend on the success of the initial wind turbine. If the

turbine is profitable then the college will consider building another.

Recommendations:

Xcel Energy does offer plans for purchasing renewable energy. Carleton should begin to purchase renewable energy from Xcel. If the wind turbine project goes well Carleton could make money and this money could be used to defer the cost of renewable energy.

Some colleges have decided to “tax” themselves in order to pay for renewable energy. Carleton should look into offering an option for students, faculty, and employees to contribute money for renewable energy purchasing.

Goal: Encourage purchasing and/or production of renewable energy.

7

Indicator: Water Usage and Reporting Benchmark:

Water use does not exceed 90-120 gallons per scaled campus unit per day for residential and non-athletic campus facilities.

The campus has complete and clear records of its water use, and there exists a regular, on-going reporting process for all water use and cost data (monitored at the level of individual buildings). Water for irrigation (for maintained grounds and athletic facilities) is tracked separately from other water use.

The campus facilities department provides information to campus users about water use in ways that raise awareness and facilitate action.

Performance: The college is within the 90-120 gallons per SCU per day benchmark (see table).

For explanation of scaling system and a note on data, see Appendix A.

The records for residential water use have only recently become complete, with

the addition of meter readings from a number of college-owned buildings. Water use is tracked by separately for individual buildings as well as three athletic fields (Bell, West/Laird, and Three Oaks); however, most irrigation is done off the sides of buildings and thus is not monitored separately.

Officially, any abnormally high water usage for a particular building is

investigated by the city or by facilities staff, but there seems to be little in the way of regular internal reporting. There is no formal system for providing feedback to campus users.

The College has begun installing water-saving devices as fixtures are replaced.

Specifically, the College is implementing 1.6-gallon flush toilets, 1-gallon flush urinals and water-saving showerheads.

Recommendations:

The College should improve its monitoring and reporting of water usage, including monitoring irrigation water use separately.

Carleton should try to provide information and feedback on water use to campus users in the dormitories and elsewhere.

Carleton College (2003-2004)

Vassar College Reed College

Total usage for academic year

(Gallons)

47,600,000 70,356,955

29,667,872

Gallons per SCU per day (Benchmark 90-120)

Calculation A 114* 94.0 110.9 Calculation B 98* 82.4 94.4

Goal: Encourage efficient water use and reporting.

8

Indicator: Recycling Systems Benchmark:

Recycling has four components: infrastructure present across campus; recycling rate above 50%; collection of feasible recyclable materials; and recycling education across campus

Performance:

Carleton has done quite well at developing its recycling infrastructure, expanding it significantly over the past several years. The basic recycling services the College offers include “co-mingled” recycling of glass, aluminum and plastic, and paper recycling, which can also include such items as paperboard and newspaper. Bins for these two services are located throughout campus, wherever there are collection sites for regular waste. They are present in many prime locations for waste, such as the mailroom and the computer labs. In addition, recycling bins are provided to all students living in a campus dorm room to assist in making the recycling process easier. This program appears to have been a success, and students like the convenience of having access to small cans in their room.

The College also provides recycling for many non-traditional items, such as batteries, ink cartridges, fluorescent lights and cardboard. The cardboard is collected and handled on campus, then shipped to a recycling facility. The College has missed few major recycling opportunities, with the exception of food waste from the dining halls. However, the recycling rate is still lower than the benchmark. We have a weekly average of about 65 tons of waste, of which approximately 30% is recycled. Our recycling education could also serve to be expanded. We currently engage in some education efforts to inform students about their recycling options, and signs are posted on the appropriate bins indicating what can be recycled in each bin. However, there are no signs posted to tell students where to go for the disposal of other recyclables. For example, batteries are disposed of in Sayles-Hill Campus Center, and ink cartridge recycling bags are found in the CMC. This might create confusion for students who have to determine the location for disposing of different items. Having a better education program and more signage about recycling could assist campus users.

Recommendations:

To reach the goal of a 50% recycling rate, which some institutions have achieved,

Carleton should compost food waste and be more vigorous about our recycling education.

Goal: Provide the physical and organizational structure to make recycling convenient for campus users and create a benchmark for reducing our overall waste stream.

9

Indicator: Food procurement and disposal Benchmark:

Steps should be taken to purchase local food and organic/fair-trade food when feasible, and develop relationships with local food producers. Steps should also be taken to reduce pre-consumer and post-consumer food waste, by making connections with food pantries and providing better labeled, made-to-order dishes. For the post-consumer food waste remaining, composting would be the preferred option.

Performance:

Carleton out-sources its food service to Sodexho Inc., thus limiting its direct

control over this particular indicator. The stringent food safety code under which Sodehxo operates largely prevents the College from establishing relationships with local food producers. However, Sodexho recently developed connections with the Midwest food alliance (MWFA), an organization uses a third-party certification program to identify local foods raised using environmentally friendly and socially responsible production practices. During the fall, some of the produce served in Carleton’s cafeterias comes from local farmers through the MWFA. Some of our meat also comes from the Midwest, but much of our food is transported from regions several hundreds to thousands of miles away. The cafeterias currently serve one organic meal a year, on Earth Day. The Snack Bar also began offering free trade shade-grown coffee last year.

The college does not currently donate any of its pre-consumer waste to a food

bank. Attempts are made to reduce pre-consumer food waste by preparing food in accordance with demand, and reusing any leftover ingredients. Post-consumer waste makes up the great majority of food waste generated at Carleton College. Data collected by Carleton students at estimated that approximately 500-600 lbs of food were wasted daily from student trays. The student report cited insufficient labeling of dishes and the practice of pre-serving plates of food as major reasons for food waste.

