FACULTY SENATE MEETING
March 1, 2000
I. Call to Order
CHAIR CAROLINE STROBEL - I would like to call the meeting to order. (The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m.)
II. Correction and Approval of Minutes
CHAIR STROBEL - You have received a copy of the minutes. Are there any additions or corrections to the minutes as printed? If not, the minutes stand approved as printed.
III. Reports of Officers
PRESIDENT JOHN PALMS - Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon. Beautiful summer day here in February. We are recruiting faculty and students, and this is a great time to bring them to the campus. Busy time.
We just had a wonderful noon presentation by the President of the University of Virginia. This was right after the former President of the University of Florida (John Lombardi) spoke to the Joint boards retreat. There are two different approaches as to how you become AAU and raise your standards even above that. I thought Iíd share that experience with you. John Lombardi, talked about the kind of partnerships that the state had with the university to enhance them - he said never use the word "resources"- he said used the word "money." So that is what we are doing. They have this wonderful matching program for endowments. They have grants from NSF and NIH and got a match, and it was a real partnership. They have a special formula for raising the quality of graduate students and the number of graduate students. A special formula for raising enrollment from 30,000 to 40,000 and made money on all of those deals. They had kind of the best of all possible worlds.
The Virginia approach was different. When President Casteen became president of the University of Virginia they were told to cut their budgets; salaries were cut 2% each. They were getting 28% of their budget from the state, and after two years they ended up getting only 8%, and they were getting no help, so they decided to do it on their own. They started a campaign for $200 million and ended up raising $1.3 billion. So, it is almost kind of a semi-public institution, but their aspirations are very, very high.
So we have both of those histories giving us two perspectives. Board members and also members of our other supporting foundations were there. I think it was a very, very good experience. Both, as you know, are excellent institutions.
We are following very carefully the workings of the legislature. The Houseís budget for higher education is not what we would like, but it moves now to the Senate shortly. We will continue to work on our first priorities: as we said last time, faculty/staff salaries. It is one thing that the two presidents really agreed on: if you donít keep salaries of your faculty high you will never be in the top tier of institutions. As John Lombardi said, "You hire very good faculty and the good students will come and they will continue to drive the faculty to further excellence." So that is still our top priority.
I called last weekend or 10 days ago the 33 Carolina Scholar Finalists. It is always a pleasure to talk with these students. First of all I congratulate them. A number of them are really not surprised; they know they have those kind of credentials. Then my immediate comment is: "Congratulations, I know you will have a lot of other opportunities; where else are you applying?" Then you get the stream of institutions. At the McNair dinner the other night, I asked how many places students were applying to and when I said 12 there was still somebody with their hand up. So you get all the usual outstanding institutions. There were two Harvard applications that had already been admitted to Harvard. But it is always Chapel Hill, Virginia, Duke, Vanderbilt, etc. mostly on this side of the world. Maybe there is a University of Chicago, but not too many out there for Berkeley or into Texas. An outstanding group of students. One 1,600 SAT and one 1,580. We are doing a great job in this state with the very, very best student, but there is an awful lot of competition. Calling 33 and hoping to get 20. Then we had the McNair scholars in there; they already have a scholarship when they come but they donít have the McNairs, and we had a dinner for them. I want to thank you for working with the faculty to try to recruit these kinds of students. I am asked on my little sheet to make suggestions as to what in addition we might be able to do to be sure to capture and matriculate these students. I am always looking at their major and in talking to these students recommend that the departments continue their contact with these students. You are doing that and that is very, very important in the recruiting process. The one comment we do hear from the parents (and they all come with these students when they come on campus for their interview) is the meticulous care our process has for our applications. These students get birthday cards when they are still juniors; we are constantly communicating with them. We are on the web, and they can communicate better than ever, so that says something about how serious we are about this. When, on those evenings, a panel of our own current students reflects upon their experience here, they tell you it is not just while we are being recruited, it is while we are here. They give anecdotes dotes about the caring attention that they received here. The parents listen to where these students are going so there is another certification about their being successful. The fact that we have gotten another Truman finalist this year, we have a Rhodes scholar, we these Goldwaters -- all of this is really helping us improve the quality of our applicant pool. We need to keep doing that.
Two of our students last week got additional recognitions. If you picked up the USA Today, we never had an all USA academic First-Team Member. These are 800 students that are recommended by the best colleges in the country to USA Today. There are 20 chosen and then there are 40 other second team and third team. So 20 out of 800, Caroline Parler (our Rhodes Scholar) was picked as an all USA Academic First-Team Member. So on that morning we had USC there twice along with all the Harvards, Yales, and these other students. Caroline has just been wonderful. As you know, she graduated in December and is helping us out before she goes to Oxford next fall. Chris Dorsel, who was also a Rhodes Scholar interviewee in the state, was on the Third Team. So we really had two of our students mentioned, and I think that is very, very important.
Madam Chairman, that is the good news that I have. We are just working away. Jerry, I, and faculty met with the search committees of Hospitality, Retail, and Sport Management today. We met with the Music search committee. We are going to be meeting with the College of Education search committee. We have two searches that are almost at conclusion. And, as you read in the paper, we need to find a dean of the Business School. Thank you. Iíll be happy to answer any questions.
CHARLES MACK (ART) - A recent issue of USC Times reported that the Law School is searching, obviously, for some new quarters. It mentioned possible properties that were under site consideration --- they being the property across the street from the Advocacy Center at the corner of Pickens and Pendleton. The other property being the old Columbia Museum property. The University, I am sure, is aware that both of those sights are occupied by buildings which are of historical and architectural significance. Is that factor being weighed in the possible development of those properties?
PRESIDENT PALMS - Absolutely. They both would have challenges for us. One would have just a fit challenge and the other one as well. There are other places we might have to look, but we are certainly aware of that. Anything else? Thank you.
PROVOST JEROME ODOM - Thank you very much Madam Chair. Let me just follow up on one comment that the President made with respect to what is happening in terms of recruiting students. Last night we had what is called our Fellowships Dinner. At that dinner we invite students, particularly freshmen, whom we consider to be academically talented to come to meet with other students at upper levels who are competing for awards (some of these prestigious fellowships). The thing that is always so good for me to see is that there are a larger number of faculty at that fellowships dinner who are willing to sit down with those students and mentor them through this process. Teach them how to compete for these awards. How to interview, how to write essays, and so forth. I have done this every year since Iíve been Provost. Last night was by far the largest attendance that weíve had. The room was packed with students. Caroline Parler was there. She spoke with the students about her experiences in this process. Chris Dorsel was there as well. So we certainly take advantage of our upper level students in helping these freshmen come along. That office, by the way, has really struck a cord with students who are interviewing here as Carolina Scholars, and as McNair Scholars candidates. The students and the parents both are very interested in that particular office as well as our Office of Pre-Professional Advising.
Dr. Palms mentioned some searches. Let me bring you up to date on where we are with most searches. We are negotiating with a person for the Vice Provost for Research job. I feel encouraged by those negotiations. In the CIO search, the search committee has narrowed that to six candidates and letters of recommendation are currently being gathered on those candidates. As the President mentioned we met with the Music search committee and he and I are currently discussing their recommendations. We met this morning with the Hospitality, Retail, and Sport Management search committee and we will discuss their recommendation. We meet at 4:00 p.m. this afternoon with the search committee for the dean of Eduation and look forward to their recommendations. So we are making progress on those fronts. With the Darla Moore School of Business search, the search committee had a conference call with a candidate earlier this week. I think they have two more of those sessions planned before we bring someone to campus. In the Engineering search, I talked to Bruce Dunlap yesterday and he said that they are getting very close to narrowing that search down so that they can meet with us. The Journalism and Mass Communications search committee has had its meeting. At the first meeting they revised the advertisement. The advertisement has been sent to The Chronicle has well as other journals. So we are moving on all fronts with our searches.
I wanted to mention to you just a moment our SACS self study. As President Palms mentioned John Casteen was on campus last night and today. He will chair the site visit team that visits our campus. One of the things that bothers me just a little bit is I still talk to people around campus who donít know that we have a SACS self study going on. I plead with you to please talk to your constituents. Tell your constituents whatís happening. This is so very, very important to the entire campus. Shortly the whole campus will be getting a questionnaire from the SACS office having to do with information technology which is the topic of our proposal. I urge you again to talk to your colleagues, your constituents, about filling this out and sending it back. We need that information. I know there are a number of task forces that are working very, very hard right now. Overall I think the campus is engaged in what we are trying to do. But I am still am bothered by some folks who are not aware that this is occurring.
The final thing that I would like to do is to let you know that on March 15-17 we will again have a USC Writers Conference. If you remember last year Charles Frazier was here as well as number of other distinguished writers. This year Pat Conroy is going to lead off our session in the Koger Center on, I think, a Thursday night. Other people who will participate are Janette Turner Hospital, one of our own faculty, Nicky Finney who is a poet at the University of Kentucky and nature travel writer Rick Bass. So this promises to be an excellent conference. The faculty are invited to all of these sessions and we hope that you will take advantage. With that I will be happy to answer any questions as well.
IV. Report of Committees
PROFESSOR WISE - The Faculty Senate Steering Committee presents the nominees listed on page 23 for elected committees. Other nominations may be made at this time and before the end of the meeting. So I would present the committee list that we have developed.
PROFESSOR HENRY PRICE (JOUR) - I would like to nominate Professor Ken Campbell from Journalism and Mass Communications for the Curricula and Courses Committee.
CHAIR STROBEL - Are there any other nominations from the floor? There will be an opportunity at the end of the meeting for further nominations.
PROFESSOR JACOBY - As everybody is aware, we have a very long report, here although I think we can get through it quickly. There are also several things that are going to be postponed from consideration in the report.
So to begin, the College of Engineering, Civil Engineering has a proposal that I would like to move as a group, beginning with the change in title and description for ECIV 300. Down below that there is a change in credit hours and prerequisites and there is a minor typographical error there. ECIV 301 should be changed to (3) credit hours. It is listed as (2) credit hours but it should be changed from (2) credit hours to (3) credit hours. So, as I said, a minor typographical change. After that Civil Engineering also has a change in title, change in prerequisites, change in title and description, and a change in prerequisites and description. Moving over on to page 26, another change in title. Then there is a new course ECIV 555, but the Graduate Council has asked that we postpone consideration of that. So what I would like to do is move all of the proposals here from Civil Engineering except for ECIV 555.
CHAIR STROBEL - Is there any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye . Opposed. The ayes have it.
PROFESSOR JACOBY - Okay, next we have longest item on here, the proposal from Computer Science and Engineering. This is, as everybody is aware, a long one. There is a list of new courses beginning on page 27 with the course designators for Computer Science and Engineering, and the courses that they originally were from EECE and CSCI. There are a couple of minor typographical errors in here or changes actually. On page 29, under Computer Science and Engineering 355 the new course listing (this is on the left hand column of the page) it says "Credit may not be received for....." that should be "Major credit may not be received for both CSCE 355 and CSCE 551." The word "major" should be inserted.
Two pages on, on page 31, there is a similar change, this is for CSCE 551, that is the second entry from the top on page 31. Again in the left hand column there, the last sentence is "Credit may not be received......" and that should also read "Major credit may not be received for both...." Moving beyond, there is a list beginning on page 33 of course descriptions with the CSCI designator. Beginning on page 40 there is a list of courses to be deleted with various original designators. On page 42, there is a new course listing, and again a minor typographical error, the new course should be CSCE 245 not CSCI 245.
Then beginning on page 43, change in curriculum for degree programs. These proceed for several pages and then several things we are going to withdraw here -- postpone for consideration today. What we would like to do, because of some concerns that have arisen, is hold the information about Electrical Engineering beginning on page 46 through 48, and postpone consideration of that, hopefully, only until the next Faculty Senate Meeting. There is some more material after page 48, Revisions to the University Bulletin, (pages 114 and 115) and I think that is all for this long proposal. . But as I said, I would like to ask that we move everything here except for the material on pages 46 through 48 which we will postpone for later consideration.
CHAIR STROBEL - Is there any discussion?
PRFOESSOR CHARLES MACK (ART) - Page 43, item 6, I just noticed that formerly Liberal Arts had 18 hours and now it is reduced to 9 hours. Is that correct?
PROFESSOR JACOBY - Yes.
PROFESSOR MACK - I was wondering what the justification is for doing that?
PROFESSOR CAROLINE EASTMAN (COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING) - The liberal arts unspecified has been reduced from 18 hours to 9 hours. There is also a requirement for a philosophy course. This was a general change made for all the engineering degrees because of the change in ABET requirements, which are more flexible. I have colleagues who come from the engineering side and they may have futher commets .
CHAIR STROBEL - Is there any further comment? Are there any other questions to be raised about this rather large change?
PROFESSOR CHARLES BRICE (ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING) - Since the electrical engineering changes are being postponed until later and since part of the change in computer area is because electrical and computer engineering are splitting, are we going to have time to get changes into the next catalog? And, if not, how are we going to avoid having a big mess in the catalog next year?
CHAIR STROBEL - We plan to get this expedited and yes it would go through next time. In fact even through the summer Faculty Senate Meeting, I believe changes can be made in the catalog. So you will have plenty of time.
PROFESSOR BRICE - We had not been made aware any problems up until five minutes before the meeting started so we feel sort of like we were sandbagged by this at the last moment.
CHAIR STROBEL - Well, we didnít realize it either. But I can assure you that we will make sure it is expedited through the process. Any other questions or comments? All in favor. Opposed. The ayes have it.
PROFESSOR JACOBY - Okay, moving on to the College of Liberal Arts, the first item there is the proposal for the Film Studies Program which goes from page 52 through 54. I would like to move that for adoption.
CHAIR STROBEL - Are there any questions about this proposal? All in favor. Ayes. Opposed. The ayes have it.
PROFESSOR JACOBY - On page 55, the Department of French and Classics has a proposal for a change in credit hours that I would like to move.
CHAIR STROBEL - Are there any questions about this proposal? If not, all in favor. Opposed. The ayes have it.
PROFESSOR JACOBY - The next item is from the Department of Germanic, Slavic and East Asian Languages. They are proposing a new course, GERM 280, German Culture and Civilization. I would like to move that course please.
CHAIR STROBEL - Are there any questions about this proposal? All in favor. Opposed. The ayes have it.
PROFESSOR JACOBY - The next two items, D. and E.are there from the Linguistics Program and the Department of Spanish, Italian and Portuguese. Once again the Graduate Council has asked that we postpone consideration on this until the next meeting. They have not had a chance to look at that yet and it is a 500 level course. So we will postpone that for now. Down below that, in the proposal from the School of Music there is a minor typographical change. It says change in credit hours for MUSC 269 from (3) credits to (3) credits that should be 269 from (3) credits to (1 credit; repeatable for credit). So the new proposal is for a 1 credit course that is repeatable. So I would like to move that please.
PROFESSOR STROBEL - Is there any discussion?
PROFESSOR MACK - Repeatable to how many?
PROFESSOR JACOBY - 3 credit hours is my understanding.
PROFESSOR MACK - That is just for 3? So it should be "1-3?"
PROFESSOR JACOBY - Yes, as far as I know yes.
PROFESSOR MACK - Is that the way it is reading or is that just an understanding?
PROFESSOR JACOBY - That is the understanding.
PROFESSOR ANDREW GOWAN (SCHOOL OF MUSIC) - 1 hour repeatable for credit. Theoretically there is no limit though practically there is an intermediate and an advanced course there would be no reason why any one would do it more than twice for instance.
PROFESSOR MACK - You can take 122 hours of repeatable credit? Iím just kidding.
CHAIR STROBEL - Are there any other questions? All in favor. Opposed. The ayes have it.
PROFESSOR JACOBY - On page 56, the College of Nursing has a proposal for a change of prerequisites and description for NURS 316. I would like to move that.
CHAIR STROBEL - Is there any discussion about this proposal? All in favor. Opposed. The ayes have it.
PROFESSOR JACOBY - And then finally, I believe that this is the last thing that we are doing. Oh, no it isnít! The next thing is the Department of Geological Sciences has a number of changes in prerequisites for courses and they are deleting a course, GEOL 590. Pages 56 and 57. I would like to move that as a group please.
CHAIR STROBEL - Is there any discussion about this proposal? All in favor. Opposed. The ayes have it.
PROFRESSOR JACOBY - And, this is the last item, I think. It is a proposal for a new Bachelor of Science in Cardiovascular Technology on pages 58 and 59. I would like to move the entire proposal.
CHAIR STROBEL - Is there any discussion of this proposal? All in favor. Opposed. The ayes have it.
PROFESSOR STROBEL - Peggy just informed me that Iím wrong again. It was not the last item. For the Senateís information only on page 60 there is a May Session course there from the Department of Germanic, Slavic and East Asian Languages - RUSS 105M. That, I do believe, is it.
CHAIR STROBEL - Thank you Bill.
PROVOST ODOM - I would just like to say that I sincerely appreciate the hard work of the faculty in this new department coming from two merged departments. That was not an easy task and they have worked very hard to come up with a new curriculum and new courses and merge those two. I am sure it has been an exercise and some frustration but it has gone very well.
CHAIR STROBEL - Thank you.
C. Faculty Advisory Committee, Henry Price, Chair:
PROFESSOR PRICE - The Faculty Advisory Committee is almost done with its work on the revision and updating of the Faculty Manual. We have been working with only Chapters 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the present manual because that is the portion of the manual that we, the provost, and the university counsel agree is the faculty contract portion of the manual. We are meeting March 13 and hope to have our work completed at that point, and I would hope that we would be able to put the proposed revisions on the Provostís page on the web within two weeks. I mention that date to you because I want you to look at it, to study it, to see what the changes are. Professor Strobel has agreed that we will use the April meeting of the senate to discuss any questions that you might have about the revisions that are being put forward. This means that we can take it to the faculty for a vote on April 27 at the General Faculty meeting. I want you to know that the members of the Faculty Advisory Committee have been meeting for several hours each week since very early in the fall semester working on this particular task. This does not include, of course, the hours that each of us has put in at home and at the office getting ready for those meetings. I know that often faculty members who put their time in on committees donít really get the recognition they should get for that kind of job. So, on your behalf and with your permission I would like to thank Margit Resch, Jerry Augustinos, Rob Wilcox, Dan Feldman, and Mike Sutton for the work they have put in and the time they have given to this particular thing, which has had to be taken away from other responsibilities that they have. Professor Strobel and Provost Odom have been involved for the past six weeks or so while we were working on the tenure and promotion segment of the manual, we have had John Spurrier meeting with us, as well. So I thank all of these people.
D. Faculty Welfare Committee, Professor Caroline Eastman, Chair:
PROFESSOR EASTMAN - I have a brief report at this point. I would first like to comment on some of the comments that were made at the previous meeting concerning the Pharmacy Drug Card Program. We have checked into this, in particular the copay for generic and brand name drugs. It was suggested at the last meeting that you just needed to ask your physician to say substitution permitted and even if there was not a generic you would still pay the generic price. This is not the case. It is not that easy. If there is no generic available, you will receive a brand name drug and will pay the higher copayment. We realize that a number of folks are unhappy with this as well as with some other aspects of our health plan, and we would hope at some indefinite time in the future to address these in more detail. I did receive one comment asking me to make sure that people know that your prescriptions basically expire after a year. The pharmacy may still fill them but you will not necessarily get them paid by our health plan. So if your pharmacy is a little casual about their record keeping, be sure and check this with them.
The other item I would like to comment on at this point is our faculty survey that we have been developing. We should be sending this out to the faculty later this month. This is relatively short and it covers a broad range of issues that have come up in focus group meetings. This is a separate survey from the IT oriented one that you will get as a part of SACS, which Dan Barron has told me they will be sending out in very early April. We strongly encourage you to complete both of these. Ours will be relatively short. The other survey is critical for our SACS self study and will ask you in much more detail about IT and its relation to your teaching and your research.
As I mentioned last time, we have invited Mr. Derrick Huggins here. We will ask him to speak later on in the meeting. I hope that everyone did their homework assignment and checked on the shuttle schedules and actually went and rode on one of them if you had not done so before. Any questions?
PROFESSOR MACK - This is just a follow-up for my colleague whom I know will want to know that, if this is the case with generic and not generic drugs, is there anything being done about this gap? Are we talking with the state folks about this? Is it being taken into consideration or is anything being done.
CHAIR STROBEL - I instructed, I asked Caroline if the Welfare Committee would not take this whole issue of problems with the current State Plan. If they would take it up - try and ascertain what all the problems are. And see if working in fact either alone or in conjunction with other state agencies if they can go ahead and try and deal with the issue, if we can, at the state level. That is going to take a little bit of time, Charles, for them to really find out what the problems are and try and ascertain what can be done about it or how we can most effectively lobby about it. So I really think at this point there is not too much we can do.
PROFESSOR MACK - But I can tell my colleague that you are on it?
CHAIR STROBEL - That they will be working on it.
PROFESSOR EASTMAN - As I think people are aware, this is our state health plan. This is a state plan. The same options are basically available to all state employees and we, therefore, need to work with other state employees. The USC faculty are relatively a small fraction of the state employees. So as a faculty senate this is not something we can really deal with by ourselves. I understand that our concerns are shared by a number of other state employees.
CHAIR STROBEL - So we are going to work on it.
PROFESSOR ELDON WEDLOCK - Just some random thoughts on this: The problem is across the board. The state health plan has not had an increase in employee contribution for a number of years now. As you all know, prescription drugs are the fastest growing aspect of health care. More drugs are out there and they are not available as generics. The problem was, without getting too specific, that you had to pass some of the cost along for the drug costs. You didnít want to raise the premium on everybody because that might drive some of the lower earning employees out the system so the decision was essentially to come up with the drug card plan. This hits those of us who are on in years and will be using more of these drugs. But, hopefully, you have increased pay. So it is a way of shifting a cost problem onto those who are better able to pay for it. I donít like it myself, of course, and many people are upset with it. There is a bill in the House of Representatives, saying essentially, if there is no generic for a drug, then you only have to pay the generic copayment for the propriety I donít know if that is going to go anywhere or not, but that would probably solve the problem from our perspective. It would also bankrupt the system.
CHAIR STROBEL - Thank you. Thank you Caroline.
E. Committee on Admission, Professor Stephen McNeill, Chair:
Professor McNeill - We have no report.
CHAIR - Thank you.
F. Committee on Scholastic Standards and Petitions, Professor Wiebke Strehl, Chair:
CHAIR STROBEL - I believe they have no report.
G. Other Committees:
CHAIR STROBEL - Are there any other committees that wish to report today?
V. Report of Secretary
SECRETARY WISE - No report.
VI. Unfinished Business
CHAIR STROBEL - Now I have purposely put under unfinished business, parking so that we could complete the work of the Faculty Senate before we get into this discussion. I would now like to have Derrick Huggins, who is in charge of Parking, to come forward and present whatever statement he wants to present and then open it up for discussion.
DERRICK HUGGINS (PARKING) - I donít know if what I have is a statement but I can at least tell you some of things that we have got going. Some things that we feel will ease the parking situation around campus. We have a core area parking problem. We all know that. But we are taking a look from the perimeter parking situation saying if we can establish good transportation from the perimeter parking areas on a time schedule, we feel that we can ease the parking area around the core area of campus. Right now we have bought two new buses -- larger buses -- and those buses are working out well. We are going to buy four more by the end of the calendar year they should be delivered by Spring 2001. So what we will have with Bell South, the Coliseum, and also Bates House, we will have two buses in all those areas running into campus. Once you get into campus, hopefully, if you are teaching over in the BA building and you do not qualify to get a parking space in the core area, you will park out in the Bell South area and catch one of the buses. We are looking at the buses turn around time of five minutes. So from the time you park your car, go to the pick-up point, you can get to campus within five minutes of time. Now it has been working rather well. We do have a pilot going right now and it is working very well but there are a few bugs that we need to straighten out. The Bates House area is going to be a problem because of the trains that comes so we are going to establish areas in the Coliseum and the Bell South area for faculty and staff. We will assign a specific area for you guys so therefore you can just catch the bus and come on in. Now once that is established we will start dividing up the core area parking. We know that there are only 2000 parking spaces in the core area. So we are going to look into seniority and also raise the cost. Yes, there will be a cost. That is the only way we can do it. Taking into consideration faculty we will assign a percentage of parking spaces to the faculty because we are sensitive towards your needs also. Also we have noticed that there is only 770 spaces or 770 reserve spaces being bought by faculty members. We have a lot of reserved parking spaces - Pendleton Street Garage, Blossom Garage, Senate Garage, Computer Services Garage that we can give faculty members. And you come in and see me and I will definitely make sure that you will get a space. So we are putting certain things ahead in making sure that our faculty are taken care of but until we can get our perimeter parking scheme going and working we cannot divide up those spaces in the core area. Are there any, I know there are, questions?
CHAIR STROBEL - Are there any questions of Derrick? Please identify yourself.
PROFESSOR HANS-CONRAD ZUR LOYE (CHEMISTRY) - I was wondering could you post on the web exactly the mechanism by which parking spaces are assigned in terms of seniority and also whether or not any departments have first picks on certain lots versus other departments.
MR. HUGGINS - I will make sure we do that but we do not base it on departments -- we base it on seniority right now. What we did if you have 142 spaces letís say the C-1 lot which is located behind the Presidentís Office. You have 142 spaces there. We will send out registration forms and the ones that want that lot will apply for the C-1 lot and we will count the number of spaces based on seniority and thatís who gets in that space. So you are in the whole shabang with the faculty and staff.
So that is how we give them out now. But, I will be more than happy to post it on the web to show you how we do those things.
UNIDENTIFIED SENATOR - I was wondering if you put as a first choice the lot you would really like to have but are not certain you are going to get in based on seniority. So you put the lot that you think you might end up with as your second choice. Would you first take off first choices for a lot and fill it up so that..... In other words, I have the C lot as my second choice but more people than the number of slots have it as their first choice even though I exceed some of them in seniority would I still get into that lot or would I just sort of get bumped down?
MR. HUGGINS - Well it is based on your seniority yes for the second lot. If you wanted the C lot and that is your second choice and you have the seniority even though it is your second choice you will get the C lot.
PROFESSOR WEDLOCK - I have heard there is problem with the H stickers. Youíve got too many of them. You donít know where people are parking with the H stickers so it is hard to make allocations. Do you have a feel for where the H stickers are mainly parking, and can you get that by asking people who are eligible for Hís to mark what lot they would prefer?
MR. HUGGINS - Yes, that is one of the things that we are looking at the H stickers right now. Also the ones that retire get an H sticker also and that is what we are looking really at. We are looking to give the retirees a decal that states retired and that will at least let us know that this individual would not be on campus as much. But as far as H stickers, yes sir, we are looking at possibly going with the H and then with a C beside it so that will allow us to factor in the numbers.
PROFESSOR WEDLOCK Ė An HC is going to look alot like "handicapped" though.
PROFESSOR BOB LYON (ART) - We have recently moved into McMaster College over on Senate and Pickens Street. We are kind of on the edge of campus. Is there a way that we can start getting the shuttle system to run closer to us? Our students really arenít able to use it this time because it just doesnít come anywhere near our building.
MR. HUGGINS - Yes sir, we will look at that. We will probably make that phase over the summer with the new route that will bring in from Bell South.
PROFESSOR ROBERT WILCOX (LAW) - Could you give us some idea of (and I admit to partially not doing my homework on what the routes are now) the number of stops on campus that you are contemplating? In other words, how close will you get people to their buildings? The frequency - is it going to be a consistent frequency throughout the day? Will it run - what hours are you contemplating that type of thing?
MR. HUGGINS - Well, as far as the high areas of course we are looking at outside here at the Law Center is one of our stops but we were trying to work with the city to buy a couple of meters from the them so that we can access that area. The high areas that most of your colleges have a stop like the Law Center right now there stop is one block over at the corner of Sumter and Devine Streets. We would like to get it a little bit closer but most of your colleges do have a stop. We are looking at extending the shuttle system up until 7:00 p.m. and then after that we are going to go with a larger van -- it wonít be a van but it will be a larger van that will be run by APOS escorts that will pick up at the areas the colleges actually the same stops as we run until 12 oíclock at night. So as far as the time of the routes we are trying to keep all our stops down to around 15 minutes. But two buses on one route would drop it down to a 7 minute wait.
PROFESSOR WILCOX - But the consistency would be throughout the day? You are not looking at the rush hour schedule or then a mid-day schedule? What I am thinking is I can see the students and staff particularly staff on an entirely different schedule from faculty. There is going to be a heavy use of staff at 8 oíclock in the morning and 5 oíclock in the afternoon. Faculty are going to be off and on throughout the day.
MR. HUGGINS - The consistency of the route will continue throughout the entire day. We are not going to say put up an extra bus up to around 8 oíclock unless it is just one of those things where we just canít handle it. But what we are seeing now in the buses are not really full during the entire day especially 10 to 2 oíclock. Thereís really not that many riders so that tells us that we do have the resources now so if we were to push some people out of the core areas we do feel that we can get you into the core area in a decent amount of time.
PROFESSOR MICHAEL HUHNS (COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING) - Why is it that in the middle of the afternoons parking privileges disappear? So that certain lots then sort of open up for anybody to park in or for students to park......?
MR. HUGGINS - Right now that is one of the things with the parking plan that we are going to change hopefully after 2 oíclock we will not allow that any more. That is just something that has been I guess a perk or not even a perk just a situation that has been going on so long now. That is one of the first things we are going to change. We are going to assign the parking spaces in that lot and that is where you park and that is where you will find a place for the entire day. So there is a change coming about there.
PROFESSOR PETER GRAHAM (SPORT ADMINISTRATION) - I have two questions. One concerns the rumor Iíve heard that the potential is there to be assessing faculty and staff a monthly fee. A minimal fee nevertheless but a fee to have our parking stickers which would be deducted from payroll. Can you comment on that?
MR. HUGGINS - Well that is one of the things we are looking at. We want to have the shuttle system in place first so when we displace individuals that do not qualify or cannot afford to park in the core area we will have shuttle systems that can bring those people in. And, that is true, we will charge based on, hopefully based on, the amount of money that everyone makes. We are not just going to go across the board and try to get $25 from an individual that makes $10,000 a year and a person that makes $70,000 would be charged $25. All these things are just up in the air right now. That is what we are looking at to try to make sure that we can buy buses and we can maintain the lots and we can provide good parking areas for everybody in each parking situation.
PROFESSOR GRAHAM - My second question that concerns the towing policy that we have here at the University. I have talked to a number of folks who are with the ticketing group. They expressed some frustration when they come into the parking lot, especially at the Coliseum which I frequent, where we have people without stickers and we have students parking in faculty and staff spots and all they can do is issue a ticket. And these people are doing this on a frequent basis only, I guess, to pay the price of a ticket. But we canít do anything about having the vehicles removed. Is there something that can be done to correct this particular situation?
MR. HUGGINS - Those lots will be gated. We are going to gate those lots so we can get rid of that problem altogether. Yes, we do allow a certain amount of tickets, $50 or more, before we issue a tow. Instead of going with such a towing plan, we are looking at restraining people from parking in those lots. These are plans that we are coming up with -- not this year but next year we hope to see these things coming in play.
