Employee Assembly Minutes
Wednesday, November 18, 1998
Unit One Lounge, Balch Hall
12:15 p.m. - 1:30 p.m.

I. Call to Order and Introductions

C.J.Lance-Duboscq called the meeting to order at 12:15 p.m.

Present: M.Esposito, D.DiBene, L.Russell, L.Clougherty, A.Vail, J.DeMarco, G.Brandt, M.Overstrom, C.Dunnam, C.Tkachuck, T.Calvert, D.Howland, D.Lieb, J.Worden, C.J.Lance-Duboscq, J.Gordon, R.Duffey

II. Open Forum

M.Overstrom thanked D.DiBene for spreading the word about the meeting. She noted that although there wasn’t a particularly large crowd, people definitely had heard about the meeting and she had received offers for conference rooms in the Plantations for future meetings.

M.Overstrom asked when the last Dedicated Service Award was given? J.DeMarco replied that it had been a while. C.J.Lance-Duboscq queried whether the EA was still on the same schedule for distributing the award? J.DeMarco clarified that as long as more people began to join the committee, the award would be given on time.

III. Approval of Minutes

The minutes of November 4, 1998, were unanimously approved with the following change:

Part V section C should read: “Dedicated Service Award renamed the George Peter Award for Dedicated Service”

IV. Old Business

A. Annual Open Forum - update

C.J.Lance-Duboscq reported that while only a small number of EA members attended to the Rogers-Opperman Luncheon meeting on Monday, an informative and helpful discussion occurred regarding the Open Forum scheduled for January 12th, 1999. The consensus of the meeting was the forum should be moved until later in the spring, because there was still no topic and planning time would take longer than the January date allowed. She acknowledged that some members of the EA disagreed with that decision, but relayed to the group that M.Opperman and F.Rogers felt that a spring date posed no logistical problems, and would probably be better for them.

M.Overstrom told the group if M.Opperman and F.Rogers said the date change was okay, she was in favor of it. C.J.Lance-Duboscq went on to explain the EA would not have enough time to publicize a meeting in January for which they didn’t even have a topic of discussion. She moved that the EA cancel the January 12, 1999 date for the Open Forum and work to find a later date, and that a committee should be formed to deal solely with this forum (as per a suggestion made by M.Overstrom). J.DeMarco seconded the motion.

L.Clougherty, A.Vail, and M.Overstrom offered to work on the committee. M.Overstrom informed new EA members even if they did not serve on the committee to plan the Open Forum, they were responsible for attending the forum.

B. Employee Night at the Court - update

C.Tkachuck summarized a memo she sent to C.Moore, Director of Athletics, which proposed three options for Employee Night: postpone the event until February; not tie the event to a basketball game, but link it to the Hockey Tournament; or reschedule Employee Night with a spring sports event, not a basketball game. She said she spoke to C.Moore’s assistant an hour prior to the meeting. She agreed to discuss the options with C.Moore and get in touch with her by the end of the day. Although it was offered, C.Tkachuck stated that the suggestion to reschedule the night with another basketball game was not an option, because logistically, the committee would not be able to plan the event. She noted that she explained this to C.Moore.

M.Esposito asked if only meal tickets were subsidized at Employee Night? C.Tkachuck responded that employees also received a heavy subsidy on their game tickets, provided for by the Athletics Department.

C. Arecibo and Related Issues - update

C.J.Lance-Duboscq announced the Arecibo Hurricane Relief campaign had raised over $7000, and they have decided to extend the drive until after Thanksgiving. She thought the EA would easily reach its $10,000 goal. M.Overstrom asked about the anonymous $2,000 donation, and J.DeMarco answered it had come from the Office of the Vice Provost. M.Esposito queried if someone was writing a letter to the administration regarding matching the money raised in the drive? C.J.Lance-Duboscq responded that she had talked to M.Opperman and received information about the White Fund, which is specifically designed to subsidize employees for health care needs that are not covered by insurance. She reported there was only a couple thousand dollars in the account, not enough to mount a relief effort. M.Opperman also explained to C.J.Lance-Duboscq that all revenue for the University comes from tuition dollars, and as a private non-profit institution, Cornell can’t use that money for disaster relief for non-students. C.J.Lance-Duboscq raised the question that perhaps the University should have disaster relief funds and let the Assembly know that T.Hoebbel would be working on the issue.