Food service does not currently compost its post-consumer food waste. In the

Midwest, dump tipping fees are relatively low and therefore an onsite facility for composting and distributing to local farms is probably not cost effective. It has been proposed that Carleton might be able to use the composting dumpster that St. Olaf College is considering purchasing. The resulting compost could then be used for grounds maintenance at one or both of the colleges.

Composting bins and collection are provided for selected off-board housing

options. The student environmental organization recently purchased several home composting machines to process this food waste, and this system is capable of handling most of the waste generated by off-board houses.

Goal: Reduce pre- and post-consumer food waste and increase local and organic purchasing by food service units on campus.

10

Recommendations:

Carleton should continue to work towards composting post-consumer food

waste generated by the cafeterias. In order to help reduce the large amount of post-consumer food waste, the

College should provide better labeling and more self-service options and work to educate students about food waste.

Carleton should consider expanding local and organic food options in the cafeterias. Expanding the local food selection would probably have to be done through increased purchasing through the MWFA. However, organic foods are available through Sodexho’s normal distributors, and the College should work to introduce more organic products where the cost is not significantly higher.

Carleton should consider donating its pre-consumer food waste to a food bank. The MN Good Samaritan Laws promote this type of generosity, and other Sodexho-run schools in the state have started food recovery programs. The College should consider collaborating with St. Olaf in order to make the transportation of food from Northfield to the Twin Cities more feasible.

11

Indicator: Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) Benchmark:

Have in place a program to monitor and maintain ventilation systems, major indoor air pollutants/contaminants, and standards for airflow mixing of fresh/outdoor air.

Explicit and enforced rules governing smoking indoors and near the entrances of buildings.

Have a process of responding to IAQ issues and concerns. Use materials for design and construction that minimize or

eliminate off-gassing. Construction and renovation should include ventilation that can be

user-adjusted Performance: The college has in the last year begun an aggressive program to fully and

thoroughly examine issues of indoor air quality in all the buildings on campus. This program involves a room-by-room in-depth assessment of each building and interviews with the occupants on any issues or complaints they may have. This first phase of data collection will take into account Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning systems, locations of rooms (basement, first floor, etc.), location of operable windows, location of building air intakes and type of filtration, occupancy type, and history of complaints.

After collecting the complete data on each building on campus, the next step will be to develop an assessment of risk priority and confirm or modify the prioritization based on actual air sampling from a representative body of rooms. Air sampling will consist of tests for carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, humidity, and temperature, as well as tests for molds and/or radon if appropriate. The test results will be used to finalize the risk priority and set a schedule for remediation and ongoing sampling and testing.

In terms of prevention, the college currently uses low-VOC paints, which is good for IAQ. Also, products are selected and implemented in order to minimize IAQ issues. For instance, carpets are unrolled at the warehouse and allowed to off-gas for several days before being installed. Most buildings have operable windows which users can use to adjust IAQ. Also, air ventilation can be adjusted.

Recommendations:

The college should consider giving additional funds to expedite the current IAQ program. Currently only Sayles-Hill and Laird have been completely examined.

After completion of the IAQ evaluation, the college should continue to work to prevent IAQ problems from arising.

Goal: Ensure the quality of the indoor environment, which is critical for health.

12

Indicator: Hazardous Materials

Benchmark: There should be in place a policy for the handling and disposal of

hazardous materials. The college should have in place plans for dealing with hazardous

wastes in academic departments (art, chemistry, etc.) as well as facilities plants (paints, etc.).

Performance: The college does a good job of ensuring that hazardous materials are disposed of

properly, and over the years has increased its use of environmentally friendly substances and practices. All college departments and offices dispose of hazardous wastes through the chemistry department.

Hazardous materials from the chemistry department (i.e. used

chemicals/solvents) are collected from each lab and stored; twice a year an outside company comes and collects the hazardous materials. Some small amounts of chemicals can escape down the sink when glassware is cleaned, but not much. All chemicals are labeled with handling and disposal instructions to insure proper use and disposal in the labs. The solvents the college uses have become much more benign over the years. Also, the amount of chemicals used in the labs has decreased about 4X over the last twenty or so years, which reduces chances of incident, injury, spills, and reduces the amount of chemicals that must be cleaned up and disposed of.

The art department has many programs in place to deal with hazardous wastes.

An outside company, Safety Clean, is used for photography wastes—specifically they reclaim the silver and handle the developer. Paint is cleaned up with mineral spirits instead of turpentine. Vegetable oil is used to clean up inks instead of a solvent or other harmful chemical. Spent acid is disposed of with the chemistry department hazardous materials. Some very small amounts of inks and acids do go down the sink, but not much. Rags that may have small amounts of ink or solvents on them do get thrown out.

The paint shop has a special sink with a good filter on it for use when cleaning

paint products (brushes, etc.) to prevent paints from being lost down the drain. Spoiled paints are saved then collected and disposed of by an outside hazardous waste company, as is the paint cleaned out of the sink filter. The college currently use recycled paints and low-VOC paints, which are both positive steps.

Recommendation:

Consider using micro-sizing in labs and using a more “green curriculum.” The college should look for a way to dispose of rags and other such materials that

may contain hazardous chemicals.

Goal: To insure proper handling and disposal of hazardous wastes and materials generated by campus operations.

13

Indicator: Custodial Chemical Use Benchmark:

The existence of a monitoring and management process for each chemical-intensive custodial product.

