Successful Student Unions: Essential Qualities and Best Management Practices

Recommendations

Mission and Vision

1. A clear vision and mission should be developed for the campus center, before work proceeds further. A decision needs to be made about what the university center should be; the design and architecture need to be informed by the vision and mission. Necessary components and tenants also depend on the vision for the center. All Top Five university centers had vision and mission statements, and the managers interviewed stressed their importance.

   In particular, the issue of whether transactional student services should be included hinges on the decisions made about mission; will the center be a “one-stop shop” for all student services, or will it focus on building community and interaction between students, faculty, and staff? In some ways these goals are opposed; students do not feel a sense of community while waiting in line in Sproul Hall. Respondents were split on which direction they thought the center should take. The campus has a choice to make.

2. There should be a balance between revenue-producing operations and service to the campus. Some services available in the campus center can produce significant revenue to support the business side (e.g., renting out the ballroom for weddings). Others produce little or no revenue, but provide good service to the students (e.g., renting out the ballroom for a student dance). Both types of usage are necessary for the university center to accomplish its mission. A number of campus stakeholders identified a theater as necessary for increased student programming—all of the Top Five have a theater, or wish they did. Revenue operations typical at other centers include food, coffee, beer, amenities, and logo merchandising; some of the unions even have their own logo and merchandise. While it may be politically difficult in Berkeley to bring in the national chains found in other student unions (McDonald’s, Borders, Starbucks), it may be possible to bring in local businesses which could produce similar revenue (Barney’s, Cody’s, Peet’s). Cal could also set up catering operations, and require catering for events in reserved rooms, as does our Faculty Club.

3. Locations other than Lower Sproul should be considered. Lower Sproul has little natural traffic flow to draw students in. There are also significant political and structural barriers to the creation of a unified management structure for the space around the plaza. It might be more profitable to leverage locations on campus where community already exists (e.g., the Free Speech Movement Cafe), where the politics are not as thorny, and where the proximity to the city of Berkeley is not such a problem. Four of the Top Five university centers we surveyed were located in the center of campus (Michigan being the exception).

   The advantages of alternate spaces must be balanced against the benefits of the Lower Sproul space, which include access to parking, bus lines, and proximity to Upper Sproul.

4. The campus should join ACUI. Participating in the ACUI (Association of College Unions International) would allow Cal administrators and students to get a better idea of the standards and practices of other student unions. This would help guide planning in terms of both design and operation, and would expand students’ and staff members’ ideas of what is possible. All of the Top Five universities belong to ACUI.

Organization

5. Students must be involved in all phases of planning the new center. Respondents were unanimous in stressing the importance of the university center to students; from vision development, to design, to management, student involvement is critical to the mission of the center. In addition, the political situation around Lower Sproul will require student buy-in if the management structure is to be altered. During the project time frame, the team was able to meet with only a handful of students. As the larger project goes forward, it will be necessary to bring more of the ASUC as well as the general student population into the discussion.

6. Organizational chart relations should be hierarchical and understandable. The organization should have a number of associate directors, whose reports should be grouped by functional relationships. Student programming should report through an associate director. All of the Top Five unions had clear organizational charts available.

7. Create an independent, student-led programming board with a consistent vision of “social education” or “leadership training.” The board would oversee the planning and scheduling of student programs in the university center ballroom and other reservable space. Such a board would promote better utilization of existing space, and de-politicize the programming process. Four of the Top Five universities separate student programming from the student government organization.

8. The center management should report to a high-level position. It should report directly to the chancellor, or at least to the vice chancellor of student affairs, as opposed to an assistant vice-chancellor or to business/administrative units. Having the support of the chancellor is essential to the success of the surveyed unions. Reporting lines should be unambiguous; there should be no split reporting.

9. An advisory board or board of directors should be created with a mix of students, faculty, staff, and alumni. Student membership should include both graduates and undergraduates, and should be drawn from student government, student programming, and the student body at large. All of the Top Five unions have boards of this sort. At four out of five (UCLA being the exception), the board is advisory in nature; UCLA’s board has authority over the union director.

Management

10. Business should be managed by business managers. Students need to have input into the operation of the center and be a driving force behind the direction the center takes. However, the business operations of the center need to be managed by professionals who can provide experience and continuity. Four of the Top Five universities have centers managed wholly by the university administration. The fifth, UCLA, has a student-led board of directors and a finance board over a professional management organization.

11. The center needs a dedicated marketing and public relations department. This department would be responsible for surveying users as well as producing marketing and advertising material; it should also include a dedicated graphics department. Four of the Top Five successful unions had their own marketing departments; they note that marketing plays an important role in drawing in alumni and the community.

12. As much as possible, the center should be a “stand-alone” unit, with internal trades people, budgeting, HR, facilities, marketing, and IT experts. The Top Five centers all preferred in-house operations where feasible.

13. Consider developing a membership system for the center. Although Wisconsin is the only one of the Top Five that has a membership system, it is an interesting concept to consider. Not only does it produce revenue, but it also fosters a sense of community and helps with security issues. Enrolled students are automatically members (See Appendix 13 for information on Wisconsin).

Go To:

Previous Section (Campus Stakeholders: Management Practices)
Next Section (Appendix 1: Project Scope)

Go To: