University Assembly Meeting
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
4:30–6:00 p.m.
701 Clark Hall
DRAFT Minutes

I. Call to Order

M. Hatch called the meeting to order at 4:39pm.

II. Call for Late Additions to Agenda

M. Hatch added one item to the Business of the Day: a resolution related to the CJC.

III. Approval of the Minutes

No members had the opportunity to look at the minutes. M. Hatch asked to table the approval of minutes in the interest of time. R. Orme motioned to table the minutes. R. Wayne seconded.

J. Marwell said everything should be approved by the meeting next week.

M. Hatch told them to look through them carefully because they were both really important meetings.

H. Granison said the next meeting is an organizational meeting for incoming members. People who weren’t here for these meetings will be approving the minutes if the assembly left it to next meeting.

M. Hatch asked for suggestions for what the assembly should do.

L. Lawrence suggested doing it electronically.

M. Hatch said to change his motion to table the minutes to include the provision that the executive committee can change the minutes to reflect the assembly members’ corrections. He asked members to send in corrections by Tuesday night. Everyone approved.

IV. Business of the Day

M. Hatch welcomed three guests to discuss transportation matters. He also welcomed D. Brown to report about the assembly’s Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC).

D. Brown said a few months ago, the UA wanted him to revive the TAC. After going through a few applications, he was able to get a meeting together on Monday, April 23, 2007 where they examined the legislation that established the committee, figured out what they’re supposed to do, and discussed how transport policies are made, etc. They had a consensus on some findings. They reviewed and verified that UA was granted legislative authority by the Trustees to guide TAC. They agreed that TAC was formed to provide community input and advise the President, transportation department, etc. with policies. They also recognized that in previous years, TAC was called on a regular basis, hosted and informed by the transportation department, and provided feedback directly; however, TAC was not consulted this year by transportation. They requested some information and meetings so transportation could make it. They suggested that TAC be led by co-chairs, one from UA and one from the transportation department to make better improvements. TAC thought the new policy should’ve been discussed earlier, like in the fall so there could be community input. The previous UA might not have been as engaged in these issues, and it led to the belief or practice that transportation makes policy without them. The new student transport program is controversial, and TAC expressed disappointment because they couldn’t talk about it earlier. TAC wanted to ask when and who made these decisions and why they weren’t called by somebody because they believe the process to be unacceptable. TAC came to a consensus that the rejection by the UA of this proposal would create serious confusion. TAC wants clarification from the UA whether TAC is necessary, if they should continue meeting, or if there are more modern means to collect information now versus before. Finally, no one wants to meet again unless TAC will be fully functional, and its deliberations will contribute to the decision making process. Also, TAC wanted to give recognition to the transportation department that it has done a tremendous job of decreasing driving and putting more greenery on campus. What TAC wants to offer is reinforcements to provide better breadth of information and let the community know about the good work that transportation has done. Future action can go better with more minds applied to it. TAC wants the whole community to be engaged in the future. Trustees wanted Cornell to be different, so they spread the responsibility out; however, the whole community hasn’t always stepped up to fill in, so the administration had to step in to get things done. There is more interest in stepping up and helping out with this issue, at least. With more information spread around, we can get higher quality policies and prevent conflicts if the whole community is involved in the process.

He continued that he has a resolution, but it does not represent TAC’s ideas and feeling. He submitted it as an individual member of the UA.

M. Hatch introduced Bill Wendt, the Director of Transportation Services, or the prime supervisor (you can say) of the entire program, David Lieb, the Assistant Director, and Professor Richard Booth, who is on the City and Regional Planning and on Tompkins County Board of Representatives. R. Booth also served on the TCAT Board and he chairs the Operations Committee of TCAT. M. Hatch said it’s useful that D. Brown outlined TAC’s situation because one of the things the UA is coming up to now is to think about the responsibilities of the UA committees. Policies are seemingly formulated under the purview of TAC. What is the role of these committees, and what is the role of the UA in setting policies in these committees. Should it be influential in developing them?

E. Sanders asked what the timetable for dealing with this issue would be like, especially since it is so close to the end of the semester.

M. Hatch agreed with D. Brown that this issue is hard to “roll back” because the costs are immense and it’s hard to see where everything fits. In the course of the discussion, we may come up with ideas that could be developed in a meeting next semester.