This process must consider toxicity, downstream impacts, worker safety, cost, and packaging.

Performance: The college performs well in terms of custodial chemical use and staying current

with new products, monitoring their use, minimizing their impact, and keeping employees and others safe. All of the college’s chemicals are bought from one company, Ecolab. By contracting with only one company, the college reduces costs, limits inventory, limits overuse, and helps maintain consistent chemicals (consistency helps keep workers safe because the chemicals are familiar).

The entire process from start to finish considers downstream effects. Bleach is very rarely used (only moderately used for mold problems). Water-soluble and non-toxic products are used so that any that goes down drains will not be harmful. The college now is working with some more cutting edge, environmentally friendly products such as oxidation products, citric acid-based products, and even seaweed (which is safe enough to eat, and preliminarily is looking like an effective cleaner for graffiti). All of the packaging that the cleaners come in is recyclable and that is a consideration when purchasing chemicals. All of the paper products used for cleaning (paper towels, toilet paper, etc.) have a percentage of post-consumer waste in them. Custodial staff members are all trained by the vendor, Ecolab, and twice a year here to make sure that all staff members are familiar with the products and know how to manage each product safely. Each bottle of chemical has an identical label for each type of bottle it may be found in, so that there isn’t confusion over what exactly is in a particular bottle. Non-toxic products such as boric acid are used whenever possible for extermination. Mice are trapped instead of poisoned.

Recommendation: The college should continue to stay current with chemical products that may have

a minimal environmental impact and make this an explicit formal goal. Consider a more formalized process of product selection and evaluation.

Goal: Encourage on-going assessment of the chemicals used in campus-wide custodial operations in order to reduce exposure of employees and campus users to toxicity.

14

Indicator: Grounds maintenance Benchmark:

Total use of chemicals well below conventional norms; implementation of techniques to minimize or eliminate the use of toxic and persistent chemicals.

Ensure the implementation of water saving devices and techniques for irrigation throughout campus, especially where easiest and most cost-effective. Track water use for irrigation separately.

Select plants with low maintenance requirements and that otherwise fit the local ecosystem (i.e. non-invasive and provide habitat for native species).

Policies ensure that development minimizes the use of impermeable surfaces such as parking spaces and hardscaping in order to reduce impacts on storm water quantity and quality.

Performance: Overall, it seems the grounds department is actively attempting to minimize its

environmental impact. The College has recently increased its use of corn gluten, a biodegradable non-toxic herbicide. Some broadleaf spaying still occurs in specific areas, but the grounds department aims to maintain these areas with corn gluten once the initial weed population has been eliminated with chemical herbicide. Fertilizer use is fairly limited, and restricted to athletic fields. (For more specific information on grounds chemical use at Carleton, see Appendix B.)

At the time of this report, no data on irrigation water use was available (see water use section for information on irrigation monitoring.) However, the grounds department’s basic philosophy is to use the minimal amount of supplemental water necessary. The irrigation system is fully automated, and two watering stations have rain sensors to prevent watering after a recent rain.

The grounds department has always emphasized low-maintenance landscaping

due to a limited staff. A large portion of the landscaping on campus is native (see Appendix C), and the new campus master plan further emphasizes native and sustainable landscaping.

The College does not have policies regarding minimizing storm water runoff,

although the issue is discussed every time the school applies for a building permit. The layout of the campus is relatively open with much green space, thus keeping the amount of impermeable surface area below 50% (see Appendix D).

Recommendations:

Carleton should consider developing explicit policies for reducing the impact of

new construction on impermeable surface area and runoff. The College should continue working to reduce the amount of broadleaf spraying

on campus.

Goal: Minimizing the environmental impact of maintaining landscaping, including athletic fields.

15

Indicator: Conservation and Restoration Activities Performance: The Cowling arboretum is currently 880 acres with an extensive trail system. The

arboretum consists of four main habitat types: floodplain forest, upland forest, prairie, and oak savannah. The Arb also has a number of wetlands, both natural (Kettle Hole marsh) and constructed (oxbow lake, Turtle pond). The College also owns and maintains McKnight Prairie, a 35-acre remnant of original prairie.

The Arboretum is home to a number of rare and/or threatened species, including

wood turtle, ovate-leaved skullcap (Scutellaria ovata), kitten-tails (Besseya bullii), and possibly Blanding’s turtle. McKnight Prairie contains a number of rare plant species, and serves as a nesting site for loggerhead shrikes (Lanius ludovicianus).

The floodplain forest also provides an important ecosystem service—as it regenerates, it will aid in management of the Cannon by preventing erosion during flood periods and buffering against rapid changes in water level. Active restoration work is taking place in order to return former agricultural land to prairie, forest and savannah, and reintroduce species once native to this area. Student-based work crews work throughout the year to remove invasive species, maintain trails, plant native tree and prairie species, and maintain prairie and savannah ecosystems through the use of prescribed burning (on a four-year rotational period). The arboretum management is currently experimenting with the use of cattle grazing to simulate the grazing of prairies once provided by large mammals of the plains. Removal of pest species, particularly European buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) consumes a large amount of time and energy. Brush clearing has become increasingly less chemical and more mechanical, though some hand-application of the herbicide Garlon is necessary on hillsides too steep for the machinery to safely access. Pastinaca sativa (Wild parsnip) is another major pest in particular areas, and is sprayed with RoundUp as necessary. Due to limited resources, the arboretum has a fairly small interpretive program. A limited number of signs are posted throughout the arboretum. A few students serve as “student naturalists” each year, and lead a few informational tours during the year. The Arb also does a breeding bird survey every spring.

