ABSENT (SUBSTITUTE): J. Heaton (B. McCord), P. Parks (J. Pritchett), G. Plasketes (D. Sutton), T. Regan (G. Wallace), J. Sheppard (M. Mercer), T. Tidwell (M. Bryant), W. Tucker (J. Garverick), J. Weese (L. Bell).
Chair Kent Fields called the meeting to order at 3:10 PM. The minutes of the October 3 and October 17, 1995, meetings were approved as distributed.
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
A. Provost's Office: John F. Pritchett
Dr. Pritchett explained that Drs. Parks and Muse were unable to attend today's Senate meeting and he had been asked to present announcements from the Provost's Office. First, Pritchett reported that strategic plans from all colleges and schools have been submitted to the Provost's office and are now being evaluated by the 21st Century Commission. On October 30, 1995, plans from Architecture, Education, and Engineering were reviewed by the Commission; this coming week, the Commission will consider plans from Agriculture, Business, and Forestry. President Muse hopes to complete this phase of the strategic planning process by the end of Winter Quarter. Second, Pritchett stated that Auburn University's budget request for 1996-1997 has been submitted to the state. Finally, he reported that the Board of Trustees is reviewing the A.U. health insurance policy. Although changes were discussed at the Board meeting on November 3, 1995, further consideration of the majority of those changes was deferred until the Board meets in January.
Forrest Smith (PY) asked about the program prioritization process for 1995-1996, and Pritchett said changes were underway. He acknowledged that information was gathered hastily last year in order to provide certain kinds of information to the Board of Trustees, and he admitted there were concerns about the information and the process. Pritchett said the academic deans have been asked to meet with their college faculties and develop indices of quality for their particular colleges. Those indices can be used in the prioritization process in the coming year. He predicted that the process would be improved in 1995-1996. Smith asked if new guidelines had been issued yet, but Pritchett said no. The deans must respond by December 15 regarding those elements that address quality in their programs. Once that information is gathered, then guidelines can be established--possibly by early Winter Quarter.
Ulrich Albrecht (MH) asked about the possibility of pay raises in the coming year, but Pritchett declined to comment on behalf of the President's Office.
B. Senate Chair: Kent T. Fields
Fields recalled that, at its last meeting, the Senate approved 2 recommendations pertaining to retirees' health insurance. First, the Senate recommended that current A.U. retirees be "grandfathered in" to their present health insurance plan. Second, the Senate recommended that the President defer consideration of changes in health insurance coverage for future retirees. The Budget Committee of the Board of Trustees agreed in November to defer action on some of the changes proposed by the University Insurance and Benefits Committee. Fields predicted there would be an additional meeting of the Board's Budget Committee to discuss these issues before the next Board meeting in January.
UNIVERSITY BUSINESS: None.
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
A. Information Technology Planning Task Force: C. Wayne Alderman, Chair [A copy of the Task Force report is attached to the minutes of today's Senate meeting.]
Alderman explained that the Information Technology Planning Task Force was established by President Muse in November, 1995; its 21 members represent faculty and administrators. After spending 6 months assessing information technology at Auburn, the group presented its report to Muse in May 1995. One recommendation was appointment of a Chief Information Officer at A.U. Alderman said that, given the date of the report and the budget environment, the Central Administration appointed an acting CIO, Jim Stone (from ETV). However, the Task Force strongly advised that the University hire a permanent CIO after conducting a national search. Alderman also said some members of the Task Force were skeptical whether their report would be heard. He said there was frustration that administrators do not understand how learning occurs or the role that faculty play in this process. He noted that the committee had worked very hard, and chairing it had been a pleasure; he urged the Administration to listen to the report.
Steve Dobson (ZY) asked Alderman to summarize A.U.'s strengths in information technology. Alderman noted the dedicated people throughout the administrative units. He considered Auburn's greatest strength to be the dedication of some of its faculty to information technology and to its application in learning, despite a lack of resources or encouragement. One of the Task Force's firmer conclusions, he said, was that assistance should be given to people who are already interested in applying technology to learning.
B.1. Traffic and Parking Committee: Report on Committee activities--Mark Graham, Chair [A copy of the report is included with the minutes of today's meeting.]
