DOMAIN* MANAGEMENT

A Vision For Student Involvement at the University of the South

DRAFT
03/02/08

* The definition of “Domain”, the subject of the Plan, is presently problematical. Apparently there is
land that has been gifted to the University or placed under the conservancy of the University that
does not meet the “legal” definition of the original 10,000 acre land grant that founded the University,
but was the subject of transactions subsequent to that initial land grant. Instead of maintaining
“carve-outs” and exceptions, we recommend that all land gifted to or under the conservancy of the
University presently be included in a Common Planning Framework, as shall be all subsequent gifts
or grants of land in the future. This definition is assumed in the use of “Domain”. From the
standpoint of sustainability, if this is also a topic that any Domain Plan might wish to address,
"Domain” then becomes not just “land” but a “system.” This Domain System interacts w/ other
spatially defined systems and includes the full range on inputs and outputs that define the Domain
System. From a planning perspective, one then assesses the usefulness of policies that enable
either the system's “sustainability” or promotes its collapse. Just one example is the issue of
agrobiology: as oil prices continue to peak, bringing food from thousands of miles away to feed
Sewanee may become cost-prohibitive. But past farming practices have largely depleted soils in the
lowlands and present plans to develop forested slopes will severely erode soils further. To ensure its
"sustainability" should the University participate, in some fashion, in promoting local no-till organic
farming? Is this a reasonable issue for Domain Management? A systems approach recognizes the
full complement of inputs and outputs that must be managed for the domain (a field of action,
thought, influence) of the University to remain sustainable over time, given the economic and
environmental forcing functions that have been identified to date. [Scenario Planning is how the top
businesses in the world manage this task.] The question is under what rubric might this discussion
take place?
 HEURISTIC ASSUMPTIONS

The Mission Statement of the University, the College,

and the School of Theology

Purview of all disciplines; not a few disciplines or

one program (e.g. environmental studies)

Process-oriented; how the Domain* is managed and

how plans are developed must be transparent

Opportunity to set new standards and establish best

practices that model leadership in land-use

The University of the South is an institution of the Episcopal Church dedicated to the increase of
knowledge, understanding, and wisdom, pursued in close community and in full freedom of inquiry,
and enlightened by Christian faith in the Anglican tradition, to the end that students may be prepared
to search for truth, seek justice for all, preserve liberty under law, and serve God and humanity. The
College of Arts and Sciences is committed to the development of the whole person through a liberal
arts education of exceptional quality. Outstanding students work in close contact with distinguished
faculty in a demanding course of humane and scientific study that prepares them for lives of high
achievement. Providing rich opportunities for leadership and spiritual growth while grounding its
community on a pledge of honor, Sewanee enables students to live with grace, integrity, and a
reverent concern for the world. The School of Theology educates women and men to serve the
broad whole of the Episcopal Church in ordained and lay vocations. The School develops leaders
who are learned, skilled, informed by the Word of God, and committed to the mission of Christ's
church, in the Anglican tradition of forming disciples through a common life of prayer, learning, and
service. Sewanee's seminary education and worldwide programs equip people for ministry through
the gift of theological reflection in community.
 GUIDING VISION FOR
THE DOMAIN*

The Domain* will be used as a field research facility

for faculty and students to achieve a leadership
position for the university in the area of
environmental education and developing models for
living sustainably. Thus, management of the Domain*
will be directed first and foremost toward developing
the Domain* for educational purposes. Also, the
attendant planning required for sound management
of the Domain* will involve students in as many
creative ways as are feasible.

The point here is to identify a vision that is tied directly to the mission of the University, college, and
School of Theology, as well as the specific strategic goal that this entire initiative to look at Domain
Management planning has sprung.
 DOMAIN* MANAGEMENT
POLICY INITIATIVES

Maximizing use of Domain* for educational purposes

Protecting the present biodiversity

Managing the forest as a carbon sink for CO2 trading

Managing the ground and surface waters for water

quality and sustainable supply

Maintaining the land to meet future strategic

objectives of the University

At least in many business disciplines, one is not “managing” anything without first having a plan. A
plan is always written, enumerates actions to achieve strategy, sets deadlines, and assigns
responsibilities. Strategy typically derives from a vision or mission of the organization. The plan
usually also allocates capital and enumerates budget. Without a plan, one is merely “administering.”
The need for a plan in land management is currently considered a Best Management Practice
(BMP), based on a survey of twenty-six institutions of higher learning holding grants of land. Thus,
our first recommendation is that the University begins “managing” its Domain* by initiating a
planning process that would produce a plan and keep that plan updated based on the strategic
goals of the University. All stakeholders (Trustees, Regents, administration, colleges, faculty,
students, alumni, Sewanee community, etc.) of the University would then adhere to this plan and the
process identified by the plan for updating and modifying the Plan.
 MECHANISMS FOR REVIEWING
CURRENT DOMAIN* OPERATIONS

Faculty-led student seminars and labs

GIS Mapping - Landscape Lab

Digital Publishing - Library Services

Interviewing - English Dept.