Recommendations:

Ideally, the arboretum should increase its interpretive program in order to fulfill

its educational goal. The student naturalist program is expected to expand next year, which will hopefully help to increase awareness of conservation, the restoration process, and the natural history of the Arboretum.

Goal: To promote preservation and restoration of natural areas, to educate students about the process and the importance of these activities.

16

Indicator: Transportation Benchmark:

Specific strategies and plans in place in order to reduce transportation impacts.

Data gathering on transportation modes and infrastructure and distribution of this data to the public.

Performance: Carleton has a fleet of 17 vehicles (4 cars, 11 vans, and 2 cargo vans). The cars

only used by departments and recognized organizations on campus. The cost of using the vehicles is high and therefore discourages some groups from using them. Carleton’s parking plan is currently undergoing change. The “dead storage” parking was originally designed to encourage students, who could not fly or carpool, to drive their car but then leave it in the parking lot until the end of the semester. However, the committee suggested that “dead storage” parking be eliminated due to its lack of enforcement. However, the committee also proposed that any changes made should not increase the amount of parking available. There are currently about 300 parking spaces available for students on campus.

Carleton implements a student-run program that ensures the upkeep of several

“yellow bikes” on the campus. These bikes are available for anyone to use and are left unlocked. The effectiveness of the program varies by year and leader.

Carleton implements two bus systems. One route includes local areas in

Northfield. The other system brings students up to the cities. Both systems are in conjunction with St. Olaf College.

Recommendations:

Dead storage should be available as an option for students and enforced rigorously. The new parking rules should encourage students (possibly through economic incentives) to use the “dead storage” parking. “Dead storage” is an easy way to reduce the GHG inventory for the school by reducing the amount of cars used by students.

The “yellow bike” coordinator position should be turned into a campus job. This would encourage the coordinator to implement the program effectively throughout the entire year.

The College should make a commitment to purchasing hybrid vehicles in the future.

Goal: To create transportation opportunities that reduce environmental impacts (such as air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions) and spillover costs to the campus surroundings (such as traffic and parking congestion)

17

Indicator: Purchasing Tools and Strategies Benchmark:

Address the impacts of campus purchasing in three ways: best-value decision making (considering life-cycle costs when purchasing); contract language to drive preferential purchasing of sustainable products; and information resources for purchasers

Performance:

Purchasing at Carleton is extremely decentralized. Campus departments and offices do most of their purchasing themselves, with the College assisting mainly in setting up contracts with suppliers. There is currently no sustainable purchasing policy, but departments have the option to purchase sustainable products if they so choose. On several of the websites of companies with which we have contracts, the company marks sustainable products with an icon, allowing for easy identification by a campus purchaser. Currently, little information is available on the purchasing trends of departments and offices, but it is likely that sustainability is not a high priority.

The EAC recently recommended that the College adopt an Environmentally Responsible Purchasing Policy (see Appendix). The Policy outlines several characteristics the College should consider when making purchases, focusing on the life-cycle costs of products. It also commits the College to becoming a partner in the US EPA’s Energy Star Program, which would allow the College to gain recognition for many of its purchases of energy efficient products. Given the decentralized nature of purchasing, implementation of the policy will include education of departmental and office purchasers about sustainable options, as well as monitoring of large purchases made by the College. To date, the policy has not been formally adopted. Carleton currently has several innovative purchasing practices. The Facilities department engages in some purchasing of sustainable wood products, which it used recently in its renovation of Severance Hall. Also, many new construction projects use recycled paints. However, Facilities does not have a policy requiring it to use these products where possible. Another innovative strategy pursued by the College is a departmental swap meet held every few years, which allows departments to exchange unused items for things they might need, reducing waste across the campus.

Recommendations:

Carleton should adopt the proposed Environmentally Responsible Purchasing

Policy, and work towards creating and implementing a strategy to reduce the environmental impact of its purchasing decisions.

Goal: Provide structure, guidance and resources for campus-based purchasing in order to maximize the social and environmental benefits of the College’s market presence.

18

Indicator: Computer Hardware Purchasing and Disposal Benchmark:

Computer companies are rapidly developing in the area of energy efficiency

Many computer hardware and electrical supply companies now cooperate with customers to reclaim old or damaged parts.

Performance: The College’s Information and Technology Services (ITS) department has

improved in the last several years in its practices of computer hardware purchasing and disposal. Perhaps the most significant improvement has been the general switch from CRT (cathode ray tube) monitors to LCD (liquid crystal display)/flat panel display monitors. This change occurred in response to Carleton’s initiative to try to meet its Kyoto Protocol standards. Although over twice as expensive up front, LCD monitors are estimated to use 40-60% less energy overall than CRTs. All computers purchased by the college have an Energy Star rating, which is beginning to be a standard requirement for computers. Carleton’s most significant energy consumption in terms of computers, however, is not the computers themselves but the servers, which are consolidated in “the machine room.” Not only is considerable energy required to run the servers, but maintenance of a constant temperature and humidity is extremely energy-expensive.

Retired computers and other equipment are sent to Materials Processing Corporation (MPC), a company that processes a wide variety of electronic equipment, reclaiming reusable and recyclable parts, and disposing of other parts. Toner is taken by Rice County Waste Management for disposal. Some printer parts, such as lasers, are accepted by Hewlett Packard at no cost. Although Dell has programs in place to reclaim used and damage parts, Carleton, as a new customer, has not yet taken advantage of these programs. NEO is a student organization established to distribute old ITS computers to students. However, this effort has been largely unsuccessful due to ITS’s belief that most computers being discarded are not valuable and potentially a liability to students.