E. Sanders asked if this issue is seen as a “fait accompli” because the standard procedures were ignored and this issue was handed down without community input.

D. Brown said it’s up to the UA.

E. Sanders asked whether they can vote it down.

D. Brown said yes, but it’s not what TAC advises.

a. Mr. Bill Wendt, Mr. David Lieb, and Mr. Richard Booth

B. Wendt said there seems to be two issues. One issue is the process and the other issue is how strong advocates the transportation department has been for a student transportation system. There are lots of ideas and possibilities, but each cost money and there are lots of things to consider. He asked R. Booth to come because he leads TCAT can he can answer service issue questions.

He started by discussing the process issue. He’s worked with the assembly for over 30 years, and he pointed out that some years, they’ve had excellent participation from the University. Last year, there was a really good assembly working with them on the survey because all the students participated and helped formulate the current transportation policy that will be implemented this upcoming fiscal year. His information officer and liaison with TAC tried to get this year’s working committee in contact with them in the fall and throughout the winter, but it wasn’t until D. Brown tried this Spring that they actually met. It was not a stellar year for working with TAC to help form policies. They had a good committee last year that reviewed the survey with us. They came up with the parameters for sustainability, etc. last spring. This program that will be implemented in August was developed a year ago. They moved through the administrative channels to get the $1 million needed to fund this policy. There will always be a lag in time and there was a failure in responsibility on the UA’s part. It’s important to staff the committees as well as maintain them because it’s important that the transportation department has a committee to work with.

He continued that what the transportation department is doing now is very positive and very sustainable; two years ago, they only had free transport on two bus routes. Now it’s free transport for all new students and for all students at nights starting at 6pm and on all weekends. Where we fell short on the process, we tried to push, but it’s not strictly our role to push the UA. The assembly has to come halfway and be wiling to work with the transportation department.

He said a good way to develop a program is first to get good input and good data. Students didn’t want to pay for a bus pass, and everyone agreed that a free transit pass for new students would be a good thing if the University was willing to pay for it. We diverged from data when it told us that we shouldn’t give free passes to any students who brought their cars to Ithaca. The number of students who did bring cars to campus decreased dramatically, but they would be the group of students that the transportation department really wanted to be targeted. If they gave them free transit passes, they would leave their car parked and realize they really didn’t need it. The program will still give free transit passes to all new students. It’s cheaper than what the Ithaca community has to pay, which costs TCAT about $3.50 a ride to produce. TCAT has a $10 million budget, with some state and federal assistance, but they don’t have the capacity at a drop of a hat to handle all of the students. They tested out the program with two classes of students who received free passes. They gave it to continuing students who got a free pass in their first year, but that required an operational problem on campus. The main group of people bringing cars to campus every day is faculty and staff. They have to park in the peripheral parking spots, but at 4–4:30 p.m. or 5 p.m. at Statler or Sage, they have many problems where they can’t load everyone on a bus. The Operations Committee through the operations director told us about diverting 5 other buses from other bus routes to handle the loads to get people to parking lots. They can’t sustain that for an indefinite period of time, but having the new program and giving free rides at 6 pm, they can handle that. The point of the free transit system isn’t to get people back to C-Town or North campus, but to get people back to their cars so they’re willing to park in peripheral spots. There have been problems of people needing to get home to Trumansburg, but they couldn’t because students needed to get to C-Town. They need more buses and more equipment. They are trying their best and will continue to try to improve for students and staff. He hopes this will be a wake up call for the UA and TAC to begin working with the transportation department to assess the program we plan to implement in August. The University has made a $1 million decision to implement this program.

A male representative said transportation is a big issue and sustainability is also a big issue. This is the right direction because it’s all focused on the same outcomes.

