February 6, 2002
Agenda — February 6, 2002
9:30 a.m.—Meeting, Wilson Library Assembly Room
I. Call to Order
II. Welcome Guests, Members of the Press
III. Opening Remarks—Chancellor James Moeser
IV. Special Presentations
· Neal deJong, UNC Dance Marathon
· Bob Knight, Chair, Transportation and Parking Advisory Committee
V. Unfinished Business
· Resolution on Gerrard Hall P
VI. New Business
· Resolution on Parking and Transit Issues P
VII. Human Resources Update
· Laurie Charest, Associate Vice Chancellor for Human Resources
VIII. Capital Improvement Update
· Karen Geer, Facilities Services (tentative)
IX. Employee Presentations or Questions
X. Approval of Minutes of the January 18, 2002 meeting P
Approval of Minutes of the December 5, 2002 meeting P
XI. Stretch Time 6
XII. Forum Committee Reports
· Career Development: Fred Jordan
· Communications: Linda Collins
Þ Forum Newsletter
· Employee Presentations: Gary Lloyd
· Nominating: Kay Teague
Þ Forum Elections
· Orientation: Joan Ferguson/Barbara Logue
· Personnel Issues: Mary Ann Vacheron
· Recognition and Awards: Shirley Hart/Sylvia White
· University Committee Assignments: Lee Edmark
XIII. Chair’s Report (Executive Committee): Tommy Griffin
XIV. Task Force/University Committee Reports
· Pedestrian Safety Committee— Sheila Storey
· Transportation & Parking Advisory—Jimmy Workman
· Administrative Flexibility Study Committee—John Heuer
P = Included in Agenda Packet
February 6, 2002
Wilson Library Assembly Room
Mary Ann Vacheron
“ = Ex-Officio
Chair Tommy Griffin called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. He welcomed members of the press and guests Scott Ragland, Laurie Charest, Bob Knight, Browyn Leech, Nancy Suttenfield and other Delagates. He then introduced Chancellor James Moeser to present opening remarks.
Moeser congratulated the Chair for his election and thanked him for his willingness to lead the Forum this year. He noted that every time he had addressed the Forum there seemed to be new budget news. He noted that Governor Easley had declared a budgetary state of emergency, as the State now has close a $1 billion shortfall, and is undergoing negative growth for the first time since records have been kept. The State’s economy, for tax purposes, had been predicted to grow at 4%, and is now contracted at –3%, leading to a 7% gap in revenue projections.
Thus, the University must undergo some more budget cuts. He recalled that the State had treated the University kindly in requesting only a 2.7% reversion as opposed to a 4% reversion from other State agencies. Now, however, the University must undergo a 3.9% reversion. He said that the University had directed units to keep this extra money in reserve in anticipation of such an event.
Moeser hoped that the University could cope with this situation with a minimum of trauma. He said that in comparison to other agencies, the State had spared K-12 and higher education. He said also that the University had received flexibility to manage its own cuts more than other areas of State government. He said that it would be politic not to celebrate too publicly about its good fortune in this matter.
The University must act responsibly to protect its core mission in this period of economic difficulty. Moeser said that the second year of the biennium could present more difficulties for the State budget. He hoped that the State could meet its revenue projections, but said that the University must be prepared for very frugal times. He said that the State could see a 7.9% gap in its revenues by the middle of summer if current tax revenue projections hold.
Moeser noted the campus discussion concerning the University’s transportation and parking advisory committee (TPAC), chaired by Bob Knight. He said that there is no happy answer to the question of parking on campus, which will rapidly become a diminishing resource over the next ten years. He said that every element has a place at the table: faculty, staff, students and visitors to campus. He said that the difficulty of having fewer parking spaces as the campus continues to grow requires us all to be good citizens. He encouraged Employees to attend one of the TPAC forums to help them arrive at wise decisions for the campus community.
Moeser noted that the culture of Carolina is one of caring and compassion. He praised the giving of campus faculty and staff in the State Employees’ Combined Campaign, particularly during the current recession. He noted that staff and faculty contributions reached $1.1 million, the largest gift ever. He said this amount represented the wonderful example of quality and culture at the University. He noted also that a record number of faculty and staff employees had responded to the call to give.