PROFESSOR DANIEL FELDMAN - (Darla Moore School of Business) - Actually, in all seriousness, my question is this: Did I misunderstand you or did you say that you that you were going to charge parking fees based on income?
MR. HUGGINS - Well, it is going to be right now I guess I am stating some things that I really havenít thought out on how we are going to do them. We know there are situations that we cannot charge -- we will charge based on where you are parking. Like the garages will cost a certain amount and a surface lot space will cost a certain amount also. But we have to look at how we are going to charge and charging a $100 towards an individual that is parking in a surface lot and he only makes $10,000 a year. We just have to look at it and we are trying to pattern ourselves by other Southeastern colleges and universities that are doing the same things and that is one of the things we are seeing.
PROFESSOR FELDMAN - Maybe I am confused about this, but if you really believe that logic, then maybe the Welfare Committee should look at that issue then. Shouldnít there then be graded prices for football tickets so staff who make less pay less for those tickets? I am not sure whether that is a rational allocation policy.
MR. HUGGINS - That is one of the things as far as allocation. We are looking at those different types of processes. I am not just saying this is in stone. I may have spoken a bit prematurely but we are looking at different variables of how we can charge and be as fair as possible and then go from there.
PROFESSOR DAVID WILES (THEATRE, SPEECH AND DANCE) - For those of us who have Z stickers we really donít mind if we get extra parking privileges after 2 oíclock in the afternoon. My question would be if you are going to -- if that privilege is going to shift will it disappear totally will it shift to a later point in the day? Which actually brings up another question which I donít know, is there a point in the day in which your sticker would not be valid after 6 oíclock or 7 oíclock or is it or is it 24/7 that your sticker applies to the lot? In other words, if Iíve got a Z sticker and Iím parking in a C lot a Sunday morning?
MR. HUGGINS - You are okay. The rules and regulations does allow you to park after 2 oíclock on Fridays until 7:00 a.m. Monday morning.
PROFESSOR WILES - So if you shifted, are you eliminating it all together or are you thinking about moving it back to later in the day?
MR. HUGGINS - We would actually move it back to later in the day. You know 5:00 p.m. or something like that. All this right now these are just some of the things that weíve toyed around with but it is nothing really set in stone. Once we decide to come with the parking plan you guys will be the first ones to tear it up and send it back to us. But it is nothing underhanded. We are not doing anything underhandedly. I am just feeling my way. I know we have a parking problem and the only way we are going to be able to solve it is the perimeter parking scheme and that is what we are moving towards. We are taking an aggressive move right now to make sure that we have the buses in place so when we start displacing people we have a transit system that can bring them back in.
CAROLYN WEST (ASSOCIATE VICE PROVOST FOR REGIONAL CAMPUSES AND CONTINUING EDUCATION) - Mr. Huggins, when you get a reserved space is it reserved 24 hours a day? The other night I went to a basketball game and I went to use my reserve space and the person collecting money asked me if I was working. Does that mean that if I have a reserve space I canít park in it and go to the basketball game? And, if so, where is that written down?
MR. HUGGINS - No, that is not the case and I will make sure that that individual knows that if you have a reserve parking space you are allowed to park in that space 24 hours a day.
ASSOCIATE PROVOST WEST - Okay. Thank you.
PROFESSOR RICHARD CONANT (MUSIC) - We have addressed this issue in Safety sometime ago--Derrick and I worked on that. That actually even if you work at the Coliseum and you donít have a reserved space you are supposed to be able to park in that lot. Because we are worried about the females and those working late at night, late classes and so on. It shouldnít be a problem.
PROFESSOR GRAHAM - Let me point out that it in fact is a problem. We received notification on certain dates those of us who do park in the Coliseum lot will have to remove our vehicles by a certain time or else they will be towed.
MR. HUGGINS - Well, on that side of the Coliseum -- the ticket side of the Coliseum. But if you were to move to the other side we and we have a minimum amount of reserved spaces on that side. We just ask on certain times when they are having a special event, handicapped parking spaces are needed so we ask that the faculty and staff will help us out by moving to the other side of the building so we can be sensitive towards those individuals that are physically challenged who need to park a little bit closer to the buildings.
PROFESSOR MACK - Back to this cost factor. I understand the cost of garage parking that is paying down the cost of the garage and I believe it is state mandated. About surface parking, you said you might be instituting charges for surface parking where there have not been charges now. And the reason being?
MR. HUGGINS - Well, the reason is you know as far as seniority goes if will allow -- we want to take care of the faculty member that has been here for 20 years but we also want to take care of the ones that have been here for 10 years too. And we just donít see how if we put everybody in the same pot how we are going to allow or be able to let faculty members park in an area and then you have a staff members competing for the same areas and the only way we feel that we can do this is establishing the cost factor.
PROFESSOR MACK - Would the income then be used to offset the cost of running the transportation - is that the justification?
MR. HUGGINS - We will definitely -- we have to get around 13 vehicles methods of transportation to run a successful transit program and we just canít do it based on allocated funds. We have to really look at other ways so that we can buy sufficient mass transit.
PROFESSOR ZUR LOYE - You are talking about displacing people that are currently parking in what you consider the core. Are they going to be displaced because they canít afford the parking or are they going to be displaced because you are going to limit the parking in a way that it was not limited before?