Recommendations:

Any future increases in servers should be consolidated in one “machine room,” rather than building another on campus with the same high maintenance requirements. Additionally, when the College’s phone system is replaced, the central system could also be consolidated in this space.

ITS should cooperate with Dell and other computer hardware supply companies to reclaim materials, rather than sending them to a non-part/company-specific processor.

NEO should consider shifting its focus to the distribution of computers to non-profit organizations in Northfield or the Minneapolis/St. Paul area, and cooperating with other computer distribution companies.

Goal: Provide high-quality, energy efficient computer hardware, considering long-term impact rather than short-term benefits. Minimize negative impacts of computer disposal by maximizing reuse, recycling, and safe disposal.

19

Indicator: Paper Use and Printing Benchmark:

Average post-consumer recycled content of paper 30%; campus paper purchasing guidelines; and incentives and information for minimizing printing and copying.

Performance: Paper purchasing at Carleton is done primarily through the Printing and Mailing

Services office. They offer two types of paper: a fast-growing eucalyptus paper and a 30% recycled content paper. The eucalyptus paper is the more popular of the two, and is preferred primarily due to its brightness when compared to the recycled paper. Eucalyptus paper is perhaps better for the environment than standard varieties, coming from a fast-growing tree, but recycled paper certainly has a lower environmental impact. No information is currently available about aggregate levels of purchasing of these two paper types. However, all computer labs and several departments due purchase the 30% recycled content paper.

Efforts have been made in the past to increase the recycled content of Carleton’s paper. For a time, Printing and Mailing offered 100% recycled paper as a purchase option. But due to complaints from departments about paper brightness and to a recommendation from the College’s copying company that use of 100% recycled paper could potentially clog printers, the paper was discontinued. The paper company also offers a 50% recycled paper option, but there are currently no plans to provide this product on campus. The College has no official purchasing guidelines for paper. Individual departments and offices make separate decisions about which of the two options they would like to use. Copying on campus is charged on a per-page fee. There is no differentiation in charge for printing single-sided or double-sided pages, or for different sizes of paper. Printing is free to all campus users. This creates a good deal of wasted paper in the computer labs, which often have full bins of one-sided paper. Students frequently choose to print out long articles and multiple copies of papers rather than read them on the computer screen. While the campus has been resistant in the past to per-page fees for printing, such a system would certainly lead to less paper use.

Recommendations:

Carleton should continue to offer the 30% recycled paper option, and should

consider offering higher recycled-content paper options in the future as product quality increases.

Carleton should strongly consider adopting a fee system for printing, which would significantly decrease paper use on campus.

Goal: Minimize the impacts of paper use by improving the environmental characteristics of purchased paper and by lowering total paper use.

20

Indicator: Environmental Studies Curriculum Benchmark:

Develop a clear assessment of the environmental studies curriculum and work from this analysis to achieve goals recommended by faculty, students, and administration

Environmental studies is an increasingly significant area of study in institutions of higher education

Performance: Carleton College’s environmental studies curriculum currently consists of the

Environmental and Technological Studies (ENTS) program (as distinguished from a department). Students may not major in ENTS, but may pursue it as a “concentration,” something akin to a minor in other liberal arts colleges. There are currently no faculty devoted solely to the ENTS program Most students and faculty involved in the ENTS program are exceptionally enthusiastic about it. Some of the most applauded aspects of the ENTS department include its strongly interdisciplinary nature, its successful use of guest speakers, and its emphasis on place-based learning, service learning, and team-teaching. However, there is a consensus that the program requires more organization, and there is some concern that recent and future loss of faculty will not be adequately compensated for by the College. The ENTS program underwent its first formal review in 2004; the document produced in this review is in the process of being presented to faculty members and directors of the program, as well as the administration. Some significant questions being considered are how to clearly establish and articulate the philosophy and goals of the ENTS program, and whether ENTS should become a department and/or develop a major. This is a highly critical period for determining what the nature of the program should be for the next several years.

Recommendations:

The ENTS review document encourages ENTS to be “a leader in curricular development and philosophy rather than a follower.” Carleton College should focus on developing the ENTS program using the ENTS review document as a starting point. Decisions made with respect to the program must continue to receive input regarding the interests and commitments of the students, participating faculty, and administration.

ENTS should be maintained as a viable concentration and consider the pros and cons of establishing a department and major, as students have strongly recommended.

Increase in staffing level should be seriously considered. The College must clearly delineate goals and organizational structure in writing.

Goal: Educate all students in the area of environmental studies in an interdisciplinary framework, and provide adequate for training for those students who wish to pursue environmental research, graduate school, or environmentally-related career choices.

21

Indicator: Campus Culture and Environmental Awareness Benchmark:

It is difficult to establish a clear quantitative benchmark regarding something as abstract as “culture” and “awareness;” however, it is commonly recognized that these elements are a significant aspect of a college’s overall environmental performance.

Nearly all colleges have environmental activism groups. What determines the effectiveness of such groups and of the college as a whole is the degree of participation within these groups and the level of cooperation among them.