Moeser recognized 1998 Forum Chair Linwood Futrelle, who recently received the Forum’s Community Award (3-Legged Stool) which recognizes efforts to promote collaboration among faculty, staff and students.
Moeser noted that Ian Wilnot, the cellular biologist whose work produced Dolly, the first animal cloned from a cell of an adult animal, will speak at the Chancellor’s Science Seminar at 7 p.m. February 18 concerning the “Ethics and Applications of Cloning and Biology in Medicine.”
Moeser invited questions from the floor. David Collins asked if the University had considered using tuition increase monies to avoid staff layoffs. Moeser said that the tuition task force had established the use of these dollars. The principal impetus for the tuition increase had been to protect and enhance the instructional mission of the University by increasing faculty positions, salaries and graduate student teaching salaries. Moeser said that he did not have an answer to this question beyond looking at the problem carefully.
Barbara Prear noted that the housekeeping department had undergone cuts in the last three years. She asked if the department could expect another cut. Moeser said that he was not qualified to answer this question given that finance and administration oversees that area. He said that he thought that finance and administration had taken a disproportionate share of cuts over the years and that cuts should not fall on this area disproportionately. Moeser said that the University must work together, and called upon the spirit which drove the State Employees’ Combined Campaign. He thought that the same spirit should drive the University through the current budget crisis. He said the budget and parking difficulties would test the fabric of collegial relationships. He asked Forum representatives to work together to help the University make good decisions.
The Chair introduced student Neal deJong to speak about the upcoming dance marathon. DeJong said that the marathon had begun as a student fundraiser against cystic fibrosis and had raised $40,000 the first year, rising to $70,000 and $100,000 in subsequent years. The marathon had expanded its focus to all children’s families needing funding. Social workers now oversee a general fund to aid families whose children need treatment.
The marathon has mainly raised money through corporate donations. This year the marathon will take place February 22 and 23, from 7 p.m. to 7 p.m. in the Fetzer Gymnasium,. Over 600 UNC students will stand on their feet for 24 hours, analogous to the struggle that sick children face every day. DeJong said the marathon hopes to raise over $100,000. He asked University staff to support the marathon either financially or with their support.
DeJong said that families of children benefiting from the marathon show up to support dancers. He noted that the marathon will hold a free faculty and staff luncheon at the bottom of Lenoir for students involved in the dance marathon. He noted that staff can also donate money from their OneCard, or through cash. Lee Edmark asked if the marathon will take check donations. DeJong said that it would find a way. Collins asked if the students will continue to take donations from passing cars on Manning Drive. DeJong said that students will continue to do so in greater numbers as the event approaches.
The Chair noted that the State Employees’ Combined Campaign and the dance marathon offered Employees a chance to help others. He also noted that Employees had offered a lot of good information at the recent TPAC community meetings, and praised Bob Knight’s chairmanship, although he did not envy him the job.
Knight thanked the Forum for inviting him again today. He noted that the Forum had heard from him a couple of weeks ago at its January retreat. He noted that TPAC has a website at which Employees can find out information about the process. He noted that the Forum, Faculty Council, Student Government and representatives from all University schools have representatives on TPAC.
Knight said that the work of the committee has been difficult and would become more difficult in the future. He noted that the campus master plan and the bond issue had placed a great strain on the amount of campus parking. The University had resolved to make it easier for people at the University to travel to and from work and also around campus. The University had charged the committee to address all areas related to public transit.
In order to adjust to the new realities of the campus master plan, the University would need to eliminate some parking spaces. The University must also enhance its mass transit services to make them reliable and safe. He noted that the University had hired a transit demand manager, Debbie Freed, to handle the transition to mass transit, and had backed an effort to make Chapel Hill Transit fare-free. TPAC has worked to find other ways to publicize the benefits of mass transit to Employees, including the options for park and ride users in case of emergencies.
Knight said that the Public Safety budget now faces a $2 million shortfall, not including the possible loss of parking fines which the State might divert to the public school system. He said that TPAC had discussed every possible option to raise money for the shortfall, which had grown as a result of debt service and lost parking revenue. He said that TPAC would try to split the pie in order to find the least painful way forward for everyone. He said that every part of campus must participate in some way. He urged Employees to think of creative solutions to this problem.