R. Booth wanted to say a few words as a county official. TCAT is not a Cornell entity�it’s a city of Ithaca, Tompkins county — Cornell joint entity. New York State had to have special legislation to create this. TCAT operates on a $10 million budget that’s constantly strained. From what people pay when they get on the bus, TCAT makes about $1million in cash, so $9 million comes from somewhere else, such as state assistance that is calculated by a complex formula relating miles driven and passengers carried. There is also a smaller amount of federal assistance. Then Cornell buys a huge bulk of ridership rights and basically pays TCAT a dollar every time someone using a pass gets on the bus. Then county, city, and Cornell pays again for city fees, so Cornell pays twice. The system is strained too because the shortage in number of buses and number of drivers. They are constantly on the edge for being able to provide services. Many people in Ithaca think that TCAT provides Class A service at Cornell and Class B service in the city and the rest of Tompkins County. He doesn’t believe that’s true, but the point is TCAT doesn’t just do what Cornell says it should do. There are very substantial capacity issues and the fact that it’s a shared system: what Cornell does has to fit in with what the city and county wants to do. Every one of these buses cost $300,000 a piece and hybrid buses cost $500,000 a piece. We have to drive them a lot to get our money’s worth out of them. Despite all of this, TCAT is in a far stronger position than it was in years past.

M. Hatch asked if D. Brown wanted to say anything.

D. Brown said before he was on UA, he was on TAC, and they waited for a call but there never was a call. The committee was there willing and able, but it never was called. So what happened? Who initiated meetings?

B. Wendt said a liaison from the UA usually convened meetings, and the contact is generally through the Office of Assemblies.

M. Hatch suggested the assembly should trace that down. The procedure is important to the assembly as a whole, and they’re trying to find out where these committees stand. D. Brown’s point was everyone was ready to serve, but maybe the UA has a fault in this. The assembly should examine that one. We didn’t provide oversight, and we can’t properly say it was a bypassing of power if we didn’t do anything to exercise that power.

D. Brown said TAC just didn’t know this was coming.

J. Marwell said it makes sense to ask questions about proposed changes.

M. Hatch said that this was not a forum for the general campus to join in, though there certainly could be one of those on the issue. But, specifically to do with the UA, what was TAC’s role in vetting this? Does anyone want to speak to that?

B. Wendt said the transportation department has always valued having TAC because it does give opportunity for input, and the committee the year before went to the point of saying it was necessary to do a survey and get community input. The committee is really valuable to the transportation department and he wants the UA to take responsibility. Having co-chairs is a nice idea, but he doesn’t think the transportation department should take the first step and set everything up, like the agenda, etc. because people may think transportation is taking over.

E. Sanders asked them to clarify if they really tried to contact anyone on TAC that they were about to come out with this document. They didn’t even furnish a draft of this.

B. Wendt said they tried to contact in the fall and ask when it was going to convene. Many of these ideas in this new program were created with the committee from the year before. People were involved to help us come up with this. If the committee this year came up with this program, it would still take another year for the administration to provide the money so we can actually carry it out.

J. Vertesi said there have been several discussions about discontinuing the free OmniRide passes, but there have been some serious miscommunications, such as the UA didn’t know it was its responsibility to convene TAC. She wanted to let the transportation department know that from her constituency, there is a lot of anger and ill will that it’s unfair if this is not continued. It’s unfair to the people who have always paid for it. There will be an increase of an additional $100 for a bus pass on top of the parking fee of over $600. And this generally applies to the community that relies the most on busing and parking on campus because we don’t live on campus. We are the community that is most likely to take up alternate transportation available. We are backed into corner because there is nothing else available. There was a referendum that 3,000 students filled out with what we needed, but nothing happened and the parking lot was changed so we can’t park there. This new program does not encourage park-and-ride. There is a false prize of free nights and weekends for bus rides. Buses stop working at night, and grad students need to be here at odd hours and nights. To her, this is not environmentally sustainable because graduate students are being forced to park in the community because there is no way else to get to campus. She would love to be able to explain to her constituents where the allocation of funds and where the decisions where you’re allowed to park and ride, where does it come from? Freshmen get free passes, yet graduate students have to pay for the parking fee and bus pass.

B. Wendt said J. Vertesi mentioned a lot, and he appreciates the support because he knows that the GPSA has dealt with the transportation department already this year.

D. Lieb said there were two different surveys: the county and Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council had a park and ride survey about the development of parking on the periphery to prevent additional traffic coming into the urban core of Ithaca. They informed the t-GEIS, and t-GEIS consultants are going to the Board to talk about it.

J. Vertesi clarified that the park and ride survey is pre-t-GEIS. She asked if the transportation department made these decisions before the results from the surveys came back.