Land -Use Ethics - Religion Dept., SOT

Resource Economics - Economics Dept.

Hardly exhaustive. The point is to use students to gather and process this data for a central
collection located on the web.
 MECHANISMS FOR REVIEWING
CURRENT DOMAIN* OPERATIONS

Regularly Scheduled Planning Meetings

Open participation; meetings announced in the

Messenger and via the school email system

Meetings have set discussion agenda; time limit

All meeting employ: Respectful Communication

Guidelines; Mutual Invitation; and Community
Study Process

Respectful Communication Guidelines are read at the start of every meeting and every meeting
participant must agree to them to be allowed to stay in the meeting. Mutual Invitation is used to
make certain that everyone at the meeting has the opportunity to speak: when the time for group
input to the meeting arrives, the designated leader invites someone to share what is on their mind.
They can share or pass, but that person is given the privilege to invite another to share. That
person, in turn, can share or pass, but will invite the next person to share until each person in the
meeting has been given the opportunity to speak. Each person can invite whomever they choose,
but cannot invite someone who has already shared. The Community Study Process is just the
reading out loud of a small amount of text (e.g. the Mission of the college or the vision statement,
etc.) and using mutual invitation, going around the room until each person has had the opportunity
to share. This is typically used to center the group on the task at hand the meeting has been called
to address.
 PLANNING PRINCIPLES

The primary value of planning is in the planning

process. A sound process has the greatest potential to
produce a sound plan

Plans are only as good as their implementation.

Accountability for “living the plan” and budget to
achieve the plan must be built in to the plan

Even the best plans are incomplete and must be

altered, as may be necessary, to address new realities
and information

Another BMP related to land-use planning that has changed since the university began formally
administering the Domain under its present structure and process for making decisions is what
might constitute the elements of the Plan and even what “Best Management” looks like. Rather than
limiting the Plan primarily to management of the overstory, sound land-use plans today include
management elements related to: soil formation, aquifer protection and recharge, surface waters
protection, wildlife, microbe health, community and ecosystem health, and in some cases biome
integrity or full industrial ecology input/output system analyses necessary to support the strategic
goals the Plan identifies activities to achieve. Thus, we recommend that the process used to
produce the plan and the ongoing structure to update and modify the Plan over time be inclusive of
all relevant disciplines represented at the University and be augmented by those specialty areas
that are not presently resident. Also, the vetting process for the Plan and any modifications to the
Plan over time should be formalized to be inclusive of all potential stakeholders in order to model a
democratic political process for the students at the college.
 PLANNING PROCESS

Planning Meeting agrees on the chapters of the Plan

Individuals are assigned to prepare a draft outline for

each chapter which are posted on the Domain* blog

Each draft outline is reviewed in Planning Meeting

and additional iterations of the outline are prepared,
as necessary

When ready, each outline is provided to a student

seminar/lab to be fleshed out; posted; reviewed

The objective of the planning process is not to produce paper, but to collect data that can serve to
support policy. The objective of the Plan is to articulate policy that can guide day-to-day Domain
management decisions and provide for the smooth running of University operations with respect to
its land holdings according to the strategic objectives of the University.
 DECISION MAKING STRUCTURE

Domain* Planning Commission five member board;

two-year term; a consecutive two-term limit

Members are nominated by faculty and staff

Entire University and Sewanee community can vote

in on-line election, including students at the College
and SOT

Commission is responsible for updating the Plan; any

proposed changes must come before the Commission

Probably one of the most important issues that will impact the Plan, the planning process, and the
ongoing management of the Domain* is to rethink the primacy of the legal and financial aspects of
Domain Management. We recommend that instead of assuming that legal and financial aspects
have primacy, they instead be viewed as supportive of the overall mission/vision, strategic goals and
resulting Plan, rather than having a separate decision-making track. Thus, if certain parcels of land
have legal strictures we agreed to decades ago that today, if enacted, would sully the Universityʼs
reputation, open the University up to accusations of unethical land management practices, or create
situations that endanger the Universityʼs operations or ability to raise endowment funds, that these
strictures be renegotiated or mollified, as may be necessary, in order to achieve the Plan.
 COMMISSION STAFF

