The recent installation of new low-flow showerheads and faucets in AU's dorms has provoked controversy and upset many students, leading the director of Facilities Management to admit making a mistake in not consulting with students before the decision was made. Housing and Dining Programs and Student Government are now working to address and mediate the program's controversy.
"We didn't do this well," Housing and Dining Interim Executive Director Chris Moody said. "We should have involved students, and it would have turned out differently if we did."
AU is working with the United States Green Building Council and participating in the Leadership in Environmental Engineering and Design Existing Building Portfolio Program to make the campus more sustainable and reduce the environmental impact of the school, according to a letter posted on Housing and Dining's Web site to explain the changes.
To get the best possible environmental rating, AU had to reduce its showerheads' output to 2.4 gallons per minute. The old showerheads conformed to the federal limit of 2.5 GPM, set in the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The new showerheads have an output of 1.5 GPM.
Mixed student reactions
Students have expressed anger at the change and that it was made without student input.
"What it is is a miscarriage of justice and a travesty that they did not consult students beforehand and snuck in the dead of afternoon and changed the places where we live," Asher Curry, a senior in the School of International Service, said. "We all felt crushed and betrayed, and I think I can speak on behalf of the entire student body."
Students have also voiced their opinion about the new fixtures.
"It's like trying to bathe in a stagnant creek because the water doesn't come down," Jess Berardinucci, a freshman in SIS, said.
Alan Yuill, a sophomore in the School of Public Affairs, said the student body is being hypocritical about conservation by complaining about the new showerheads.
"I think [the showerheads] suck but there's really no reason to complain," Yuill said. "Everybody always complains that this country doesn't do enough to conserve but now that it affects them, they complain."
Director of Facilities Management Willy Suter said he received negative and positive feedback from students.
Yuill said he doesn't think it matters that the university didn't consult students.
"I don't think that it matters one way or another," Yuill said. "Of all the things this campus does that rips students off, it doesn't seem to me that complaining about this is worth it."
Some students have bought showerheads themselves to replace the low-flow showerheads, which Suter said was "vandalism."
Some students voiced their opinions to the Office of Housing and Dining Programs. Moody said his office was "not involved or aware of the changes" but was serving as an intermediary between Facilities Management and students.
"We're really trying to play the communicator role," he said.
Assessing a plan of action
Moody said Housing and Dining Programs is trying to develop a course of action that includes a timetable. Housing and Dining Programs has responded to student requests individually to update them about the situation, he said. In addition, new information is available on the Housing and Dining Web site.
The SG launched the SG Action Center Web site yesterday - at http://act.ausg.org - to gather student feedback
on different campus issues, according to SG President Ashley Mushnick.
"We see the Web as a way we can gather student views and relay that to the administration effectively," Mushnick said.
The SG is working on informing students of the new online suggestion forum by posting links on its Web site and Facebook, as well as contacting other student organizations to encourage them to use the site.
"We're getting a lot of hits on the Web site already," Mushnick said.
Getting student feedback on the showerheads and other topics was the main objective of forming the Action Center site, Mushnick said.
"We want to get the student views heard. ... They weren't heard in time," she said.
While Mushnick said the new system was in response to the showerhead controversy, she said she hoped students will use the service in the future.
"It's not a one time thing," Mushnick said.
Response from the Senate
The Undergraduate Senate has been very active in pursuing the showerhead matter, according to Mushnick.
Class of 2010 Senator Julie Mills said she plans to introduce legislation Sunday that will outline information she received from meetings with Suter. Mills said she campaigned on trying to institute greater conservation efforts and e-mailed Suter about the showerheads prior to their replacement. However, she said AU had planned to replace them before she got involved.
The legislation will present research Mills said Suter is conducting about different showerhead programs and the transitions other universities have made. Mills said another option that may be considered is keeping the old showerheads, but changing the water pressure, a plan she favors.
Mills said the university initially wanted to replace the showerheads over winter break but ran out of time. She said she believed the delay "caused more problems because students can really see the change."
Campus conservation group to be formed
Facilities Management is in the process of re-evaluating the new showerheads, and installed a higher-flow showerhead in six locations in the residence halls to gather student feedback, Suter said.
According to Moody, Housing and Dining Programs is working with the Residence Hall Association to test pilot programs with new showerheads and technology. In addition, he said Housing and Dining Programs, RHA and Facilities Management will form a group that will address the issue of conservation on campus.
"There are more conservation efforts besides water," Moody said, highlighting the necessity for such a committee.
Suter said it will be important to balance environmental sustainability and student needs. "I'm a believer in sustainability that meets a triple bottom line: equity, economy and ecology. It balances all over the place and this time we didn't balance it well," Suter said. "It should be a complicated decision, and it was a decision that was probably made too easily"