Mark Graham reported that the University Traffic and Parking Committee met for Fall Quarter on November 10, 1995. He said that, in addition to handling the usual matters, the Committee will devote its Winter Quarter meetings (January 13 and March 3) to suggestions for improving enforcement of traffic and parking regulations. The Spring Quarter meetings (April 7 and May 19) will be devoted to revision of University traffic and parking regulations. All meetings are on Fridays at 3:10 p.m. in the conference room in 102 Samford Hall. Graham cited the Committee's responsibilities as listed in the Faculty Handbook [Chapter 2, Page 21], and asked that communications directed to the Committee be related to its customary areas of responsibility. The Committee particularly solicits advice, suggestions, and complaints, regarding matters of enforcement and prospective fines and fee changes. The Chair can be reached by e-mail at grahamm@mail.auburn.edu.
John Grover (Chair-elect) recalled that, when he chaired the Committee 10 years ago, there was an explicit understanding that income from permit sales and parking enforcement was earmarked for improvement of campus parking facilities. He asked whether this policy of earmarking parking revenues had changed. Graham said his records only went back 2 or 3 years, but during that time, parking revenues have gone into the General Fund. He noted that V.P. Ferguson has expressed interest in studying this issue and, according to Graham, possibly designating those funds for traffic improvement.
B.2. Update on Parking Improvements Feasibility Study--V.P. Jim Ferguson
[A handout accompanying this report is included with the minutes of today's meeting.]
V.P. Ferguson summarized findings of the Parking Improvement Feasibility Study that was conducted by Holcomb, Wood, and Associates. The report has already been presented to the Traffic and Parking Committee, officers of campus governance groups, and the University community. The study examined availability of parking, cost for parking permits and how those costs compare to costs at other institutions, alternatives to the present parking situation, and strategies for generating revenue to fund one or more of the alternatives.
Ferguson reported that, at 54% (number of spaces available relative to the number of permits sold), availability of parking at A.U. is the lowest among schools in the SEC (schools in Mississippi were excluded because the data were not available in time). The impact of this shortage is even greater when one considers that most of the other institutions have transit systems. Availability of spaces is lower for students than for faculty and staff at A.U.; Ferguson said this encourages students to park illegally. The study also revealed that the cost of parking for faculty and staff at A.U. is lower than at all other SEC schools except South Carolina. He said even this exception is misleading because "free" parking at South Carolina applies to only a small number of faculty and staff. Arkansas does have the lowest student fee--a $6 remote commuter lot--but most students there opt to pay $55 to park on campus. Ferguson said there was "room for an increase" in parking fees at A.U. if those revenues can be dedicated to improvements in parking.
Ferguson said he had not been able to determine when it was decided that parking revenues should go into the General Fund. He said this practice probably began several years ago when the Administration was trying to capture revenue to support the University's budget. Ferguson admitted that the policy causes problems because there are no dedicated sources of funds for parking improvements.
Holcomb and Wood studied a variety of options for campus parking. Solutions were restricted to those that would not involve destruction of existing buildings, and the consultants were encouraged to keep parking within a 10-minute walking radius of Haley Center to eliminate the need for a transit system. They also considered the university's primary routes of ingress into campus. Ferguson expressed surprise that most traffic enters campus from the south and southwest, rather than the north and east.
Ferguson reviewed the findings of the study, which proposed 6 parking deck options and 3 "surface" options. The 6 proposed deck sites are the "Scholarship Lot" west of the stadium, the "Petrie Pit" north of the stadium, the Haley Center A-zone parking area, the Lowder Building lot, the grassy area east of the library deck, and the A.U. Conference Center lot. He warned that decks are expensive; their cost is estimated at $7,000 per parking space. For example, the area west of the football stadium would yield a net addition of 2,100 spaces, and would cost about $20 million. Decks also can create congestion if they are located in the center of campus. Comments received from almost every group indicated a preference for parking around the perimeter of campus.
One of the surface options is the "Lem Morrison Lot" (at Donahue and Lem Morrison), which would require a transit system because it is outside the 10-minute walking radius. The entire lot would generate 5,300 new spaces at a cost of $10 million ($2,000 per space). The second surface site, the "Facilities Area Lot" (on Samford near Facilities Division) would produce 5,600 new spaces and cost $10.8 million, but would also require a transit system. The third surface site, the "Morris Field" option, would necessitate closure of Wire Road where it bisects this area. The City of Auburn favors this option because traffic flow would improve at the intersection of Wire Road and Donahue near Magnolia. The Max Morris option would involve construction of 3,167 parking spaces at $1,600 per space (total cost $5 million), but the net gain would be only 1,400 spaces because much of the area is already used for parking.
