Campus Planning Committee 2003-2004

Campus Planing Committee 2003-2004

Faculty Senate Campus Planning Committee 2003-2004: Annual Report

Members: Kathy Simon (chair/reporter), Doug Waring, and Tom Jamison

A. Committee met with Jane Helm: Sept. 30, 2003 in her office. Report written.
Business Affairs/ Campus Planning Committee Forum set for October 21 in student union.
Ms. Helm told us specifically that she wanted to conduct the forum as soon as possible to answer questions and to correct any misinformation that may be on campus.

B. At October 13, 2003 FS monthly meeting:
1. Committee Meeting of Sept. 30 reported to Senate (see 10/13/03 FS minutes for report and discussion)
2. FS Agenda Committee proposal, amended during senate discussion, and voted on
(Copied from 10/13/03 FS minutes. See minutes for discussion and vote)
Faculty Senate Committee: Agenda Committee

FS03-04/10-03-Resolution on Cooperation in Campus Planning (as amended)-
Academic departments have not had a productive relationship with the Office of Business Affairs. There have been repeated failures of communication and planning between these departments and Business Affairs. These failures have adversely and unnecessarily affected the academic mission.

The Faculty Senate requests that the Provost and Chancellor ensure that Business Affairs works effectively with the affected departments so that reasonable planning and coordination of all building and renovation activities can be assessed, and that those affected will know what is and will be happening at each stage of the building project. This requires that academic departments be involved directly in all decisions about space usage and available funds.

The Campus Planning Committee will provide active oversight and assessment of how well the coordination of Business Affairs and the affected departments are working and will report bi-monthly to the Faculty Senate.


It is crucial that the incoming Chancellor have the legitimacy and trust that can be generated only through a process in which the faculty are engaged.

October 13, 2003: passed by Senate: 16 YES 0 NO 2 ABSTAIN

As of April 2004, the status of the proposal with regard to ASU administration response is still “pending.”

Comment: The original idea for a proposal to apprise the faculty of and get them more involved in the design and construction phases of new academic facilities and of renovation of older facilities come out of the Faculty Senate retreat held in September 2003. This was in response to concerns raised by several faculty at the faculty/staff campus planning forum, conducted by Vice Chancellor Jane Helm in April 2003, in regard to what they saw as particular problems associated with the decisions made by Business affairs and the Office of Design and Construction in the planning and construction of the two science complexes (CAP and Rankin Science). The original proposal published in the Oct. 13, 2003 FS meeting agenda came from the Agenda Committee as a result of a meeting of the FS committee chairs (few of whom showed up) called by Paul Gates on October 7. The October Faculty Senate Meeting was attended by two reporters of The Appalachian and resulted in three front page newspaper articles about the meeting’s resolutions. Two articles presented the points of view of senators (“Inquiries made into construction, Business Affairs” on 10/16 by David Forbes) and administrators (“Shepherd System links faculty, administration” on 10/21 by David Forbes) on the construction/communications proposal. At the time we were impressed with the initiative of the The Appalachian reporter who came to cover the Senate meetings. However, Forbes informed me that he was assigned to cover Senate meetings only when matters affecting Business Affairs are on the agenda.

Failure of the resolution to be approved by the administration, particularly part 3 concerning the proposed oversight and assessment functions of the Campus Planning Committee, allowed CPC no formal mechanism for getting regular “reports” from the Business Affairs office or from individuals involved in present construction or renovation activities to pass on to the Faculty Senate. However, several campus and local newspaper articles since October indicate the willingness of Business Affairs to keep the campus and the community informed on the progress of specific construction projects.

C. Business Affairs/ Campus Planning Committee Forum:
The information forum was held October 21, 2003. V.C. Jane Helm and several Business Affairs department heads attended. Ms. Helm’s power point presentation highlighted most of the campus construction and renovation projects and future projects under the ASU ten-year master plan as well as the newly acquired Washington D.C. “App House.” During and after the slide show, numerous questions from the audience of staff, faculty and students were answered by either Ms. Helm or her staff. Reporters Frank Ruggiero from the Watauga Democrat (“University presents plan for future capital projects” 10/24 at p. 3A) and David Forbes from The Appalachian (“Construction forum brings campus Q & A,” 10/30 at p. 1) covered, respectively, (1) the status of current and future projects, and (2) questions on the Faculty Senate resolution on communications/building projects, current building delays, safety concerns and repairs, bringing buildings up to code, and funding sources.

Comment: Ms. Helm and staff stayed beyond her scheduled hour to answer questions and clarify misunderstandings. She was also scheduled to give a similar presentation to the Student Government that night. She regularly addresses civic groups as well as the ASU Board of Trustees and Staff Council.