Performance: Carleton College has a number of environmental activism groups in the student

body, as well as groups with some peripheral involvement with environmental issues. Student environmental groups include SOPE (Student Organization for the Protection of the Environment), MPIRG (Minnesota Public Interest Research Group), and Green House (campus house dedicated to environmental activism). Groups with interests closely linked to environmental issues include Farmhouse (campus house dedicated to sustainable living), ANPO (American Native Peoples’ Organization), and CANOE (Carleton Association of Nature and Outdoor Enthusiasts.

The Environmental and Technology Studies (ENTS) Program provides an academic forum for information and analysis of environmental issues. ENTS thus plays a highly significant role in increasing in-depth student understanding of such issues and thereby increasing overall campus awareness. ENTS’ emphasis on service-learning leads to numerous student projects advancing the College’s environmental knowledge and practices. The Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) may represent the College’s most successful integration of students, faculty, staff, and administration.

Recommendations:

The Green Network, a former organization devoted solely to facilitating communication among environmental groups on campus, should be reestablished.

Efforts should be made to engage a broader range of students, faculty, staff, and administration. Additionally, cooperation with environmental groups in the Northfield community, such as RENew Northfield (an organization dedicated to getting Northfield to make a complete transition to renewable energy by 2010) is strongly recommended.

Goal: Create an atmosphere of awareness and sense of responsibility on campus regarding environmental issues. Engage students, faculty, staff and administration in cooperative analysis and response to these issues.

22

Indicator: Governance and Leadership Benchmark:

Clear policies, principles or goals that provide direction for staff, administrators, and other members of the campus community.

Clear decision-making power and reporting mechanisms with

responsibilities to monitor, report on, give advice about, and promote action and awareness around environmental sustainability.

Performance: The College currently has an Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC), which is

composed of three members each from the faculty, student body, and staff. It is co-chaired by a student and by the Director of Facilities. The EAC has been very active in discussing and advising the College on campus sustainability issues. Within the past several years, the committee has discussed such topics as campus energy use, composting in the dining halls, and College construction projects. It has made recommendations to the college to purchase an industrial-scale wind turbine and to adopt an environmental purchasing policy, among others, and has a budget to pursue sustainability improvements. The committee reports and sends recommendations to the Vice President of Budget and Planning. There has been some concern on the EAC that its recommendations are not being given careful and timely consideration, perhaps due to time constraints of the administration and a lack of clarity about final approval of recommendations.

Carleton College does not have a formal, binding environmental policy, but has adopted a non-binding Environmental Statement of Principles. The full text can be found in the Appendix.

This statement does not articulate specific goals, but does provide a framework for addressing sustainability issues. The Environmental Statement of Principles is printed in pamphlet form, and has been posted on the ENTS and Facilities Department websites. Since the College itself has no binding mission statement or statement of principles, it would be setting a new precedent to make this a binding policy. Currently, the policy remains largely unknown on campus outside of the Facilities Department and the EAC.

Recommendations:

Carleton should continue to support the work of the EAC and should ensure that its recommendations are considered carefully and in a timely manner through the appropriate chain of command.

The College should consider adopting more specific goals in its pursuit of sustainability.

Goal: Ensure that policies and other forms of governance address sustainability issues effectively.

23

Indicator: Investment Strategy for Endowment Funds Benchmark:

Initiate a formal and publicly disclosed process to review the endowment with the aim of minimizing the negative ethical and social impacts of the college’s investment practices

At least 15 other colleges and universities currently have socially

responsible investment committees that advise the institutions on these issues

Performance: Carleton College does not currently have a formal process for considering the

social and environmental consequences of its investment practices. There has been an ongoing discussion with students and the administration about the possibility of forming an advisory committee composed of students, faculty, staff and alumni to discuss and make recommendations on responsible investment issues. As of the publishing of this report, the discussion is ongoing and there has not been a formal decision made.

One specific concern is that the college does not currently vote on the shareholder resolutions (also known as proxy votes) of the companies in which it invests, but leaves these decisions to its money managers. These votes often pertain to ethical and social concerns, and can allow shareholders to have a positive influence on the practices of companies. By not voting its proxies the college is losing an important opportunity to have a voice in the management of companies in the college’s portfolio. The college will be engaging in more careful management of its endowment in the future through the creation of a new position of Vice President for Budget and Finance. This presents an opportunity to work through the new office in any future work on these issues.

Recommendations: Carleton should create a formal structure, such as a committee, to engage in an

ongoing discussion of investment responsibility

Goal: Use the College’s role as an actor in financial markets as a tool to support social and environmental outcomes that better represent the values of the Carleton community.

24

Relative Performance The Good Company has completed environmental audits for three other colleges: University of Oregon, Vassar College, and Reed College. This allows us to compare Carleton’s performance to these other schools. Carleton seems to undergo similar problems with monitoring and information dissemination. Many schools have problems with accurately and consistently monitoring electrical usage (especially in terms of individual buildings) and water usage (in terms of separating irrigation water monitoring from recreational water usage). Many of the schools also have limited plans for circulating the information to the people who affect the amount of water and electricity is used. Carleton does not have a well devised and succinct environmental code or statement through which all decisions are filtered. Many schools, especially larger ones, seem to have environmental principles or codes for sustainability. These statements ensure that all decisions are thought of in terms of the environmental impacts that they will have. Carleton currently has a broad environmental principle. However, while many decisions may take environmental concerns into mind, there is no binding clause that requires them to do so. Also, some schools are beginning to form committees that ensure that the investment policy is socially and environmentally conscious. Carleton does not yet have such a plan. Chemical awareness at Carleton is high. The facilities department routinely tests new environmentally friendly products, a practice that has become more common in many schools. Carleton, however, does not implement a strict “green chemistry” program. Many large universities have implemented such programs and St. Olaf College is currently starting a “green chemistry” program. Carleton’s transportation system is aided by the College’s commitment to provide campus housing to all who ask for it. This reduces the amount of students living off-campus who have to commute to school. Carleton will also be one of the first institutions to build a wind turbine, and thus leads the field of renewable energy at universities and colleges. The recycling program at Carleton is comparable to other institutions. However, many schools are now implementing composting programs (at least at smaller levels) and Carleton has yet to start such a program. Also, Carleton’s food service provider limits the available options for procuring organic and local foods. This type of purchasing is happening at least at smaller levels in many schools. Carleton also has not converted, or even offered the option, for 100% post-consumer recycled content paper. Overall the College’s performance is adequate. There are areas where Carleton is leading the way and can distribute advice to schools looking to do the same, but there are other areas where Carleton should take advice and change current policies.