B. Wendt said that students said not to give free transit passes to students who buy parking, but they continued to give free transit passes to B-lot against the strongest student recommendation. Now it is discounted, so they’re not giving it for free. They will continue to sell parking to students, as well as continue to urge them to use transit.

J. Vertesi clarified that not giving free transit passes to students who buy parking comes out of that recommendation. B. Wendt said yes.

S. Kong asked if that survey also included B-lot, because there is a big difference from parking in B-lot and parking in central campus. There is still a long way to transit. The new program said it’s free after 6pm, so it encourages people to take transit to B-lot after 6 pm. What is someone in the morning going to do if they want to park their car and go to central? There’s still a long way to go.

D. Brown asked if UA has to approve these changes. He wanted clarification if they were asked to approve these changes because whether they meet with TAC or not, it is only an advisory group. The group that actually legislates is this one. How many policies that everyone has been kicking around that have actually been brought to this assembly?

H. Granison said various committees do what they need to do to continue to do their policies. They don’t come to us anymore. It has evolved to report through annual reports where they talk about things they’ve done this year, but even Health Services got away from doing annual reports. Everything is now going through committee structure rather than through the UA. None of these things came before the UA. Last year, we had a task force for transportation.

B. Wendt said last year there were forums that talked about these issues.

J. Vertesi said that was post-Red Bud agreement. UA should do forums, but there was conflict whether TAC was doing something or not. There’s a procedural issue there. Who’s doing what?

M. Hatch said we have to debate, but not before this year is through. We have to debate early next year on how we want to make more fixed policies about procedures, who advises who, who sets things up, etc. He suggested leaving the procedural question, and to keep talking more about specifics.

L. Lawrence said in terms of procedure, it’s important that outgoing committees meet with ingoing, so we know what’s going on and we know policies and practices instead of leaving anything to chance. Some of this could have been avoided for a smooth transition.

M. Hatch said at the meeting next week, we’ll have the resolution about committees and which ones we want to keep going, etc.

E. Sanders said we’re working on short-term goals and responding to short-term needs now, and that’s what we always do. She hopes that the transportation department has a larger vision of what we want to accomplish through transportation policy. She also hopes that there are long-term goals of reducing fossil fuel consumption. She hopes the transportation department thought about the logic of how to encourage people to not drive so much. She also suggested smaller buses for TCAT’s next purchases.

M. Hatch said he has people queued up, but he wanted to give B. Wendt and the visitors representing the transportation department time to speak and respond.

B. Wendt said they have a long-term view here. Elizabeth Sanders has heard the updates on the TCAT program at council meetings. UA needs to hear those updates in the fall because they give a lot more about what the transportation department is really doing. Parking is not their primary business, and it’s a very sustainable program and that’s the direction we’re going in the long-term.

D. Lieb said 17 years ago, they implemented the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs for faculty and staff, and they saved 10 million miles per year. They are afraid that student parking is going back up, but since 2001 and 2002, which was long before free bus passes, the numbers are going down by 200 spots per year. The highest demand was for 2800 student parking spots in 2001. The demand has dropped to 1300 spaces now. A lot has to do with having high parking prices and free bus passes. The demand never really exceeds 200 permits for the whole freshmen class. There are empty buses at night because transit operates in a catch-22. Without demand, they can’t have service, and without service, they can’t generate demand. In the past 17 years, there has been more service in better areas and on nights and weekends, and it will continue if they can get passes into the hands of 20,000 students. At high peak hours, if they generate higher demands, they can’t handle it. After 6pm, lots of routes are stopped so there are more buses. At low peak hours, they can grow that. There are four to five routes at night, 23 routes on Saturday, and 14 routes on Sunday. If they can create that kind of demand and generate ridership, it will serve the entire community.

M. Hatch asked to extend the meeting to 10 minutes after 6pm. A. Stroock and J. Marwell couldn’t stay, but they would still have quorum. He compromised to extend the meeting to 5 minutes after 6 pm. M. Hatch said to spend another 5 minutes on this topic and then cover the next two agenda items.