D. Report of CPC Meeting with Jane Helm Tuesday, March 30, 2004.
Attending: Simon, Waring and Jamison

The following matters were discussed:
1. Shepherd system: Doug Waring, who is also the building shepherd for the Smith-Wright renovations, said that the system is working very well in his building. Helms believes that it is a workable system, unless for example the shepherd is not contacted because of a failure of communication between the construction manager and a subcontractor. She suggested that we contact other building shepherds (e.g., for Walker and Rankin) for their views on the system.
2. Parking matters: (a) Parking spaces across from Walker Hall that were lost as a result of the student activities center being built on that site will be restored in full once the project is complete. (b) Debt service had been met this year for existing parking deck, but we had trouble meeting debt last year. (c) Another parking deck is in the master plan (site not identified and no funding plans developed yet), however, Ms. Helm did point out that fewer parking permits were sold in 2003-2004. She attributes part of this to individuals have opted to pay by the hour in the parking deck because they don’t come to campus every day, or need to park for only an hour or so. Other factors include that students who come on campus after five o’clock don’t have to get permits anymore for evening parking, and more individuals are riding the bus. (d) Parking fees are not likely to go down because of need to meet debt service on the parking deck as well as to pay for parking lot paving and repairs that had to be postponed from last year and work that is scheduled for this coming year. (e) To an inquiry of whether there could be restricted parking under Duncan Hall for very large vehicles that tend to park in other smaller vehicles, Ms. Helm said that it could be difficult trying to define what is considered “too large".
3. Construction/student vehicles/Appalcart traffic issues: Two traffic problems near academic buildings were discussed. (a) Problems of traffic flow exist beside the back entrance to Raley Hall when students park along the building between classes waiting for riders to come out at the same time traffic is coming out from parking areas near Volberg Theatre and near the Library. An additional factor is that several times construction trucks have tried to go in or come out of the construction site near Whitener Hall. This was referred to Barry Sauls. (b) A more serious matter concerns the Appalcart turnaround in front of Raley Hall. People use the turnaround to
let out passengers or wait for people, which cause havoc for the busses and danger to bus and car passengers. The entrance/exit gate for the Duncan Hall parking area is blocked when this happens. Ms. Helm said she would look in to this immediately.*
4. Renovation and Repair money: As a follow-up to a question asked at last fall’s campus planning forum regarding the status of ASU’s renovation and repair requests being developed for the state, Ms. Helm referred me to Mr. Robbins.*** A far as the past allocations, she said we received $7 million over three years (primarily for Fire, Life and Safety related projects) and that the first year’s money was spent on meeting safety, disability and codes requirements.
5. Washington D.C. App House and New York Loft: Ms. Helm told us that Assoc. Vice Chancellor for Diversity Harry Williams had been assigned responsibility for the administration of the two facilities by Chancellor Durham. She said that the new App House should be open in the Fall 04. Based upon input from faculty who had used the new Loft, it was going through some refurbishing this summer. Bookcases and a research work area were to be added to the Director’s apartment, the floors were to be re-sanded, and some new furniture purchased.
6. Another Forum: We asked Ms. Helm about the feasibility of holding another forum in April 2004 and she said that there was not enough new information at this time. Once the new chancellor is in place in July, she suggested that early Fall 2004 would be a good time to hold another forum.
7. Community Council: When asked about the newly formed “Community Council,” (which brings together representatives from the Chamber of Commerce, the University, the Town and the County), Ms. Helm said she fully supported such interactions. Since the Council had not as yet had its first meeting, she could not give us any details on what matters might be discussed and what possible outcomes they hoped to achieve.
*Chairman Simon received a telephone call from Clyde Robbins a few days after our meeting with V.C Helm on March 30. He said that he had met at the Raley Hall bus turnaround site with Chris Turner (Director of Appalcart) and Barry Saul (Director of Parking and Traffic). They have plans to re-configure the turnaround to deal with the conflict. To prevent pick up and drop off, they plan to change the Duncan Hall gate location slightly.

**During the telephone conversation with Mr. Robbins (above), I asked him about the renovation and repair requests. He told me that it had not been made official yet, but that under the State Construction Office Facilities Condition Analysis, and upon forwarding more project details to the Office of Management and Budget, it looks like we may get under $8 million R/R money over 3 _ years. Until the past year or so the legislature separated out the UNC system R/R money from the rest of the state building R/R money. Now it comes from the same “pool” and makes it more difficult for the universities to get their share.

CPC Suggestions for 2004-2005

1. If there is a Faculty Senate Retreat in September, ask other senators for input concerning what matters might be considered by the Campus Planning Committee this academic year. Listen to student concerns regarding the issues relevant to campus construction and physical environment; they may reflect concerns of faculty and staff as well.
2. Plan to meet with Jane Helm, Vice Chancellor for Business Affairs, at beginning of school year shortly after the first meeting of the Faculty Senate in September. Schedule a Campus Planning Committee/Business Affairs forum for faculty, staff and students with her as soon as possible in October. This was her suggestion as of March 2004. Note problems or nature of concerns brought up at the forum and follow up on them through the year. Find out what is on the “Ten-Year Campus Plan” as of this year.
3. Find out the status of the October 13, 2003 resolution. If it has been put in place, then the Committee has at least one major bi-monthly investigating and reporting responsibility under part 3.
4. Explore the possibility of asking one of the three Faculty Senate representatives on the University Parking and Traffic Committee to officially report any traffic or parking new business to the Senate through the Campus Planning Committee report. At present there is no mechanism by which the Senate hears what is going on in University Committees.
5. Be prepared to share in the Strategic Planning Commission long-range planning activities. The new strategic plan needs to be in place by 2005. The Chair of the CP committee serves on the Commission when it is called into session by the chancellor. However, when they get down to breaking up in to work groups, other CPC members may have opportunities for some input.


  • Kathy Simon, Chair
  • Tom Jamison
  • Doug Waring