25

Conclusions The findings of this report show that the college performs fairly well on sustainability issues. The college does consider the environmental impacts of most of its actions and makes a concerted effort to act in an environmentally responsible manner. In conversations with faculty, staff, and administration at the college, a major theme has been the improvements made over the last several decades in how the college performs environmentally. Even though the college does perform fairly well, the recommendations in this report highlight many ways in which the college can work to improve its actions and become a more sustainable institution. In this section, the recommendations are ranked in terms of priority. We have three categories based hierarchically on immediacy, importance, and potential impact: high priority, medium priority, and future and minor concerns. The high priority recommendations are:

Improve the College’s monitoring and reporting of water and energy usage and provide better feedback and information to campus users.

Continue working towards composting the post-consumer food waste

generated by the dining halls.

Consider expanding local and organic food options in the dining halls.

Adopt the proposed Environmentally Responsible Purchasing Policy, and work towards creating and implementing a strategy to reduce the environmental impact of its purchasing decisions.

Create a formal structure, such as a committee, to engage in an ongoing

discussion of investment responsibility.

With regards to the concerns mentioned in this report, the College should consider adopting specific goals and targets in its pursuit of sustainability.

The medium priority recommendations are:

Look towards meeting Kyoto standards.

Dead storage for cars should be reviewed and enforced.

Coordination of Yellow Bike Club should be compensated as a student job.

Communicate with Dell and other hardware suppliers to find out what materials they can take back themselves.

Start a program to recycle CDs.

Increase labeling and self-serving of food where possible, and work to make

cafeteria users more aware of food waste.

26

Consider donating pre-consumer waste to food bank.

Develop explicit policies concerning the impact of new construction on

impervious surface area and runoff.

Continue working to reduce the amount of broadleaf spraying on campus.

Continue to stay current with chemical products that may have a minimal environmental impact and make this an explicit formal goal.

Consider a more formalized process of product selection and evaluation.

Consider using micro-sizing in labs and using a more “green curriculum.”

Increase recycling education on campus.

Continue to offer the 30% recycled paper option, and consider offering higher

recycled-content paper options in the future as product quality increases.

Continue to support the work of the EAC and should ensure that its recommendations are considered carefully and in a timely manner through the appropriate chain of command.

The minor and future concerns are:

Use any profit from wind turbine to buy green energy. Offer students/faculty/staff option for “taxing” themselves in order to

purchase green energy.

Encourage student project on environmental footprint for Carleton College.

Make commitment for hybrid vehicles in the future.

Redirect NEO’s efforts at more practical computer distribution.

Consolidate “machine rooms” for better energy efficiency.

The college should continue its focus on preventing IAQ problems.

Continue expanding interpretive program to better educate students about Minnesota’s natural history and Carleton’s role in preserving biodiversity and natural areas.

Increase price for parking permit and implement it across all types of

employees, faculty, and students in order to encourage carpooling.

Strongly consider adopting a fee system for printing, which would significantly decrease paper use on campus.

Look for a way to dispose of rags and other such materials that may contain

hazardous chemicals.

27

Appendices Appendix A This table shows the relative rates of use for different types of campus users used in Calculations A and B. These calculations are based on two different sets of assumptions, and are used to provide a range for scaled usage that will hopefully be useful for comparing across schools. These relative use rates are taken directly from Good Company’s assessment of Vassar College, a slightly larger institution with a similar proportion of residential students and no official summer term. Because of the similarity between the two schools, we assumed the use rates of different groups would also be similar.

Campus User Group Calculation A Weights Calculation B Weights Residents 1.0 1.0 Enrolled Students 0.15 0.25 Employees 0.25 0.35 Number of Scaled Campus Users for Carleton College, 2001-2002

1621.05

1745.55

Notes on energy/water calculations: The 43 residential houses owned by the college are monitored separately from the

Carleton grid, and the energy records for these houses were not available at the time of this report. The students that lived in a house not on the Carleton electricity grid were therefore added to the “enrolled students” list, since their energy use was not accounted for in the total. This should not significantly alter the results.

The water use for March 2004 appears to be an order of magnitude higher than any other month used in the water use calculations. (Water use for March 2003, however, was not highly different from other months). The discrepancy seems entirely due to a reported 3,870,000 cu. ft. of water used by the steam plant in March of this year. It seems possible that this figure is a typo—but at the time of this report, this could neither be confirmed nor denied. If the number is incorrect, Carleton’s daily water usage per SCU per day for the academic year may be more in the range of 75 gallons, putting us well below the 90-120 gallon benchmark.