Collins noted that Michael Klein, a former director of University Transportation and Parking, had discussed a buyout option to convince Employees to give up their parking spots, essentially paying them not to bring a car to campus. Knight said that this question went to the heart of parking demand management. He said that the University would try to create incentives to encourage Employees to take the bus to work. Carolyn Elfland said that other universities had indeed paid employees not to bring a car to campus, but she did not think that the University could afford to do so.
Mary Ann Vacheron read a prepared statement concerning TPAC and the University’s handling of the parking and transit situation.
This morning I am expressing my views as an employee and taxpayer and not as a representative of any forum committee.
I would like to extend my sympathies to the members of TPAC, especially Mr. Knight who is so new. I know the members of TPAC have spent many long hours exploring these transit issues. However, I would like to respectfully suggest that this is not a problem that should be given to TPAC, to the Department of Public Safety, nor to the employees to solve. I attended quite a few TPAC related meetings last year and the impression I received was that we are in this situation due to lack of planning. Our current leaders are still relatively new and while I realize they did not create this situation and it is a sizeable problem that they have inherited, I believe it is their responsibility to cover the operating costs of the university out of the university’s budget and not out of the pockets of employees. I guess I don’t understand why the university is expanding at such an accelerated rate when it doesn’t have the money to cover current operational needs.
Also, this issue was at approximately the same stage last year when it was brought before the forum as being urgent and now all of a sudden it’s again an urgent issue. I don’t think it is fair for the administration, which put the issue aside for a year, to all of a sudden make it an emergency. This is crisis management and does not allow adequate time to thoughtfully review all the documentation.
Reasons why I don’t think employees should be charged a transit fee:
1. Staff were hard hit by health insurance and pharmacy increases last year. I hear it may be even worse this year.
2. Raises for staff were minimal but, as is usual these days, faculty got substantial raises from tuition increases. Staff seem always be included in any fee increases but not in salary or vacation increases. I would like to point out that in last week’s DTH it stated that the average faculty salary is $109,000. While a transit fee may seem minimal to a faculty member it may be very significant to a staff member who earns $20,000 and has a family to support.
3. Many employees cannot afford to have their spouse or their children included in their health insurance plan and I think it is shameful to ask these people for more money when they cannot even afford the basics in life.
4. Last year EPA employees were given an additional 3 weeks vacation time¾SPA employees were not. It would take an SPA employee 20 years to earn the amount of vacation leave an EPA employee now gets when they walk in the door.
5. I would also like to point out that many employees cannot make ends meet on the salary that they make at the university and are required to have second jobs.
6. There is a high employee turnover rate which costs the university a substantial amount of money. It would be in everyone’s best interests if the university did things to encourage employees to stay. Transit fees and parking increases do not make the university more attractive.
Suggestions as to where the administration might get the funds:
1. General Assembly – I’ve been told that they needlessly went over their session last year by at least two months at an expense to taxpayers of $20,000,000.
2. Recently I read in the newspaper that the General Assembly gives the athletic department $1,000,000 every year to cover operating losses at the dean dome. I’m guessing that a department that can give one employee a $100,000 raise in such financially distressing times might be able to find another source for that million dollars¾Nike, perhaps?
This morning in the Chapel Hill News I read that Gov. Mike Easley announced that he would use his emergency powers to withhold disbursements to counties and towns to help make up for a projected shortfall of $900 million.
Carrboro Mayor Mike Nelson said that was terrible news and Carrboro would have difficulty coming up with their share of the money.
Mayor Nelson went on to say, “I’m not completely surprised, but I hope they come to their senses. It’s no secret that the state budget is in financial distress, but that’s a problem of their own making. The legislature created this mess, and I wish they wouldn’t try to balance their budget on our backs.”
I agree with his message to the legislators and would remind everyone that this is an election year and I think our conversation about fiscal responsibility with elected officials needs to start very early this year. And we must remember that we have a voice as to who represents us in Raleigh. We are not helpless.