Ferguson assumed current revenues from permits and fines would not be available to build new lots or decks. He said that, to generate $5 million for construction of the Morris Field lot (the least expensive option), parking fees would have to be tripled. He recommended a greater differential in the fee structure, with higher fees for more convenient parking. For instance, reserve parking at Samford Hall now costs $30; Ferguson said the convenience warranted a higher fee. Other areas are underutilized, such as the Intramural Field which contains 200 rarely used spaces. Ferguson suggested that parking in an inconvenient location should be inexpensive or free. He proposed 5 fee levels, ranging from $125 for the Samford Hall reserve lot down to $5 or less for remote sites. His calculations were based on the $5 million construction cost of the Morris Field lot; more expensive options would require greater increases in fees.
Ferguson said feedback about the study had been positive. He planned a presentation in December to the Campus Planning Committee; a final recommendation could go to Dr. Muse and perhaps the Board of Trustees in January. It will take a minimum of two years to implement any changes. He reiterated that there is room to increase parking fees and still keep them reasonable and comparable with other institutions.
Ulrich Albrecht observed that Ferguson's plan would assess faculty and staff substantially higher fees to provide more convenient parking for students. Ferguson recalled that availability of spaces for students is only 47%, while availability for faculty and staff is 70%. He argued that students should have priority for the new spaces; faculty and staff would benefit because fewer A- and B-zone spaces would be occupied illegally by students. Albrecht countered that students choose parking sites based on convenience, and they are unlikely to change their habits. He said students should pay for an increase in the number of student parking places, or there should be a reduction in the number of permits sold. Ferguson said the Traffic and Parking Committee had discussed those points.
Glenn Howze (AEC/RSY) asked how much revenue is generated by parking permits, and how much is spent on parking. Ferguson said income from the 19,500 permits currently issued is about $400,000, and fines (62,000 per year) generate about $800,000, so the system produces roughly $1.2 million per year. He said the only expenditures are for 5 parking monitors from the Police Department, plus the cost of printing the hang tags and parking maps. Ferguson said money for maintenance comes from the Facilities Division budget (out of the General Fund). Howze argued that revenues from parking fees and fines should be used for parking improvements and not for the General Fund. Ferguson agreed that parking funds never should have been diverted to the General Fund, but he pointed out that reallocation of that revenue to traffic and parking would create a $1.2 million deficit in the General Fund.
Cindy Brunner argued that the Committee needs to consider other alternatives. She pointed out that the Max Morris lot, costing $5 million, would generate only 1,400 new C-zone spaces. There would still be a shortage of 100 A- and B-zone spaces and 6,000 C-zone spaces. The net increase in parking spaces on campus would be only 10%; yet, everyone's parking fees would be tripled. Ferguson agreed that the Morris Field option would increase the total number of spaces only slightly, but he claimed it would make the surrounding area more efficient and aesthetically pleasing; also, it is the only surface option that would not require a transit system.
John Grover recalled interest by outside vendors in a private campus transit system. He also noted that the University keeps constructing new buildings in the central part of campus without addressing the resultant parking needs. Finally, he suggested that space at the Kappa Alpha fraternity house be used for campus parking. Regarding the transit system, Ferguson said federal support for small urban transit systems will probably be reduced. The Committee is considering other sources of public funding as well as private sector providers. Ferguson agreed that continued construction without attention to parking needs is "a very poor policy," and he suggested that future construction should consider parking requirements. He said he is investigating the Kappa Alpha site--the KA alumni are interested in selling the house back to the University, and that could free up space, perhaps for parking.
Ulrich Albrecht recalled that, in 1984, freshmen, sophomores, and juniors had D- and F-zone permits; C-zone permits were only for GTA's and seniors. He asked why there are now 14,200 C-zone permits. Ferguson did not know but John Grover answered that the change was made to simplify the system.
Gary Swanson (PS) asked whether the unused, and undesirable, spaces at the intramural field were counted among "available" parking spaces. Ferguson admitted they were, and agreed that it might be more accurate to subtract those 200 spaces from the total number available.