Domain Manager reports to Planning Commission,

as well as to Treasurer. Responsible for implementing
the Plan

Domain Forester reports to Domain Manager

New Position: Domain Ecologist reports to Domain

Manager

10

A placeholder for discussion purposes only. The structure, personnel, responsibilities, and budget
should flow from the plan itself and be adjustable based on needs that may be identified as the
planning process proceeds over time.
 A WAY TO INCLUDE
EVERYONE AT THE TABLE

11

Mutual Invitation works best
2 May 2007
Mutual Invitation: Including everyone
Continued from page 1
for a group between 5 and 12
people. When you have more
than 12, the process becomes
awkward, because it will take a
long time and participants can
become anxious over trying to
remember who has or hasn’t
been invited yet. If you have a
group larger than 12, there are
a few options, depending on
what you want to accomplish.
The first option is to divide
into smaller groups. With this
option, you will shorten the
time required to complete
the sharing. If it is not es-
sential that everyone should
listen to everyone, this would
be the best option. For ex-
ample, I often have about a
half an hour to do a Commu-
nity Bible Study for a church
meeting. I would put people
in small groups of five or six
people. In the smaller-sized
groups, each group would fin-
ish the process in 30 minutes.
The goal of the Community
Bible Study is not so much for
everyone to hear from every-
body else, it is for each per-
son to listen to Holy Scripture,
reflect on it, and to share and
listen to four or five people.
In other settings, where
there is a need for people to
learn what is shared in the
small groups, you can
invite each group to
give a short report on
what was shared, us-
ing Mutual Invita-
tion by the groups
giving the reports.
That is, after the
first group has re-
ported, the group
is given the privi-
lege to invite another group to
share, etc.
If it is essential for everyone
to listen to everyone else, then
you need to negotiate for the
right amount of time for the
process. For example, I was
asked to facilitate a gathering
of church members to explore
what they should do about
their ministry direction. The
issue had to do with whether
they should stay where they
are and renovate the facility,
or move to a new location
and build a new building. It
was clear that in this process,
everyone should have an op-
portunity to hear from every-
one else in this small church
of about 60 people. I expected
that each person would share
their thoughts in an average
three-minute period, which
means the process would take
180 minutes, or three hours. I
asked for a 3½-hour time slot
during the retreat. I divided
them into five groups of 12
and invite them to sit in five
concentric circles
of chairs.
The
KALEIDOSCOPE INSTITUTE Newsletter
inner circle shared using Mu-
tual Invitation and then after
they finished, the inner circle
would move to the outer cir-
cle and the next circle woudl
move to the center. The last
person who shared last would
invite the first person in the
new group to share. This gave
everyone a chance to stretch a
little after listening to 12 people.
After the second circle finished,
it moved to the outermost circle
and next circle moved to the
center to do the sharing. Three
hours later, after everyone had
listened to everyone else, it
was pretty obvious that there
was a consensus to stay where
they were but that they would
commission a group of church
members to start a new church
in the new location where they
were considering moving to.
% Time Available for
the Process:
The second key to effective
use of Mutual Invitation is to
be aware of the time available
for the process. Never
start the Mu-
tual Invita-
tion
process if you do not have
enough time to allow everyone
in the circle to share. If you
end the meeting without invit-
ing everyone in the group, the
process becomes exclusive and
certain group members might
use this shortness of time to
use their invitation politically—
that is, to invite those people
whom they want to hear from
only.
The best way to avoid this
problem is to estimate how
much time each person on the
average would share on the
question or topic, and multiply
that estimate by the number
of people in the group. If you
don’t have enough time, don’t
start the process.
I usually let participants
know how much time is set
aside for the sharing and then
invite each person to take re-
sponsibility for how much time
they are using in their shar-
ing. For example, here is what
I’d typically say: “We have
30 minutes for this process,
and there are 12 people in the
group; that means each per-
son has about two minutes to
share, and that will leave us a
little time to ask clarification
questions at the end of the
invitation process.”
For the next news-
letter, we will explore
how and when to in-
troduce Mutual Invi-
tation, how to arrive at
the best questions for
people to reflect on
before sharing and
other related tech-
niques to enhance
Mutual Invitation.
12