What are the “Right” Questions for ESF? — Organization
Co-chairs: Christopher Nomura, Paul Hirsch, Valerie Luzadis
October 15, 2014
Background
The question of how to best organize as an institution so that we can effectively engage with pressing
problems and emerging opportunities generated excitement and provoked participants to express their
concerns and values about what is important to hold on to as we adapt, change, and grow. While details
of the best organizational structures within ESF to pursue its “right” questions will depend on the final
questions chosen, there are aspects of organization that can be explored in the abstract given a few
assumptions such as: (a) five areas of excellence; (b) each area being so large and complex that it
requires a transdisciplinary approach, likely including humanities and social sciences in addition to
multiple sciences; (c) relation to graduate education and the undergrad ESF Experience; (d) relationship
to ESF remaining nimble and capable of responding to unforeseen opportunities and challenges
(presumably on a smaller scale than the five signature topics); and so forth.
Focus question posed at the beginning of each session
Assuming that we have asked the right questions and we have the talent we need in terms of teaching
and research, what else do we need to be successful and how do we best organize to do that?
Responses
Responses from two visioning sessions (24 September and 1 October) and comments posted online
were analyzed and grouped into the following themes.
Strengths
 Past and current ESF strengths relate to
o geospatial analysis, strong monitoring expertise in various spatial scales (from
microscope to satellite) and a new era of unmanned vehicles for environmental
monitoring with significant research and public interest. This crosses numerous ESF
disciplines (Engineering, Biology, Forestry, Chemistry) and in the past such
collaborations have resulted in significant grants (e.g. NASA, NSF) further strengthening
ESF’s unique reputation.
o nationally/internationally recognized professional degree programs in Landscape
Architecture and Forest and Natural Resources Management. Our forestry program,
particularly as coupled with a Forest Technology degree at The Ranger School, is
amongst the best in the country.
o The 40-50-10 teaching-research-service appointment is important as ESF offers
somewhat uniquely a broad and diverse cadre of faculty who are world-class
researchers but are also strong teachers. Excellent, passionate teaching plus excellent
researching produces some powerful outcomes, mainly through bettered students.

What we have going for us is our relevance on a world stage – how can we leverage this to a
new status?

If we’re the only environmental college in the top 100 then let’s use that – don’t throw the baby
out with the bath water
1|Page
Centralizing vs. Decentralizing
 In terms of teaching, there are numerous related courses offered at various departments that
lack coordination through a centralized entity. Geospatial literacy is essential in the 21st
century, especially in future environments where the proliferation of capable and inexpensive
sensors will flood environmental scientists with data (aka Big Data initiatives).

Lots of disparate labs on campus – set up one in a centrally located lab for lots of the soil, water,
plant tissue samples – put them all in the same place – get good equip and all can use – this
would be a central place for ideas as well – need experts to take care of it as well, operations,
maintenance, skilled personnel – don’t duplicate little labs all over.

Interdisciplinary centers would also enhance ESF’s public profile through outreach projects help
local communities and agencies address environmental concerns in a scientifically rigorous way.
The best part on creating such centers is that the critical mass already exists. With just a few key
hires (e.g. a satellite atmospheric expert, an epidemiologist, a social geographer) could really
allow such centers to shine.
Graduate Program
 GPES model struggles to meet its potential – needs to be more flexible and nimble – peel off the
regulatory – it takes a year to do a course adjustment through CoC –too long; maybe a program
like this should have more authority and shorter timelines; get GPES students together to work
on projects in a room outside of the classroom – build in inter-trans-disciplinary means to do
this. For each of the big Qs there should be a section of GPES around that and get rid of some of
the old stuff.

Concern for the PhD program disappearing – seems like a fundamental organization question
that needs to be answered
Facilities/Field work
 One area where ESF might be unrivaled is in the field-based hands-on aspect of nearly
everything we do: instruction, service, research, outreach, etc. Our students consistently tell us
that 'time in the field' is among the most valuable aspects of their experience at ESF. We also
offer more research and service opportunities for undergraduates per capita than many larger
and better-funded institutions. Real-world experience contributes not only to better learning
outcomes, but also a more well-rounded environmental thinker and leader. It also almost
certainly means better job prospects.