Becky Liddle (CCP) noted that Ferguson proposed a greater increase in parking rates for employees than for students, even though the disregard shown by some students for the cost of parking fines suggests they have the greater disposable income. She suggested that, if students are willing to pay large fines to park illegally in convenient locations, they might be willing to pay high parking fees to park conveniently, too. Ferguson said he did not know how students would react to this, and he would need to get their opinions.
John Wilhoit (AN) observed that the study addressed increasing the number of spaces. He thought consideration should be given to reducing the demand for permits, perhaps by raising parking fees even higher than what Ferguson proposed. He also recommended that revenue from parking fees be used to support a transit system instead of additional parking lots or decks. Ferguson admitted that a transit system should be implemented regardless of what parking improvements are made.
Bob Gastaldo (GL) said that, in contrast to 2-year "commuter" colleges, 4-year institutions often prohibit freshman cars on campus in order to foster an atmosphere of intellectual and cultural development. He asked if the Traffic and Parking Committee had considered this, and Ferguson replied that elimination of freshman cars had been discussed. He said other suggestions included allocating parking permits by lottery and denying permits to people living within one mile of campus. Ferguson said the main problem was that, if a particular group was prohibited from parking on campus, many of them would try to park on campus anyway. Of greater concern to him was security for individuals who had to park on the campus perimeter. Gastaldo asked if there was a relationship between parking fees and employees' salaries at the surveyed institutions; Ferguson guessed that AU is comparable, with its low salaries and low parking fees.
David Martin (PO) asked if the survey of parking fees at other institutions considered revenue from visitor parking on game days. He remarked that many of the institutions surveyed have parking decks that were largely financed with revenues from game-day parking. Ferguson said there had been proposals in the past to charge for parking at special events, particularly football games, but current policy does not involve charging for special events.
Ed Ramey (CE) asked for clarification about funding for construction of new lots and decks. Ferguson reiterated that new revenue would have to be generated for parking improvements, because existing revenue is committed to the General Fund. He said that, ultimately, the parking system should be an auxiliary enterprise.
Alex Dunlop (EH) said bicycling around Auburn is treacherous; construction of bike lanes might alleviate some parking problems. Ferguson said the city is addressing this, but some city streets are too narrow and resources are limited. He reported that bike lanes are planned for Wire Road and Donahue, and he hopes they will be extended into the center of campus. He said the biggest problem is on Mell Street and Donahue, where street parking must be eliminated before bike lanes can be constructed there.
Herb Rotfeld (MT) returned to the issue of student parking, mentioning that, at some land-grant schools, students are not allowed to park on campus during the day. He rejected Ferguson's argument that prohibiting students from parking on campus was not feasible because they would park on campus anyway. Ferguson admitted that his argument was weak, and said he welcomed input about the parking situation.
Ken Easterday (CT) said some faculty members' jobs require them to leave campus and then return during the day, and they frequently have to park up to a mile from their offices. Ferguson argued that availability of parking for employees is "pretty good;" he said the "ebb and flow" is important, not the number of spaces open at a particular time. He repeated that the problem is with violators--if more student spaces were available, fewer students would park illegally. He agreed that enforcement would be a critical issue.
OLD BUSINESS: None.
NEW BUSINESS:
A. Opportunities for Instruction by Satellite Technology: Rennie Jones, Manager, Satellite Uplink Telecommunications
Mr. Jones explained that the purpose of the A.U. satellite uplink facility is to enable Auburn to provide educational resource bases to students and adult learners at multiple sites throughout the world. He said downlink sites are available at offices of the Alabama Cooperative Extension Service. A committee is currently studying federal restrictions on the use of ACES offices and on fees charged for telecommunications classes. Jones pointed out that junior colleges and high schools also have satellite-receiving capability. The charges assessed for satellite courses include an uplink user fee, a satellite transponder fee, and an ETV studio fee. Jones said he was visiting various colleges to answer questions about satellite uplink capabilities.
David Martin asked if the satellite dishes currently being used are steerable, and Jones replied that they are. Herb Rotfeld asked whether Jones knew of outside groups interested in subjects that might be offered from Auburn via teleconference. Jones said contacts with constituents should be initiated by faculty at A.U. Kent Fields asked Jones if he would be available to advise faculty if their constituents express interest. Jones said he would, and offered his e-mail address: rjones@telecom.auburn.edu.
RESOLUTIONS: None.
A motion for adjournment was approved by voice vote and the meeting was adjourned at 4:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cindy J. Brunner, Senate Secretary