Appendix B This table shows comparisons of chemical herbicide use among colleges using dollar amounts. Because herbicides differ in their toxicity, persistence and cost, this type of comparison has somewhat limited usefulness—however this was the only basis for comparison used in Good Company’s reports.

Specific information on Carleton’s landscaping chemical use:

In 2003, 46 pounds of Trimec, a broadleaf herbicide, were applied over 13.08 acres of campus during the month of August. This may be

In the fall, athletic fields are fertilized at a rate of one pound of nitrogen and one pound of potassium per 1000 square feet. Because of the time of

Carleton College (2003)

Vassar College Reed College University of Oregon

Annual amount spent per acre

maintained grounds

$45 $150 $13 $88

28

application, these tend to be "hot" products, such as urea, rather than slow release or coated materials.

Appendix C This table shows the proportion of different non-turf landscaping types on the Carleton campus. All prairie and woodland areas have been planted or preserved as native vegetation, and require little to no maintenance. Some shrub and herbaceous beds also contain native plants. Campus was defined as the area between Highway 19 and the beginning of the Upper Arb behind Goodhue and Bell Field, also including West Gym and Stadium (i.e. the Upper Arb and Lower Arb were not included).

Landscaping type Sq. Footage Percent Prairie plantings 4,154 0.5% Prairie seedings 148,198 17%

Shrub beds 177,891 20% Herbaceous beds 31,153 3.5%

Woodland 527,947 59% Total 889,343 (100%)

Appendix D This table shows the calculations involved in estimating the proportion of impermeable surface area on the Carleton campus. The top three categories were defined as permeable and the bottom two as impermeable. Calculations were also performed with and without the area of the athletic fields included. Campus is defined as above.

Square footage of different surface types on campus

Surface type Without athletic fields Including athletic fields

Total turf 607,752 2,028,177

Total other landscaping 889,343 889,343

Total gravel 68,472 68,472

Total concrete 803,251 803,251

Total roof area 605,990 605,990

Percent impermeable 47.37% 32.06%

29

Appendix E

Environmentally Responsible Purchasing Policy Carleton College

I. The College recognizes that part of its commitment to environmental stewardship, as expressed in

the Environmental Statement of Principles, is to be conscious of the impact of its purchasing choices on the environment. The College will strive to minimize the negative impacts of its purchases, while balancing the goals of environmental and fiscal responsibility.

A. The College acknowledges that environmentally responsible purchasing choices will

help create and sustain markets for environmental products. B. The College commits to taking into consideration the long-term impacts, and the life

cycle costs of products when making purchasing decisions. The following criteria will be used to judge the environmental impact of the College’s purchases:

1. Performance, including reliability and energy efficiency 2. Durability 3. Maintainability 4. Natural resource use, including recycled content, transportation costs, and

product packaging 5. Recyclability or biodegradability 6. Toxicity

II. The College will, when possible, use independent labeling organizations to assess the environmental impact of a product. These include, but are not limited to, Energy Star, the Forest Stewardship Council, and Green Seal.

A. To this end, the College commits itself to becoming an Energy Star partner.

Appendix F

Carleton Responsible Investment Committee Full Proposal

The President hereby forms the Carleton Responsible Investment Committee (CRIC) to advise the Investment Council of the Board of Trustees on ethical and social issues that arise in the management of the college endowment. A. Membership

The Committee will consist of nine voting members, including three students, three faculty, two alumni, and one staff representative. The Vice President for Budget and Finance and one member of the Board of Trustees will participate as non-voting advisors. The Vice President for Budget and Finance is responsible for reporting recommendations to the Board. Student representatives will be selected by the CSA Senate, with one student simultaneously holding a seat on the Senate and two students selected from the student body at large. Students

30

appointed at large will serve two year terms. Faculty will be selected by the Faculty Affairs Committee. The Alumni Council will make recommendations to the President of the College, who will then select the alumni representatives. Staff will be selected by the President of the College. Recognizing the need for members to master complex issues and the desirability of continuity in deliberations, faculty, staff and alumni will serve three year terms. Initially, term lengths will be staggered. The members will elect one student and one faculty member annually to co-chair the Committee.

B. Function

The role of the Committee is advisory, and the Investment Committee has final responsibility for the investment decisions of the College. The primary function of the Committee will be to form voting recommendations on shareholder resolutions pertaining to ethical and social issues. These recommendations will be presented for approval to the Investment Committee. The Committee can choose the number of shareholder resolutions they would like to review each year. The Committee may also wish to establish guidelines for voting shareholder resolutions, and can approve such guidelines by a 2/3 majority vote of members. In addition, the Committee will set an annual agenda of limited focus to discuss topics including but not limited to the transparency of the investment portfolio, the ethical nature of particular stocks, investment in social funds, the filing of shareholder resolutions and community investment. Members of the Carleton community will be able to suggest topics of discussion directly to the appropriate Committee representatives.

C. Procedure The Committee will hold formal meetings with all members at least once a term. Subgroups of the Committee may also meet on a more regular basis throughout the term. Approval of an action will be decided by a majority vote of members that are present. A quorum of six members is required for a vote to be taken. The Committee will require a certain amount of information in order to successfully complete its tasks. The College will subscribe to the Investor Responsibility Research Center (IRRC) to provide the Committee with information regarding shareholder resolutions. Additionally, the College will provide an annual list of their investments, and will update the investment information as the Committee feels is necessary. The Committee will have occasional public forums to gauge the opinions of the campus regarding the topics it is considering. In addition, the Committee will prepare an annual report of its activities during each academic year which will be made public.