Knight said that concerning bond funding, he noted that the taxpayers have voted and the State will work to maintain its credit rating. He granted that campus construction has a big impact on everyone, but noted that everyone had had a chance to participate in the planning process. Everyone should have been aware of what was to come.
Knight said that as chair of TPAC, he would take a multiyear approach to let people know ahead of time what changes are to come. He said that the committee would hold forums more than once a year to communicate with everyone. He said that TPAC faces a difficult job of not balancing the budget difficulties on any one group. He hoped that all twenty-eight people on the committee could build a plan of consensus with which everyone could live.
An Employee noted that disability permits have increased at the Dean Dome but have decreased on North Campus. She said that handicapped parkers at the Dean Dome have had to use P2P shuttle service to get to and from their workplace. She thought that this system defeated the purpose of the handicapped spaces, and wanted to know if this report reflected general practice. Knight said that he did not know and urged the questioner to contact Chief Poarch or Public Safety.
Elfland said that disability permits do not come from a department’s allocation. Those who end up with temporary disability permits have it difficult to have them taken away after their allocations are made. Instead, Public Safety has devised a system of temporary disability permits. Unfortunately, North Campus has seen a decrease in the number of these permits. These temporary permits have been moved to the S-11 lot. However, Elfland did not think Public Safety had moved the permanent disability permits there. She encouraged the Employee to contact Cheryl Stout for more information.
Tom Arnel asked if TPAC had seriously studied a sliding scale system of parking permit fees for faculty and staff. Knight said that the committee had looked at this question last year, and had tried to find data on the distribution of salaries. He said that a sliding scale might negatively affect parking revenue.
Knight added that he felt sensitive to Employees feeling about parking permit increases in a difficult financial year. He said that the University must find revenue for Public Safety to meet its budget. He added that all planning behind new campus buildings had been done under the assumption that many more people will take the bus to work. People will not take the bus to work if the University makes parking cheaper; the University must find a way to reward, rather than punish, people using mass transit.
Collins asked if the University might look into the buyout option that he mentioned earlier in the meeting. He noted that the University had moved forward with its flexibility study, and so eventually become exempt from Office of State Personnel rules. Collins also asked when the General Assembly gave the University the authority to tax its Employees through a transit fee.
Knight said that TPAC had found that the University of Georgia has implemented a transit fee from its employees to pay for transit improvements. He said that the University would need to study the legality of the question.
Chris Koltz urged Knight to look into a sliding sale on parking, on behalf of the people making only $18,500 a year. He said that the first year he worked on campus he received a 30% parking increase, with his bill totaling around $300, a week’s pay. He said that if parking goes up 30% it would hurt him greatly. He noted that Employees have taken hits in other areas, and he could not see the end of the difficulty for lower income Employees. He did not see the fairness of people making $200,000 a year and $18,000 a year both paying the same amount for parking.
Knight said that TPAC did not plan to raise the money for the deficit solely from parking permit increases, and anticipated only a modest increase in parking permit fees. He added that it was TPAC’s job to do long-range planning for when debt service for the new parking decks comes on-line.
A delegate asked what would happen if everyone decided to take the fare-free transit and no one used the new parking decks. She thought that the University would face trouble meeting its budget in that situation.
Knight responded that with the additional number of students, faculty and staff arriving on campus in the next ten years, more people will come to campus to use these decks. He noted that the Town of Chapel Hill had put in place stipulations that hold down the number of cars that should enter the town. He noted that if the price for parking rises too high it would drive people away, but the University has managed its parking demand for a number of years and should be able to anticipate parking levels.
Elfland noted that the 1998 campus parking and transit task force had recommended that the University not try to replace spaces lost due to construction. The University has elected to build decks to meet increased visitor parking needs but not increased student and Employee needs. She said that the arts deck and the new hospital deck will be primarily visitor lots. She also noted that at the end of this round of deck construction, there will be only 435 spaces more than we have now. Between now and the completion of these decks, there will major temporary shortfalls in parking. Also, at the completion of these decks, the University will have a 44% increase in staff and faculty employees and the Hospital a 16% increase.