M.Esposito informed the EA that the University does support other programs with donations, like the libraries, the local High School, etc. L.Russell asked where money in the White Fund came from? M.Esposito answered he thought the fun was amassed through employee deductions. C.J.Lance-Duboscq clarified in order to get money from the fund, an employee must write an appeal explaining their hardship.

L.Clougherty asked about the status of Dean Lewis’ challenge? J.DeMarco replied that the Dean’s challenge would be the lead article in PawPrint and the editors were currently trying to contact people to get quotes. J.Worden explained that Philip Lewis, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, offered to forego the holiday reception for Arts college employees in favor of using this money for the Arecibo Fund and having people contribute to the relief effort in Arecibo. His office would be donating $1,000 from the saved cost of not having the reception. Also he will be donating $1,000 from his personal funds. Over $700 has already been collected in response to his challenge. M.Overstrom suggested that after the article about P.Lewis’ challenge is printed, EA representatives contact their Vice Presidents and charge them with raising similar amounts. C.J.Lance-Duboscq brought up the suggestion that any money raised by the EA over $10,000 could go to the hardship fund.

V. New Business

Report from Employee Representatives to the University Assembly Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) - C.Dunnam

C.Dunnam introduced himself and made apologies for P.Kellogg, the co-chair of TAC, who couldn’t attend the meeting. He summarized the issues he was planning to cover in his presentation:

• what TAC had and hadn’t accomplished over the past few years;
• issues of employee input and perspective;
• where TAC was moving for the future; and
• the utility of the committee.

He read the charge of TAC, which states:

“The committee’s charge is to: provide a conduit for community input regarding policies and services related to safe, comprehensive, economical and efficient transportation programs. These include: parking; transit; circulation; pedestrian, motorist, and cyclist safety and education; and services that meet the transportation access needs for persons with disabilities. The committee shall make policy and program recommendations to the University Assembly and the Senior Vice President. Furthermore, the committee shall review in consultation with (with the consultation of) the Campus Planning Committee all plans for alterations of or additions to roads, parking lots, pathways and walkways on the Ithaca campus of the University. The committee shall report periodically to the University Assembly.”

He said he was not aware of any UA reports, so as far as he knew that part was not being upheld, but he hoped to bring the UA up to speed. A question was raised about whether or not TAC was supposed to report to the UA or the EA? C.Dunnam clarified the charge states the UA. M.Esposito explained that Betty Lewis was the UA liaison to TAC, but C.Dunnam said he wasn’t sure about whose responsibility it was to report.

C.Dunnam began to give an overview of TAC actions and issues over the past two years. He offered to give a rundown of a few items, and that later in his presentation, during question and answer time, he wanted to hear EA concerns. He relayed to the group his concern that employees provided no feedback because there are no normal channels of communication within the University. He explained that everyone has different ideas about transportation, and there is no consensus on any issues (ex. parking issues), yet only 2–3 people have ever approached him with their concerns. He said it might be effective to run more advertisements and announcements about meetings. He said he would have to go to the UA for money, but recent advertising seemed effective and people were interested and contacting TAC members.

C.Dunnam listed a variety of TAC actions brought up by P.Kellogg, himself, and others, noting that some were employee-related and others were not:

• relating parking fees to salaries (no follow up);
• alternatives to students cars;
• OTS parking restrictions and fee increases (passed in 1997 with much controversy and considerable discussion);
• posting bus schedules at all stops (currently implemented);
• increasing ride share spaces and creating new tiers for ride share;
• increasing University contribution to OTS programs, i.e. subsidizing parking (controversial, not followed up);
• reviewing TAC constituency and increasing representation for certain groups;
• implementing plans to consolidate and integrate transportation services;
• parking on nights and weekends;
• increasing advertising and meeting announcements;
• overhauling parking structures;
• reviewing appeals to TAC (not followed up);
• project review of a second parking garage (not followed up);
• increasing UA and TCAT communication; and
• changing policy implementation procedures.

D.Lieb explained that right now, there was no opportunity for voting on changes between the price of full time vs. part time parking permits, and OTS was really only in the germinal stages of changing their systems and procedures.

C.Dunnam went on to mention other projects that TAC has been working on gaining an Internet presence, which is currently being worked on and a survey of non-academic employees about traffic and parking. C.Dunnam explained that he and P.Kellogg had proposed a short survey that met with resistance from Transportation people who expressed concern that the survey was not officially sanctioned by the University. In response to these concerns they shelved the survey, but are not opposed to bringing it up. He requested that if anybody had ideas about how to administer the survey, they let him know.

