Chris Banyas
Life Editor
The 17-person Servel Committee tasked with investigating Idaho State University’s presidential residence facility known as the Servel House and how to proceed forward with the property has recommended that the university construct a new facility.
According to the recommendation, “Funding for the new facility could be achieved by the sale of the Servel House, reserve funds – decreasing deferred maintenance and donor contribution. The facility should be located on campus near the Stephens Performing Arts Center, capitalizing on property already owned by the University and amenities provided.”
Formed in the wake of backlash against the proposed purchase of an existing property at 2627 Wildhorse Ridge, about six miles away from the ISU campus, the committee met over a period of approximately two months beginning in February 2015.
After unanimously agreeing that the house did not meet “business, living and image standards of a presidential residence facility,” the committee generated five options that were then ranked by each member, and tallied together.
The final ranking of the five options after each members decision was tabulated was as follows: 1) new construction; 2) presidential facility stipend; 3) purchase of an existing property; 4) reconstruct; 5) status quo.
“They agreed on the way to go forward but they didn’t agree that building a new [house] was their number one choice,” said Valerie Hoybjerg, Servel Committee chair and ISU Foundation board member. “All individuals ranked all five options and the way the ranking came out is the way the majority ranked them.”
The final count of committee members that made up that majority was not recorded.
“I have no idea why it wasn’t [included]. In fact I was gone. I wasn’t able to attend that. I sent my vote in and they tabulated my information too. I looked specifically for that and didn’t see it,” said Sarah Knudson, director of the ISU Speech and Language Clinic and Servel Committee member. “My guess is that it wasn’t going to look overwhelming enough. If the message to be conveyed is that this is far and above the priority, and that is not reality. It had a slight lead over stipend, which was the next choice.”
Dubbed an “independent fact-finding committee,” the group of “university alumni, faculty, staff, students and community leaders” was selected entirely by administration members of ISU.
No explanation as to why the individuals were chosen to serve on the committee was given.
“I think it’s hard to be independent when you are chosen exclusively by one small group of people,” said Knudson. “That doesn’t mean that we weren’t all free to speak our minds.”
The committee was provided documents by the university including a Business Case Summary, 2014 Facility Condition request response, floor plans and maintenance policies and funding and event information.
After receiving the documents from ISU, the committee obtained other items including “an independent verification of the cost estimates, a professional appraisal of the Servel House, a legal opinion on how to maintain the historic designation of the Servel House if it is sold and a possible reconstructed floor plan of the Servel House.”
According to Hoybjerg, the committee utilized certain ISU resources such as a stenographer and facilities personnel germane to the conversation, but remained independent.
“In no way did they influence what decision and what recommendation we came up with,” said Hoybjerg. “There was a real hands-off feel.”
According to Knudson, members of the ISU administration made appearances and on at least one occasion added input.
“One of the arguments that was made, not by a committee member, was that when you want to bring donors into the university, you want to have a nice setting where you can have a dinner and where you can impress people. The argument being that money begets money,” said Knudson.
That argument was suggested by Kent Tingey, vice president for university advancement, who along with James Fletcher, vice president for finance and administration made appearances at the committee’s meetings.
Both Fletcher and Tingey serve on Idaho State University President Arthur Vailas’ cabinet.
According to the minutes included in the report submitted by the Servel Committee, Fletcher was present for meetings on February 13 and March 12 and 24. Tingey was present February 25, March 12 and 24 and April 14, meaning that at least one member from the administration was present for every meeting of the Servel Committee.
“The whole vision was centralized on the house. We weren’t going to address anybody’s problem with President Vailas. We weren’t going to address anybody’s problem with tuition. We weren’t going to address any of the other problems. Just the house,” said Hoybjerg. “That’s why the mission statement was so important because people on the committee were doing a little mission creep. That’s why we said at the very first meeting, ‘this is our mission, we’re not talking about anything else.’”
According to Knudson, the focal point of the committee’s discussions centered around the uses of the home as a place to host events and whether it was meeting the needs of the university.
“One of the things honestly that really bothered me was a focus on an executive home, about how it should have a three-car-garage,” said Knudson.
The full Servel report is available online at http://www.isu.edu/temp/Presidential-Residential-Facility-Recommendation.pdf.