The master plan had originally capped the central campus’ square footage at 14 million square feet, with the rest of campus growth to go onto the Horace Williams tract. However, the University made a decision to direct its building onto the main campus, growing an additional 5.9 million square feet, close to a 50% increase in square footage. She noted that the master plan directs the campus to be more pedestrian-oriented, and to preserve green space. In order to accomplish these goals, surface parking must go. These spaces are replaced with deck spaces.
Currently, 77% of all staff and faculty employees drive alone to work. The campus master plan projects reducing this number to 60%. Other people will shift to mass transit and park and ride options. She noted that in planning, when a sharp decrease in parking occurs, usually people are more willing to pay a higher price to come to campus. In sum, Elfland thought that the new decks will be full even with the continuation of the fare-free system.
An Employee thought that it was disingenuous for the University to price out its staff employees from its parking spaces. She thought that the 60% of on-campus parkers will be faculty, since faculty members will be the only ones who could afford the increased prices. She said that a sliding scale was the only fair way to distribute parking permits, since otherwise staff members will not be able to afford their spots. She said that the University must at some point come clean with how it feels about its Employees.
Nora Robbins said that if the University provides a sliding scale for parking permits, it could create a differential benefit and thus taxable income. This differential rate could create tax problems for these Employees.
Knight said that the Employee Forum was very well represented. He said that Employees had made their opinions very well known to the committee. An Employee said that everyone was willing to play their part.
Roy Caudle asked about the University’s long term Public Safety budget problem, given the current $2 million deficit. He granted that Employees must incur some of these costs. Knight said that the University must find funds to support increased debt service on decks, additional bus routes, and other items. Caudle anticipated that all of these costs would funnel down to Employees. Knight said that the University would not place the entire burden upon staff employees, noting that students will have to pay more as well. He said that all options are still on the table.
Lee Edmark noted that new capital construction projects are displacing parking construction. He asked if these projects would subsidize the new decks. Elfland said that University policy states that any project that takes permanent parking spaces must pay into the deck construction fund, at $15,000 a space. Also, construction projects must compensate the fund for spaces temporarily occupied for workers and equipment. She said that the University has not enforced this policy in the past, but has enforced it since the 1998 task force recommendations.
Fred Jordan noted the parking deck supplement list. Elfland said that some organizations contribute and subsidize construction of decks, such as the Business School and the Educational Foundation. She said that the Educational Foundation had subsidized probably 80-85% of the cost of the Craig Deck. All of the Health Affairs schools and the UNC Health Care System had subsidized the Health Affairs 2 deck. These schools target their debt payment and make separate payments for spaces.
Jordan asked about the departmental transit fee. Elfland said that the University had enacted a departmental transit fee on TPAC’s recommendation, as last year the University needed to find $2 million. TPAC felt that implementing a departmental fee enabled Employees to travel around campus to do their jobs, and that the University should pay for this improvement rather than passing the bill to students or Employees. All departments, be they funded from contracts and grants or State funds, pay in a percentage of salary for each full and part time Employee.
Jordan asked from where the University found its one-time transit payment of $500,000 last year. Elfland said that the payment was the fourth part of the $2 million budget. Since University Employees had received only a minimal salary increase that year and spiraling health insurance costs, TPAC asked the University to kick in $500,000 for one time only to avoid a parking permit increase. She said that the University budget committee had allocated the money from a central fund. She emphasized that this was a one time contribution.
Vacheron asked if TPAC will make its proposals before the Board of Trustees at its February meeting. Knight said that the committee will try to have an ordinance meeting at the end of March, after receiving additional input from campus. He hoped to come up with recommendations that all feel are fair and that share the campus’ pain.
An Employee asked if the Forum and staff Employees will be informed what TPAC will present beforehand. Knight said that TPAC will make this publicity part of its process. He noted that the committee will now meet year-round, rather than just in the fall and spring. He said that the committee will work on difficult issues throughout the year rather than rushing through questions before making proposals to the Board of Trustees each spring. He said that it was important to keep the campus conversation going.
Keith Fogleman praised Elfland for her good word following the snow cleanup, and thanked her for her work behind the scenes. The Chair agreed with Fogleman’s sentiment.
The Chair noted that the resolution concerning Gerrard Hall was now up for second reading. He read the resolution.