H. Granison said this program got funding from the administration, and now we have a program with ambiguous legislative authority that we can stop or not. This program will probably be going forward, and we should assume it will evolve over time. TAC continues to get student and staff input. The biggest increase in ridership and parking is seen in the staff. There are more problems about moving further out, etc. and these issues aren’t going to go away. He doesn’t see the assembly having much of a role in this current plan, but TAC can give advice about how to improve in the future.

B. Wendt said that is where we are at this moment.

J. Glenn asked what kind of flexibility is built in for changes.

B. Wendt asked for specific concerns.

J. Glenn said graduate students do live further from campus.

B. Wendt said the transit fee is on top of what you’re paying for parking, and the transportation department mentioned what Cornell gives to TCAT. Other schools are directly taking money from students to give to transportation instead of charging it like Cornell does.

J. Glenn said since the survey, times and things have changed

B. Wendt said what students are doing now, which is buying visitor permits is clearly against the rules and regulations. Students are not visitors.

J. Glenn asked what if he only had to drive to campus for one day?

B. Wendt said to park at metered parking spots. The transportation department is creating more. No students park on central campus because it’s meant for University visitors, guests of departments, etc. It was never intended for students to stop at a booth and buy a visitor parking pass.

J. Glenn asked if it is illegal.

B. Wendt said yes, it is prohibited and it has always been like that. It is clearly defined what constitutes a student and what constitutes a visitor is. We didn’t change the rules.

J. Glenn said students bought passes whether they should or shouldn’t have, but parking sold those passes. In a sense, students were allowed to because parking is so tight. There were parking changes and certain lots changed, but transportation needs to allocate in different ways.

D. Brown said there’s no time for his resolution right now, so they can discuss it at the next meeting or later. It’s mainly to recognize TDM’s successes of transportation, sustaining to everyone and everyone who lives off campus.

M. Hatch asked that members of UA who will be continuing on the UA in the subsequent semesters to make comments to the Office of Assemblies. He asked members to submit their ideas to the listserv, so they can talk about issues via email if anything emerges before next week. If there is, then the assembly can talk about it. What we want to express is our strong desire to work with folks and be part of community-wide deliberation and development of transportation.

R. Booth said the empty buses just means that there is not enough people riding. Last year, the ridership was up, but not as much as expected because of high gas prices. The big costs aren’t the buses or gas —it is the drivers. Smaller buses may look more efficient, but they aren’t.

E. Sanders said they are entering a capital campaign and they need special green fundraising. She believes that people will pay more for things such as small hybrid buses, bike passes, and bike racks.

B. Wendt said the first report on gas mileage for the hybrid bus that is $200,000 more than a regular bus was not very stellar. A regular bus gets 3.2 miles/gallon, and the hybrid gets 4.0 miles/gallon.

M. Hatch thanked everyone and told them to continue correspondence via email.

b. UA Committees Report

R. Orme said he and T. Bishop did some work and found out that in 2004, the UA removed the Committee of committees, the CJC is still active, the Joint Assembly on Financial Aid is active, the Joint Assembly on Multicultural Activities is ongoing, the Assembly system Review Committee hasn’t met in seven years, the Budget Committee disbanded in the 1990s, TAC is in the process of becoming active, and the board on University Health Services disbanded a few years ago due to poor attendance.

M. Hatch thanked him for his work and asked him to submit the report to the assembly through the UA listserv. He asked members to look at it in order to make a decision by the next meeting.

c. Codes and Judicial Committee Resolution

M. Hatch introduced the resolution that recommends that the University hearing board and the University review board, is a pool of 40 members, 15 students, 15 employees, and 10 faculty. CJC recommends to change it to read 20 students instead of 15.

H. Granison said there is only 9 members here, so the assembly doesn’t have quorum to vote. He suggested voting next week.

R. Wayne made a motion to vote by email.

M. Hatch pointed out that the assembly still needs quorum to make that motion.

H. Granison said next week is only an organizational meeting, so he wanted to know how they would have a meeting at all.

R. Wayne suggested calling a special meeting for the first 15 minutes.

H. Granison said the UA appoints the members anyway. Can the UA just appoint 20 students if the assembly wanted to?

M. Hatch said the assembly needs legislation first before they can do that.

V. Adjournment

H. Granison moved to adjourn. L. Lawrence seconded.

The meeting was adjourned at 6:06 p.m.