Editor’s note: This is the first article in a two-part series looking at the changes in the administrative structure of the Memorial Union. Today’s article examines the motivation for such changes.

The Memorial Union, the center of many student activities at Iowa State, may soon abandon its independent status to come under the jurisdiction of the ISU administration. Both MU officials and ISU administrators say the move is motivated by the building’s need for more money.

Currently, the MU is a nonprofit corporation separate from ISU. It was established in 1928 as nonprofit because, at that time, the university could not borrow the money necessary to build a student union, said Ryan Sievers, president of the Memorial Union Board of Directors.

Right now, the MU receives student fees to subsidize programming and to allow student groups to use MU rooms free of charge. The university also provides the utilities while the MU, in return, does not charge faculty and staff for use of its space.

Although the MU and the university already are connected, plans in the works between MU officials and university administrators would dramatically change the nature of the connection.

“What we’re looking at is simply a more solidified, official relationship between the university and the Memorial Union — something that will allow us to serve the students a little bit better through student activities and also will allow us a little bit easier route for funding,” said Sievers, senior in anthropology.

He said no final decisions or plans have been made yet regarding the changes; plans are currently in the discussion phase.

“We don’t even know necessarily what direction we’re headed; we just know that it’s something we need to look into,” he said.

Sievers said money is the main influence behind these discussions. In order to get more money from the university and student fees, he said, the MU needs to be more closely aligned with the university.

“We have a really symbiotic relationship that’s working well. It’s just the big money issue that’s driving all this,” he said.

Thomas Hill, vice president for Student Affairs and university liaison with the MU, also said the discussion about changing the MU was prompted by the building’s financial concerns.

“There are a number of reasons [for the changes]. One is the Union’s capacity to do some things, especially financially. There are some limits to what they can do financially,” Hill said.

The MU needs more direct financial support from the university, Hill said.

“It would give them the support of the university more directly,” he said. “Right now, being an independent entity, the university can’t lend the direct support that will be helpful in this situation, and right now, the Union is about at its capacity as far as debt is concerned. To expand that capacity, something has to change.”

Sievers said the MU needs to be able to take out loans to finance necessary renovations on the ground, first and second floors, as well as in the hotel rooms and the parking ramp.

“The Union, financially, is very capable of supporting itself,” Sievers said, “but it’s becoming increasingly difficult to put together large sums of money to do massive renovations, and that’s what we’re in need of right now.”

Sievers said the MU currently is unable to borrow money to make necessary renovations because it’s very close to meeting its debt limit of about $6 million.

“They could refinance it, but they’re still at their debt limit, which means you can’t do [anything] else to the Union; you can’t borrow money to do anything else,” Hill said.

Warren Madden, vice president for Business and Finance, said the concern of financing renovations is the MU’s main problem on the horizon.

“They don’t have the capacity to [renovate] on their own. That means that the university and/or student fees will need to be a part of the funding,” Madden said.

But with increased university funding for the MU would come increased control by the university.

“That would lead to increased accountability in personnel and in finances. Those are the two issues from the university’s standpoint that need to be strengthened in order for them to feel more comfortable investing money in renovations,” Sievers said.

Sievers said legal problems prevent ISU from giving large sums of money to the MU.

“It comes down to the accountability question. If you look at it from a legal standpoint, it would be like the university giving money to another corporation with which it has no legal affiliations or ties,” Sievers said. “Business-wise, that doesn’t make sense for the university. So the university would like for us to be more technically, legally aligned.”

Discussions among ISU administration and MU officials about solidifying their relationships so far have often revolved around the issue of exactly how much control ISU will be given.

“We’re looking at the end result of a long time of doing things one way. We’re trying to remedy that so that we serve students as best as possible,” he said. “The university doesn’t want to invest money in a facility that it doesn’t have direct accountability for.”

Sievers said the main concern of the MU Board of Directors is to ensure the MU continues to serve students as it has in the past.

“Our concern is that really there is no other entity on campus that can duplicate what the Union does, and we need to make sure that we’re protective of student programming and other students that the Union provides,” he said.

Hill also agreed the MU always should strive to be student-centered.

“The bottom line is: How can we best serve students?” Hill said.

Sievers said he was concerned at first that student participation would decline if the MU came under the jurisdiction of the ISU administration.

“When we first started these discussions, that was a concern that the students would lose out,” he said, “but I really think that it’s the opposite, that students will gain or at least remain the same in their representation and control of the facility.”

Student participation is vital for the running of the MU, Sievers said.

“I think that the Union is a little different than the residence halls or athletics for their need for direct involvement in planning and programming of the space because it really is a living room for the students,” he said “So, I think their involvement needs to be a bit more direct in this facility, as it is now.”

In the past, the relationship between the MU and ISU would not have been conducive to looking at increased university control.

“A year ago, I wouldn’t want to talk about it,” Sievers said. “I wouldn’t want to consider any closer alignment with the university. I think there was a lot of mistrust and animosity between the board and the university. For a long time, the university had this dangling, ‘We’ll take you over,’ threat out there.”

Sievers said in the last year, the Union Board of Directors and the ISU administration has been working together to come to a mutual understanding.

“We’ve become much more aware of each other’s attitudes and realized that they’re really the same,” Sievers said.

“President Jischke, Tom Hill, Warren Madden really want the same thing for this facility that we want — they want it to look nice; they want it to serve students as best as possible and for it to be the front door and living room for the university,” he said.

Sievers said the situation has been very complex, and he doesn’t expect it to get simpler.

“It’s been kind of stressful; it’s been very complicated, and it won’t get any simpler or less stressful,” he said. “The only difference between a complicated and an uncomplicated situation really is time.”