Successful Student Unions: Essential Qualities and Best Management Practices

Mission/Vision

Respondents expressed a passion for the idea of a university center; however, their ideas about its mission and vision were disparate. Common themes heard by the team include:

• The desire to feel represented in the university center
• The difficulty of being all things to all people
• Choice between service provision and social interaction
• A balance between student, university, and business needs

Campus stakeholders universally feel their own interests and those of their constituents need to be represented in the university center. It may not be possible to satisfy the desires of all the stakeholders; some requirements may be mutually exclusive. One possibility is a “one-stop” center such as Arizona’s; another is a more socially oriented center with fewer services, such as Michigan’s or Wisconsin’s.

The center needs to balance the need for revenue with the primary mission of providing services and programming to students. On the one hand, renting out the ballroom for a wedding and providing catering and other services could provide substantial revenue for the center. On the other hand, allowing a student group to reserve the ballroom for an event provides a needed service to students. Both types of usage are necessary to manage the center effectively.

Culture/Business Model

Many respondents expressed a desire for more professional management. Their ideas include:

• An executive team to execute vision and ideas
• Incorporation of sound business practices
• Commitment to quality and customer service
• Hire a variety of qualified professionals
• Utilization of a non-profit business model

Students advocate for a management structure committed to student development and involvement at all levels. They would like the center to house staff facilitators to provide skill, acumen, and continuity for student projects. Business tenants (such as STA Travel and the Bear’s Lair) envision a management structure with the resources and expertise to implement plans and ideas. In addition, they need a management culture that enables them to serve the interests of their customers. Tenants want a responsive center staff to tend to physical plant repairs and other needs or issues. They would also like greater effort in the area of marketing and promotion, and help in smoothing out the vagaries of an academic calendar based business cycle and work force. The center management team must address risk management, environmental health and safety, facilities, building access, maintenance, revenue generation, and any other day-to-day management functions.

Respondents described a vision of a university center that operates under the management principles and tenets of non-profit organizations.

Operations

Governance and Organizational Structure

Students, staff, and administrators agree that student involvement is critical to the success of a university center. Most respondents are proponents of shared governance and view student energy, commitment, and activism as a unique and valuable Berkeley asset. The following views were expressed:

• A board of directors with decision-making power consisting of students, faculty, staff, and alumni
• Alternately, an advisory board consisting of students, faculty, staff, and alumni
• Students must have control
• ASUC should have input and not too much power
• Student center management should report directly to the chancellor
• The management organization should be made up primarily of students, with adult supervision
• City of Berkeley community groups should be involved in an advisory capacity

Citing student participation on the Store Operations Board (SOB) and the ASUC’s success at dealing with its budget challenges, respondents find students to be thoughtful decision-makers, trustworthy stewards, and committed leaders. Consequently, they assert that any new governing structure should include a student majority to ensure student values and goals take precedence. Students propose continued participation in center management through control over a portion of center space, commercial operations, and via paid management internships or mentorships.

The SOB is touted as an example of successful collaboration between students and the campus administration. Respondents also cited the Council of Academic Partners, the Recreational Sports Facility renovation committee, the Order of the Golden Bear, the Homecoming committee, and the Rally Committee as models for future collaboration. Successful management of a student center will need to cut across many campus organizational lines and will require cooperation between Business and Administrative Services, Student Affairs and the Office of Undergraduate Education.

Students and administrators alike suggest that while students should be able to shape and influence the management of a university center, core management/business functions are best served by a team of permanent, full-time, and appropriately skilled professionals.

The limited student feedback the team received indicated a desire for student representation in center management through means other than the ASUC. Additionally, some administrators and staff believe that student government is neither wholly nor adequately representative.

Students at large lack adequate information about how the union is currently managed. They seem to view student union management primarily from a service delivery or access to services point of view. Most spoke of a desire for a centralized information center and centralized support services. They want a management structure that is less bureaucratic to students.

The survey also solicited input regarding how the campus might work with the surrounding community. Responses were mixed. Some respondents feel that the city community in general, and Telegraph Avenue merchants in particular, need to be engaged as part of the planning and design process. Other views range from participating in an advisory capacity to not at all.

“When the university and ASUC signed their agreement in 1998, they forgot about management of the student union. It could use someone dedicated—a campus center director.” —Tom Cordi, Director, ASUC Auxiliary.

“The current management structure might be sub-groups assigned responsibilities; but it is not working well. It is difficult to get things done and that does not help to create a sense of community.” —Student

Funding Sources

The responses received regarding funding structure pointed to the connection between student involvement and interest and student fee referenda. Also discussed was the prospect of donor funding. The following options were specifically identified:

• Student fees
• Donor funding
• Commercial revenue

Student fees originally paid for Eshleman Hall; however, current students do not seem to have enough investment in the campus center to be willing to pass a referendum on a new student fee. Certainly, any attempt to ask students for a fee increase would have to be accompanied by a strong proposal with a vision that students could buy into.

Donor funding is a possibility, but donors tend to want to fund academic programs rather than buildings with a fairly nebulous contribution to the core mission of the university. A possibility would be to find a major donor who is interested in beautification of the campus, or who has some direct connection to the student union.

The current center’s commercial revenue is sizable; Cal’s total budget of $26 million is larger than four of the Top Five unions we surveyed. There remain numerous areas where business could be expanded; in particular, establishing catering operations for center events could bring in significant revenues.

“If there is going to be a student fee, the center has to be managed by the students. Back in 1989, the university agreed to pay for a new student center, and they haven’t kept their promise.” —Jessica Quindel, Graduate Student Assembly.

Benchmarking

Respondents made specific and detailed suggestions for how the new university center might measure and evaluate its performance. Their ideas can be summarized as follows:

• Annual customer surveys
• Comparisons with other centers
• Baseline and continuing measurement of satisfaction with center management
• “360-degree” style evaluation
• Balanced Scorecard assessment tool
• Campus resources leveraged for the creation of assessment tools

Process

Moving to an integrated campus community center management structure will take time and commitment. Respondents had many ideas about what the process should include, however, many of the ideas conflict with each other:

• People are not at all sure what the current process is for getting anything done in the Lower Sproul complex
• Move towards more seamless service coordination and accessibility
• Hire competent people
• Involve students in all phases of planning, operating, and managing the center
• Foster teamwork between the campus administration and the ASUC
• The ASUC should have input, but not too much power
• Use expertise from departments like Architecture and Business to help develop a new center
• Use focus groups and meet with large groups of students to get student input

It is clear that students should be deeply involved in the process of redesigning the university center. The effort must be highly visible and collaborative if it is to succeed. It will be important to bring a broad cross-section of students into the discussion, including but not limited to, the ASUC.

“Students don’t think of things in terms of organizational structure...they think of things in terms of topics. Management structure of a student center should take this into account and perhaps organize things by topic rather than by reporting line or org chart.” —Bene Gatzert, UHS Health Educator, Committee on Student Fees