Another TAC issue C.Dunnam mentioned was the premature (in his opinion) transfer of parking permits from S to MT. He explained that there was 900+ S permits with only 230 spaces available. The situation is now under control, but he was unhappy about TAC being fast tracked by Transportation. C.Dunnam’s opinion was the change should have been dealt with in more detail by the committee, or put on the back burner to be solved at a later time.

M.Overstrom asked if any problems have truly risen from the change? C.Dunnam explained his building had one S permit which was taken away, and no replacement offered. He didn’t feel it was a major issue, but the idea of it being swept under the carpet bothered him.

C.Dunnam brought up pertinent issues TAC has been working on over the past few years, including:

• University subsidies for parking permits at a 50% rate;
• increasing feedback from employees through increased education and communication;
• appealing to the UA for advertising money through EA channels;
• changing procedures for employee complaint hearings.

M.Overstrom asked if people felt complaint procedures weren’t fair? C.Dunnam replied that three people had reported to him they felt unsatisfied with the complaint procedures. He also mentioned that part-time employees were seeking parking discounts for the year and he had brought that up in meetings as well. M.Overstrom noted that she thought part-time employee discounts weren’t an option, because the computer system wasn’t able to handle those requests. C.Dunnam reported that B.Stebbins let him know the computer system could accommodate these discounts.

T.Calvert queried, rhetorically, whether or not Transportation was on campus to serve employees or to gain revenues, and proposed pro-rating parking permits for part-time employees. C.Dunnam offered to go back to TAC with this proposal. M.Overstrom clarified she agreed with discounted permits, but wasn’t sure if they were feasible due to limits in the current computer system. She asked D.Lieb to address the question of feasibility. D.Lieb offered to go back to Transportation with this concern.

C.Dunnam postulated that the argument always comes back to the financial impact or perceived financial burden of any programs. He noted that it was difficult to get financial figures from Transportation and therefore it was difficult to determine the financial impact of different programs. T.Calvert informed those present that B.Wendt agreed to provide financial figures.

C.Dunnam questioned the group about their concerns regarding rate increases or any other issues he had mentioned. He came back to the idea of creating a new parking garage, and asked the EA whether they thought that proposal merited studying. D.Lieb added that an underground garage would cost $25,000/space, whereas an open lot would cost $15,000/space. He agreed that lack of available parking affects employees day to day. Further he said he raised questions about the quality of bus services with the General Manager of TCAT, who will consider improving routes.

J.Worden expressed her feeling that the list of issues being addressed by TAC was quite ambitious. She asked C.Dunnam if TAC had specific priorities, or if he was presenting this list today to get advice? C.Dunnam agreed that a lot was mentioned and he admitted there were no specific priorities. He said he came to the EA meeting to get input regarding the pressures for change, initiate new programs, and drop items from TAC agenda. M.Overstrom asked if TAC was being pressured? C.Dunnam replied Transportation was being heavy handed with their policies. M.Overstrom inquired as to how many voting members of TAC were Transportation employees, and C.Dunnam responded very few are voting members of the committee (most are ex-officio members) but they tend to direct the discussion at meetings.

M.Overstrom shared that she had been on TAC two years ago and the same issues are being brought up again and again. A question that begs to be asked, she said, is whether or not true leadership was being exhibited by the chairs of TAC? She wondered whether they could effectively run meetings. C.Dunnam agreed that strong leadership of TAC would make a difference. M.Overstrom further suggested that community representatives speak out at meetings, and the committee itself should figure out if the community isn’t being properly represented by these representatives. She related her experience at a TAC meeting this year, where there was a good meeting, a time for questions and answers and discussions, but there was no real agenda or goals brought out during the session. She wondered if the committee was working at all. C.Dunnam replied it was working as best it could, and that things were better than they appeared at the last meeting.

M.Overstrom pointed out it is easy to be negative. She agreed part-time staff parking rates are an issue that need to be taken care of (maybe within P2K preparations), but often we look at things we can’t change right away, and lose sight of the changes happening currently that the EA has no input into. She asked who was studying the Transportation effects of the freshman move to North Campus, and wondered why the committee wasn’t dealing with these immediate changes before it was too late. C.Dunnam stated he felt that change would primarily be affecting students.