If we as an institution agree that 'time in the field' (or 'out of the lecture hall', broadly speaking)
is one thing that sets us apart, then we might organize our efforts to both strengthen and
highlight this as a cornerstone of the ESF experience. As a key part of the equation that makes
our 'business model' more costly than other SUNY institutions, we should step and up promote
it beyond an economic justification, but as an asset that few others can offer, which makes ESF
unique. Among the steps we could take, I suggest a few ideas:
o
Support field stations and remote campuses which are essential for field-based
experiences and serve all aspects of the College's mission. We should think about how
they can contribute to the 'big questions' and leverage this capacity. Reorganization of
2|Page
o
o
o
o
o
facilities, if required, should go hand-in-hand with careful planning to transition our
current field programs to other facilities. We must also work as an institution to expand
their use and develop financial mechanisms (e.g., endowments, easements) for their
long-term sustainability.
Sustainably manage ESF Forest Properties for revenue generation hand-in-hand
teaching and research objectives. We can demonstrate our leadership in sustainable
resource management while creating amazing opportunities for learning and teaching in
many disciplines, but we have to invest time, energy and resources into a well thought
out adaptive management process.
Strengthen off-campus transportation resources and services to provide an efficient,
modern and safe means of transport to and from field sites, for both short- and longterm trips.
Encourage further integration of active 'hands on' learning elements into course
curricula. Develop and offer a Minor or Certificate in 'Field-Intensive Studies' or something along
those lines.
Establish near-peer mentoring programs that enable graduate students to advise
undergraduates in research and service learning projects.

Field stations – invite others to use those facilities to make them known and more accessible
with a fee structure to generate revenue and have ESF students work with others to also bring
visibility to ESF. Ideally the revenue coming in would supplement the cost of having those
facilities.

Facilities support is deep not enough to ensure that everything keeps running – do not have a
structure that provides for unexpected labor absences
Physical Organization

Spatial proximity can make a real difference – groups need to be administratively together and
then within research structure to determine where you sit. Maybe we move this around every 5
years to stimulate creativity.

Regarding the use and construction of physical space. It is certainly characteristic of colleges and
universities to build what someone will pay for. At ESF I wonder if we can’t begin to distinguish
ourselves by identifying our needs (relative to our 5 main goals or directions) and getting people
to pay for what we need. This philosophy might also help in thinking about the structure and
placement of functions on our campus in an effort to create "Hot Spots" to engage different
groups. Here are a few examples and what this might look like.
o
o
o
o
ARB- on land parallel to Illick
Create Physical plant "Distribution Center" and parking on our block next too new law
school (parking coudl be a revenue generator - if it is a parking garage.)
Student dinning hall should be a top priority, possibly a faculty center eatery, etc. - it
should have catering etc. could be located in the spot that physical plant currently exists.
(also a revenue generator)
Move admissions into 1st floor space in Bray and Student Affairs to Gateway Center. This
will enhance synergies with functional offices of need for admissions - registrar, financial
aid etc. - making bray the admin building. Gateway could then become a student center
3|Page
for a support and student focus enhancing the buildings utility for students on campus,
beyond that of welcome center.
Departments
 We have departments that do well, we know what they are, we have a bunch of centers that are
mostly nothing, there’s a real value to departments but at the grad and research level
transdepartmental - what structures could work?


Maybe create a "University College" type unit that could be the administrative home for
academic efforts that are not distinctly associated with one of the existing academic
departments. These could include undeclared majors, non-matriculated students, summer
session, learning assistance, and general education.
A re-occurring theme is the lack of critical mass within some of our departments. We should
consolidate those departments (i.e., ERE/PBE, FNRM/ES). On the other hand, we have one
department on campus that is too big. The goal should be to have 4-6 departments, all with
critical mass, with roughly the same number of faculty, and organized by discipline to deliver our
professional degree programs. Yes, departments are still the best way to organize our faculty
(not around the “right questions”). This is particularly critical when dealing with promotion and
tenure. Also, in the long-term consolidation can provide economies of scale with respect to
support staff and the effective use of graduate assistantships.

