Editor’s note: This is the second article in a two-part series looking at possible changes in the administrative structure of the Memorial Union. Today’s article examines what changes might take place.

Discussions between Iowa State administrators and the Memorial Union Board of Directors about strengthening their connection will not affect the way the MU operates or the way it serves students, said Ryan Sievers, president of the MU Board of Directors.

“Our discussions have been all over the board, and where we end up three or four months from now, I’m not quite sure,” he said. “I think all the rumors of takeover and all that, it’s really old news; it’s not going to happen, at least not in that way.”

Sievers said the board and ISU are mainly looking at a change in the reporting process in the top levels of the governing structure of the MU.

Currently, the MU is run by a Board of Directors incorporated as a nonprofit entity that meets four times per year, Sievers said. From the Board of Directors, the executive director, MaryJo Mertens, receives guidance for policy. Mertens also reports to Thomas Hill, vice president for Student Affairs.

“It’s not delineated in the bylaws that she has to report to Tom Hill,” Sievers said. “It’s just something that, out of necessity for programming, she has done. That is the current connection to the university.”

Sievers said the Board of Directors wants to preserve its corporate identity.

“We definitely don’t want to be made as ‘us’ and ‘them,'” he said. “That’s just not the way it is. It’s a ‘we’ as the university trying to serve students.”

Sievers said there are advantages to the MU being a separate entity, such as being able to hold a liquor license and the ability to go off campus for catering.

Hill said he thought the legal problems of changing the relationship between the MU and ISU might be considerable.

“There’s serious legal considerations. It’s the way that the charters are written. The board would have to act on it to change some of those restrictions or conditions,” he said.

Sievers said the MU Board of Directors and the ISU administration have been considering several models for reorganizing the MU’s leadership structure.

Sievers said the board has looked seriously at the way the student union at University of Kansas operates. The Kansas union is a separate corporate identity with a history very similar to the MU. Recently, the university assumed ownership of the union’s land while the corporate board stayed in effect and provided policy-making.

Sievers said the models of ISU Research Park and ISU Foundation also have been considered.

“It depends on what kind of agreement we put together and what things we use as bargaining chips,” he said.

Sievers said it is legally possible for the MU to retain its corporate identity.

“Really, it’s just a question of what is the function of the Board of Directors, who do they report to and then the relationship between the Board of Directors and the staff of the Union,” he said. “What this is focusing on is those communications networks and the reporting process. So a corporation can still be maintained with the executive director reporting to [someone] other than just the board.”

In some of the proposed models, the MU might be treated as a department of the university like any academic department.

“The concept is to have the students perceive us as a department of the university,” Sievers said. “But functionally, I’m not sure what the end result will be.”

Sievers said he thought most ISU students already thought of the MU as an university department.

“I think that the majority of the students at Iowa State really have no idea that we’re a corporation unto itself,” he said. “It’s just not important to them in their daily life until it creates a conflict for them, and that’s what we’re trying to prevent.”

Still, Sievers said that thinking of the MU as a department of the university may not be completely accurate.

“I think that when you say ‘department,’ you’re implying that we give up our corporate status,” he said. “The consensus of the board at this time is that we’d like to look at the options that would allow us to maintain that charter.”

Sievers said he hopes the board can decide on a model to endorse by the middle of next semester so the board can start renovating the MU.

“The goal of all this is to be able to fund some fantastic renovations for this facility,” he said.

Hill said there are several renovations proposed.

“The Memorial Union has a Master Plan, and there are some other proposals that have been put on the table,” Hill said.

Sievers said renovations are planned for the ground, first and second floors, as well as the hotel rooms, the parking ramp and the west and north exterior wall fa‡ades.

“I think that if students could see the plans, they’d be really excited. Hopefully, we’ll [have them] in the next couple of months,” he said.

Sievers said he would like to be able to show the plans to the students at the beginning of the spring semester.

“What I would like to do is put together a package for the students that they can come view,” he said. “It’s just a concept at this point, but it can show people where we want to focus our money and our attention.”

Sievers said the next step in the restructuring process is getting student leaders involved.

“My next goal is to start to talk to the students leaders and the student body as to what they want here in the Memorial Union — what are we doing that’s really great, and what are we doing that needs help,” he said.

Students still will be involved with the MU even after the changes, though, Sievers said.

“The university standpoint is that they want student involvement to stay the same or increase, and we agree,” he said. “So I think with the university and the Memorial Union approaching this with such a collaborative, positive standpoint, I don’t see how the students could lose out. If anything, they would gain.”

Students currently represent a majority of the MU Board of Directors. Student members of the board are the presidents of the Government of the Student Body and the Graduate Student Senate, the president and vice president of the Student Union Board, as well as four at-large student representatives.

Of the 17 voting members of the board, eight are students, six are alumni, two are faculty or staff and one, Hill, is an ISU administrator. Warren Madden, vice president for Business and Finance, also is the treasurer of the corporate board, although he does not vote.

“From a student representation viewpoint, we’re working really well, and I think that’s evident in the relationship the students have with the board and the university,” Sievers said. “It’s just really, really working well. The students we have are excellent students, great leaders and really concerned about the facility.”

Sievers said the fate of the Student Union Board still is a concern, however. The existence of SUB is required in the current MU bylaws, but if those bylaws were to change in the reorganization, SUB could be eliminated.

“The bylaws of the Memorial Union create a standing committee called the Student Union Board. That is our other issue as far as student involvement,” he said. “We feel that the Student Union Board is doing a fantastic job in the Union and beyond for student programming. It’s vitally important that we maintain that.”

Hill said further decisions concerning the future of the MU will be made at the next Board of Directors meeting, which will be held in February and is open to the public.