L.Russell noted that with the North Campus changes, the Helen Newman parking lot would be lost. C.Dunnam said these issues had been brought before TAC and Transportation was preparing responses. M.Overstrom said that waiting for Transportation to provide a response was the problem. TAC should find out for itself what is happening. C.Dunnam wanted to give Transportation a month to report on the issue, but M.Overstrom asked why a month? C.Dunnam said that TAC had other issues they were moving on immediately. C.J.Lance-Duboscq suggested that TAC begin to use their ex-officio members as resources that the committee can use, rather then the ex-officio transportation members using you. She said that the problem was finding a firebrand to take on these issues and run with them. M.Overstrom mentioned the Policy Committee as a resource.

L.Russell asked where controversies usually arose? C.Dunnam responded between the University Administration and TAC. L.Russell noted that it looks like they’ve decided what to do about all their controversies anyway, so why wait to get information from Transportation? He suggested calling up the heads of operations to get information before it became too late for them to have input. G.Brandt relayed how Susan Murphy, Dean of Student and Academic Services, made a presentation about two architecture firms looking at plans for North Campus that is being reconfigured. He suggested sending a letter to Vice President Murphy asking her to make a presentation to the EA of a similar magnitude, explaining the effects.

C.J.Lance-Duboscq reiterated that she wanted everyone to realize that all changes affect everyone in the University, not just employees or students, but the whole University community.

C.Tkachuck explained that there was going to be major construction around Lincoln Hall, and spaces there would be lost. She asked what that would mean for people, and if there would there be new spaces added elsewhere? She told C.Dunnam that TAC had it in their purview to find out about these issues and have input into them.

M.Overstrom urged TAC not to simply stop their inquiries with Transportation employees who went to meetings, but to take complaints to people who know all about the new projects. C.Dunnam clarified that he felt Transportation was not the employee’s advocate, and M.Overstrom told the group to remember who the Transportation people represent. C.Dunnam agreed, but reminded the EA that TAC was limited in its powers to some extent.

R.Duffey observed that through permits and parking tickets, Transportation seems to have a lot of money coming in. D.Lieb responded that believe it or not, tickets and permits don’t make any money for Transportation, a unit still taking a large subsidy from the University. Enforcement is strict to make sure that if people have permits, they get spots since space is limited.

C.Dunnam supported this truth, but pointed out the bigger issue of whether the University should subsidize more parking expenses than they do. R.Duffey asked why the expenses were so high? D.Lieb explained that Transportation is operating under a debt service to pay off the first parking garage from eight years ago. C.Dunnam inquired of D.Lieb whether or not the University was being honest in charging people so much for permits. C.J.Lance-Duboscq asked D.Lieb what the three largest parts of the Transportation budget were? D.Lieb replied he thought they were salaries and fringes, debt service/capital expenditures, and maintenance.

L.Russell asked why so many people without permits were allowed on campus? D.Lieb said policing campus gates caused major tie ups and delays, actually angering the group of people that should be helped by such a program. G.Brandt pointed out that there just was such easy access to all lots. C.J.Lance-Duboscq suggested automating the lots, since most of the existing lots already have gates. L.Russell noted that people would just drive over the curbs as they have in the past. C.J.Lance-Duboscq wondered if anybody had looked into installing an automated system throughout campus? R.Duffey again mentioned that if TAC wants answers, someone has to start telling Transportation what they want. D.Lieb relayed there was an ongoing discussion about changes in transportation and parking and lack of space.

M.Esposito stated his feeling that it was the responsibility of representatives to figure out what their constituencies want, not to argue for personal issues. What the EA should be doing is to figure how to increase communication with TAC, not just to vent about Transportation issues. C.J.Lance-Duboscq disagreed, saying that it was good to talk about some of these issues with such knowledgeable people. M.Overstrom asked what the next step would be. D.DiBene was careful to mention that Transportation was not always bad, and lots of constituents were comfortable with the changes being made. M.Overstrom expressed her thought that B.Wendt should use TAC as a community voice for input for his department. D.Howland synthesized the common goal to be parking because so many people were affected by those issues every day in getting to and from work. L.Russell wanted to find out about how the review and planning committees working on the university level implement concerns that need to be addressed.

C.J.Lance-Duboscq asked if anyone had suggestions for a plan of action? M.Esposito suggested that EA and community members be careful to inform TAC representatives of their Transportation needs and monitor the committee more closely. M.Overstrom submitted to the chair the idea TAC should have a yearly agenda that they deal with. C.J.Lance-Duboscq asked if during TAC meetings there was an open forum for people to speak? C.Dunnam replied that hadn’t happened lately. M.Overstrom asked if all TAC meetings were open? C.Dunnam said that they were, but not many people attended.

C.J.Lance-Duboscq adjourned the meeting at 1:40 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

Julia R. Gordon