MR. HUGGINS - Well, youíve got A lots that we are going to lose. We are going to lose that toGibbes Green that is almost a 100 spaces that is there that we are going to lose. So we wonít have the same number of spaces so the competition is going to be greater. We will assign parking spaces or actually assign lots and you will know where you are going to park every morning. You will have an opening. Especially in the areas where they are nestled with the dormitories that is one of the problems that we have. All academic areas/colleges are nestled with the dormitories so we have to gate those areas and we will assign you a parking space. One thing that we are going to do also with the perimeter parking lots we are going to section off certain areas just for faculty and staff. So you wonít be competing with these outlying areas with these students. You will know exactly where you park and you can just get on a shuttle from your area, that corner of the lot.
PROFESSOR STEVE MCNEILL (ENGINEERING) - Did you say we are coming up with this plan, could you tell me who "we" is and who will make the final decisions?
MR. HUGGINS - As far as "we" we are just looking at the amount of parking spaces and getting our stats together and coming up with a plan. I am "we" and the Vice President for Business and Finance and some of the Safety Committee guys and everybody that we are going to get a workable plan together that is based on all Southeastern colleges and universities and then give it to you guys that way. Because if we continue to just talk and all these committees submit these things we just feel that we wonít get anywhere.
PROFESSOR MCNEILL - So it is going to come to the Faculty Senate for final approval?
MR. HUGGINS - We will give recommendations to the Provost and I am sure that he will devise a subcommittee or a committee of some sort to allow you guys input.
CHAIR STROBEL - It will come to the Welfare Committee. And there will be opportunity for further comment once we see a final plan on the thing. So while obviously we donít have control over the parking situation, and we canít vote yes or no on it, at least we will certainly solicit input and you will know what it is before it goes into effect.
PROFESSOR WEDLOCK - Some of you know I have been working on this kind of thing for, it seems like, all my life. But this is the first time I think anybody has come forward with a comprehensive view of what is going on and some rational approaches to the distribution of a scarce resource. I would just like to commend Derrick for putting his energy into solving this problem or at least coming up with some kind of solution. Things havenít changed here since Iíve been here -- for over 30 years now. We still have the same 2 oíclock, 4 oíclock, 5 oíclock scheme, no enforcement, this there, barricades here, no gates, or anything. All these things are around the table now and I think we are going to be able to come up with a good mix of solutions that will work to the benefit of the University as a whole. So, thanks.
MR. HUGGINS - And, just to touch base with some of the things that you said. We have several projects that are going on right now and one thing that we are looking at is our signs making sure that people know exactly where they are supposed to park. Hopefully you are seeing the new signs go up around your parking lots that show if you do not have a D sticker you should not be parking in this lot. Also we have new shuttles and new shuttle signs that are out there being more descriptive. You know these things are in place and you are going to continue to see that once we get this plan going you will hopefully see we are talking business here.
UNIDENTIFIED SENATOR - You indicated you are going to raise the reserve parking fee but you also indicated you have lots of reserve spaces vacant. That doesnít seem to be logical.
MR. HUGGINS - Well if I said we were going to raise the reserve parking fee Iím sorry if I said that. In reserve parking what I am talking about really is the garage areas. Looking at placing more people in those areas and making sure the faculty has preference to get in those areas. If you come to me I am definitely going to make a stab at trying to get you a reserve parking space in the garage. I believe you park up under the Visitorís Center area which is a troubled area and weíre really trying to work hard to keep people out of your area. As far as surface lot reserving, we are not going to do more of that until we get the perimeter parking plan in place. Thank you.
CHAIR STROBEL - I think that Derrick really seems to be making some good progress on this. He has just recently been hired by USC to work on this. So I think you can see that he has some very good ideas. I think that we are going to be moving to a more rational parking situation. Putting the gates in with the parking lots where there are reserved spaces whether they are surface lots or garage lots, I think, will help a lot because it will keep out people who donít belong in those lots. They wonít have a key card to get in. So I think a lot of this will help. Yes, we are probably going to have to all pay something towards parking but in the long run you will have a place to park. So I think that things should get better. And definitely before a final plan comes forward, Welfare will monitor and you are working on the Safety Committee, Richard, and so faculty are going to be involved as the planning goes forward. We will bring it back again to the Faculty Senate for comment when the final plan is put together and you have a little bit more to look at then what we had today.
VI. New Business
PROFESSOR WISE - The nominations are open for elected committees if anyone wishes to nominate at this time.
CHAIR STROBEL - There being none nominations are closed and you will be sending out a ballot.
PROFESSOR WISE - Yes, for the one contested committee.
VII. Good of the Order
PROFESSOR ROBERT BEST (MEDC) - I would like to make this body aware of the activities of one of our fellow senators, in my department, the Department of OB-GYN which is Bob Young. He is director of the genetic counseling mastersí degree program and the co-director Janice Edwards also in our department. That program was established in 1985 under their leadership and it has twice been reviewed by the Commission on Higher Education and both times received commendations from them. We are now in the process of undergoing a formal accreditation which is a new idea in the field of genetic counseling. We have just completed a site visit from that board and that has gone extremely well so I just wanted to applaud the work of Bob Young and Janice Edwards in that program.
CHAIR STROBEL - Thank you very much. I think that we all really appreciate the good work that is being done in that area. Is there anything else for the Good of the Order?
CHAIR STROBEL - Are there any announcements? If not the meeting is adjourned.
(Time: 4:15 p.m.)