Sylvia White moved that the Forum accept the resolution as written. Ray Doyle seconded this motion. The motion carried by acclamation. The Chair said that he would forward the resolution to the Chancellor very happily.
The Chair noted that the Forum had a resolution before it concerning parking permit fees and night parking. He said that he would postpone consideration of the resolution until the end of the meeting, in order to deal with other business.
Human Resources Update
The Chair introduced Associate Vice Chancellor for Human Resources Laurie Charest to provide the Forum’s customary Human Resources update. She noted that both of the responses to the University’s consortium request for proposals on dependent health care insurance had been unsatisfactory. Both RFPs for gap plans for catastrophic coverage and base coverage required medical underwriting, an unacceptable condition for the University. Also, both proposals wanted to cover all Employees, not just dependents. Charest was disappointed by the results, but praised the University Insurance committee for its attempt at an innovative solution to a University problem.
Charest noted that the North Carolina Flex program also offers the possibility of gap coverage for Employees. She said that the committee is soliciting comments about some aspects of the State plan. Employees with comments can forward them to Charest or Brenda Gregory in Benefits.
Charest noted that applications for the Carolina Kids’ Camp would be due by 5 p.m. that day.
Charest noted that the personnel flexibility committee had been at work finishing a survey to go to all faculty and staff by late February. The benchmarking subcommittee had worked the phones to survey peer institutions about their work. This effort has been documented on the University website and the institutional research homepage. Charest noted that the committee did not expect to issue recommendations now until next year.
Finally, Charest noted a change in the employment office. Now, applicants can use one application, and applicants can now identify specific positions for which they would like to apply. Also, Employment will now accept e-mail as well as paper applications.
Last Friday, enhancements to the University’s Human Resources Information System (HRIS) will streamline the employment requisition process for departments. Now, the University will be able to post positions much more quickly than previously.
Approval of the Minutes
The Chair called for a motion to approve the minutes of the January meeting. Keith Fogleman made this motion, seconded by Tom Arnel. The motion was approved by acclamation.
The Chair called for a motion to approve the minutes of the December 2001 meeting. Barbara Logue made this motion, seconded by Fogleman. The motion was approved by acclamation.
The Forum then took a five minute break.
Fred Jordan, chair of the Career Development committee, had nothing to report. He noted that the group would meet on February 21 in 042 Sitterson Hall.
Barbara Logue of the Communications committee said that the group had discussed its plans for the year, most notably the monthly Forum newsletter InTouch. She said that the committee will also look at publication of the annual University Gazette insert and a revision of the Forum website.
Gary Lloyd, chair of the Employee Presentations committee, said that the group had met the Monday previous. He said that the committee had discussed the group’s general charge, and possible community meeting topics. The committee had expressed an interest in holding a community meeting on the personnel flexibility issue, and inviting Chancellor Moeser for a community meeting.
Kay Teague, chair of the Nominating committee, said that the committee had met January 29 to discuss its charge and plans for the year.. She invited Delagates and alternates to serve on the committee, particularly those from divisions 4 and 8.
Logue, chair of the Orientation committee, said that the committee had met that morning to discuss the schedule and plans for the year. She noted the committee would plan the Forum orientation, retreat and reception for outgoing Delagates. She noted also that the Forum had asked the committee to participate in work on the Forum’s ten year anniversary.
Mary Ann Vacheron, chair of the Personnel Issues committee, said that the group had discussed last year’s work and the focus of activities for this year. The committee plans to work on health insurance, parking and legislative concerns.
Shirley Hart, co-chair of the Recognition & Awards committee, said that group would hold its meetings on the first Monday of each month. The committee had reviewed its goals and discussed possible events for 2002.
Lee Edmark, chair of the University Committee Assignments committee, said that group had met for the first time that morning in advance of the regular Forum meeting. He said that the committee had discussed the need for staff volunteers to serve on Carolina Center for Public Service selection committees. These meetings should only require only one or two meetings to select winners of Bryan Fellowships, University Provost awards and student public service grants. Employees interested should contact Edmark.
The Chair noted that the Executive Committee had met on January 29 to discuss a variety of issues, including transit and parking concerns and use of the staff development fund proceeds. He noted that TPAC representatives Joanne Kucharski and Jimmy Workman had come to speak during the meeting.