Science article on number needed for a department or program – environmental science – Two
trends – fiscally unstable programs, “boutique” undergrad program with a PhD level program,
too – this combo is what we have

Put all general education folks in one Department – yes, we have discussed before, but let’s just
do it.
Positions of Authority
 Need decision-making authority within units re: tenure, budget, position descriptions
(workload), some of the centers are not operating with any real authority right now, economies
of scale can be had by potentially aggregating.

Retain power, decision-making structure as it is for admin and consider alternatives for transinterdisciplinary efforts

Appropriate locus of control and authority might/could/should change in a different
organizational structure

The real heart of attention needs to be at the admin level – professional and classified support
in service of faculty and students – what organization would be best?
o
o
Example – technology- someone needs to lead faculty – wouldn’t it be nice if someone
central was looking at these things and make the new ideas coalesce into something
new. We should be able to do this and what changes at the prof/admin level would
support this?
Does the administration understand the groups that have tried to coalesce and the
potential that is already here? We need someone at the admin level who understands
4|Page
what people are doing and pull them together to get more than would happen in the
one-up way we have been doing it. How is this happening? Who is asking these
institution level questions? Research office? Development office? Connections between
academics and admin are needed to make the most of it institutionally. Academic and
support services are BOTH needed.

Communication pattern through faculty to admin needs attention at institutional level.
Transdisciplinary Approach
 Need to be more trans- and inter-disciplinary. Hard to keep it in place beyond organizing around
proposals. How do we do this? P&T – downgrading collaborative papers is a barrier; it takes
time to do collaborative, transdisciplinary proposals – need structural supports

What if we hired a bunch of post-docs and post-MS to support all different aspects of the RQs as
a means of supporting Transdisciplinary efforts – research associates, instructional support
specialists did this

The idea of organizing graduate programs on a thematic basis certainly has merit and
encourages cross- or multi- disciplinary collaborations and education. But, degrees will continue
to come from departments as the people who hire our graduate students continue to hire
chemists, biologists, engineers of various flavors, etc. The funding agencies and many
foundations, however, look fondly on interdisciplinary programs. Undergraduate education
continues to focus on discipline specific credentials, particularly in areas where students might
seek certification by ABET, ACS, or other professional organization. We shall need to meet both
criteria.

There is also a large market demand for related interdisciplinary degrees and certificates and
our extensive field properties could enhance student experience (e.g. using drones to collect
environmental data).

Organizing around research questions has the potential to alienate many faculty members who
conduct important applied research that may not be related to the “right questions” – or only in
a tangential way. We can still address the “right questions” in an inter-disciplinary/interdepartmental manner. We have a small, intimate campus that allows for this kind of teamwork.
Structure
 When someone leaves we are always scrambling to provide services and programs – are we
organized to do this? Is this the best way to do these things? Advising – could this be done
better? Communication – we don’t have a centralized way to communicate with students – how
to do this better? One person in charge? A bunch of other admin things that are not currently
working but have implications for different organization – instead of just doing it the same way
we have always done things. My job could be easier if organized differently.

Administratively - a unit needs to handle P&T, program support, etc. – number? Research
number could be different – do we have enough people in any one program at the grad
level? Minimum is 8 for SAF accreditation – this is not big enough for admin. Is 30 the right
number?
5|Page

Organizational structure to support research collaboratively with major money to do all the
associated activities, seminars, workshops, etc.

What is the operational reason for structure? UGs come for degrees – this remains – the use of
a new structure – brand extender, getting the word out, hosting events, hook funders,
philanthropic potential, maybe new programs, new degrees, new areas of study.

The org structure might transcend the institution.

Some of the pieces may be in place, some know ESF outside of region, efforts ongoing to
resurrect the Roosevelt Wildlife Station, some of these centers may naturally form and the
foundation may develop them and some might sunset.