Jimmy Workman thanked the Forum for the chance to serve as staff representative on TPAC. He thought the feedback at the community forums had been very good, and noted the difficulty in balancing the budget this year. He related issues with regard to proposed night parking plans, particularly the overall demand for parking spaces on the entire campus versus north campus spots. He said that the committee generally felt that daytime parking permit holders would not incur another charge to park on campus at night. He said that the cost of visitor parking would probably hold at $1 an hour. He noted that the University would almost certainly not charge the $363 a year figure for a night time permit which had been quoted in the newspapers. He noted the figures quoted had been used to describe various financial models the University might pursue to meet the $2 million deficit.
Fred Jordan noted that over $1 million of the $2 million shortfall was going to Chapel Hill Transit to support fare-free bus service. He thought that it was not fair for those who park to pay for those who ride for free. He thought that if the University wants fare-free transit it should pay for this service in another way. Workman said that he agreed with this sentiment and said that he had heard it in the community meetings yesterday.
The Chair opened up discussion on the resolution on parking permit increases and student transit fees. Jim Bennett asked whether putting the cost to meet the shortfall should go on University accounts. He said that the University budget should absorb the entire cost of the shortfall. Vacheron asked if the increase in departmental fees would affect anyone’s employment. She thought that it was the responsibility of the administration to fund the shortfall, and that the University should not implement permit increases.
Workman said that he would have to resign if the Forum forced him to take the proposed resolution to TPAC. Kucharski added that she would follow Workman in resigning. Workman said that the resolution would not give him negotiating power. He said that the hard numbers written in the resolution would not give him any bargaining room. He proposed to amend the resolution, but it was pointed out that he did not have standing to offer amendments to Forum resolutions as he was not a Forum delegate. Procedurally, he would need to have a delegate sponsor his proposed amendment to the Forum.
Fred Jordan moved that the Forum postpone its discussion of the resolution indefinitely, effectively killing it. Patricia Vaught seconded this motion, and the Forum voted to approve the motion, tabling the resolution.
Fogleman said that he wanted to discuss the resolution, but it was noted that the Forum had already voted to table it. Jordan said that he had the utmost faith in Workman and Kucharski that they would represent the Forum’s interests, along with School of Social Work representative Andy Chrismon.
Roy Caudle noted that Employees would have to pay some parking permit increase. Chrismon thought that figure would be up to the powers in charge.
Workman asked the Forum to participate in a straw vote to take back to TPAC on parking concerns. He asked how Delegates felt about the idea of a transit tax. The Chair said that he thought a transit fee was a bad idea. Kucharski said that students will hammer the University if it approves a transit fee for them. Chris Koltz asked who would feel it is fair for night time Employees not to pay a parking fee while daytime Employees must pay to park. Vaught thought that nighttime parkers should pay for some kind of permit, given that she often has difficulty parking when arriving on campus at 8 a.m.
Workman said that third shift Employees would not be included in a night parking plan given the limited number of people affected. Second shift Employees would be affected by enforcement, however, possibly until midnight.
Andy Maglione noted that some students use night time parking mainly to get from their dorms to the gymnasium. Kucharski noted that TPAC had discussed whether there should always be some free parking on campus, possibly at the Bell Tower lot to be close to campus bus service.
Koltz thought that the University should generate revenue from somewhere, and did not like the idea of guaranteed bus service. He said that the University could not provide bus service to his shop, and said that he could not carry his tools on the job via the bus. He did not think bus service should be free. He thought that the night time parking permit issue could separate Employees. Workman noted the safety issue related to night time parking. He said that buses would not run at midnight or 1 a.m.
Caudle noted that the University would need additional staff for nighttime parking work. Workman said that this cost had been included in the estimated budget for nighttime parking.
The Chair stated his support for TPAC’s work and noted that no one would walk away from this concern free. He said that we would need to come together. He also encouraged Employees to attend the TPAC meetings.
With that, he called for a motion to adjourn. Gary Lloyd made this motion, seconded by Diane Strong. The motion was approved by acclamation and the meeting adjourned at 12:04 p.m.
Matt Banks, Recording Secretary