Organization as transcending just this institution – it extends to field sites, other institutions –
consider this as part of our organization

Organization in time – maybe not semester organization – short courses (3 weeks) - create
temporally concentrated experiences, could be interdisciplinary. Plan for instructors to teach
intensively will have implications for scholarship and could be challenging organizationally

We could just be more efficient in teaching – combine online, intensives, semester long – don’t
require all to be the same

Need the structure in place in order to build it BEFORE we start one of these Transdisciplinary
efforts
What is it that we do and some of what we do currently are prof degree programs and applied
research, sustainability, sustainable use of resources – thinking about organization relative to
that kind of structure then fitting in around that


Nimbleness/Flexibility
 Need to be nimble, adaptive, flexible in order to deal and be much more efficient in order to
survive – take advantage of what we have and be able to adapt

The SUNY/ESF management systems need reorganization to provide the agility and nimbleness
to address the future five areas of excellence. The financial resources management systems
could benefit from a private sector audit (e.g., Price Waterhouse, McKinsey& Co., etc.) to
recommend changes that enable innovation and entrepreneurial actions. SUNY is very
bureaucratic at a time when speed is of the essence to address global changes.
Finances
 We’re not going after opportunities from companies – who is pursuing this
organizationally? Who is tracking this? Looking for this – the big money – where are these
relationships? Who is tending to these? E.g., big DOE meetings where BP and Shell have $25
million to give - where are we in this?

Do you need to have some budgetary openness so everyone understands the true cost of any
one program – how to prioritize if you don’t know the costs for any one. Participatory budgeting
could be a part of a new organizational structure.
6|Page

Benefits are sometimes difficult to quantify

These big questions will need ‘stuff’ – operations money. Need some sort of organization
structure to keep these things funded and kept up – self-funded, with a fee structure possibly to
do that.
Using our space to increase revenues to pay for support staff – no parking fee – could institute
that – the book store is alumni owned, not college, the café – opportunity to have more revenue
streams


ESF does not have a sustainable footprint – too many facilities for our budget – don’t build
square footage that you don’t need

How to build a notion of sustainability into everything we do including the financial base

How to leverage the money we’re getting - where in the organization is this happening? It
appears to be disaggregated at ESF. If it’s incentivized faculty will form the centers – we’ll get
self-sustaining research.
Recruiting
 SUNY international experiences – we should market our summer classes to the SUNY system to
spend a month in the Adirondacks – opportunity for marketing – prioritize for investment and
possibly more integration with other SUNY campuses – feature ESF as the SUNY environment
school – leverage that
Grad and Undergrad Relationship/Similar Issues
 Resource distribution – UG – Grad

We want integration – curricular and extra-curricular; want to get the word out but it comes
with too much admin work; too much burden on faculty when the program exists primarily to
get the word out to attract students; primary desire is recruitment

Grad programs can benefit undergrads, too – undergrad research, management, service
learning

I suggest that the relation to undergraduate and graduate education will be fundamentally
different, and we need to support both, unless a decision is made to abandon the PhD program something I oppose.

I keep hearing that we produce lots of scientists at ESF. I do not disagree that we produce some
(mostly from our PhD ranks), but the majority of our undergraduate and Masters degrees who
enter the working world after ESF do so as environmental managers of some sort, and not as
scientists. I grant you they are managers with a strong understanding of science. This is a good
thing. I believe a survey of our alumni would verify this. For example, consider NY’s 13 million
acres of private forestland. I suspect 90% of those lands are being managed by foresters and
natural resource managers with degrees from ESF. That is a huge impact. Consider the
professional ranks of NYS DEC – most of the biologists, ecologists, foresters, planners are ESF
graduates – again, another huge impact on the resource. There are many more examples. Why
are we afraid of embracing terms like resource or environmental managers? We should
7|Page
acknowledge and strengthen the many programs across our campus that our producing these
exceptional environmental/resource managers.
8|Page