UNL ACADEMIC SENATE

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

PRESENT: Aguilar, Bender, Bryant, Mayo, Scheideler, Zorn

ABSENT: Ford, Humes, Baum Kuska, Latta, Prochaska Cue, Williams

DATE: April 14, 1999

PLACE: 1227 R Street, Academic Senate

______________________________________________________________________________

1.0 Call to Order

Scheideler called the meeting to order at 3: 15 PM.

2.0 Announcements

No announcements.

3.0 Changes to the Student Code of Conduct - Vice Chancellor Griesen

Vice Chancellor Griesen reported that some of the proposed changes to the Student Code of Conduct were initiated by the students. He noted that these changes are designed to make sure that the process is fair to them. These changes consist of: providing the entire list of code violations when the student is first contacted; if a student rejects the proposed administrative judication, additional charges can not be made without providing new evidence; the language "sanctions imposed by the Judicial Board shall be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct" will be included under 7.1. Mayo asked if both the students and faculty support these changes? VC Griesen stated yes. He noted the other changes are a result of the partnership audit with the Office of Civil Rights. He stated that these changes are to ensure that provisions are made in a timely manner. He noted that the students and the Judicial Board approve of these changes. Bryant asked what is the subordinate Judicial Board? VC Griesen replied that this was a process in the 1970's whereby a Housing and Greek Judicial Board existed to hear cases. He pointed out that the faculty suggested that all cases should go to the Judicial Board rather than the subordinate boards. Mayo noted that there may be incidents where the time limits may restrict the gathering of all information that is needed for the case. VC Griesen stated that the language allows for flexibility. Aguilar asked where racial incidents are covered in the Student Code of Conduct and she asked whether a separate category could be included to cover this area? VC Griesen reported that 4.30 states that if a student violates a law than they can be charged. Mayo pointed out that if no specific law or regulation has been violated, it is difficult to have a rule against people having poor judgement or unpopular actions. Scheideler asked there is an anti-harassment code? Zorn stated that any form of harassment is against the law. Aguilar noted that the language could be clearer in stating the kinds of behavior that are not allowed and whether a person can bring a charge forward. VC Griesen pointed out that the harassment section has been reviewed by a number of people including lawyers. Scheideler stated that it is important to spell out clearly the kinds of behavior that is unacceptable. VC Griesen stated that the different types of harassment are spelled out in numerous other university documents. Scheideler asked why it isn't listed in the Code of Conduct? Bender pointed out that enforcing harassment could be difficult under the law. He stated that there are some Supreme Court precedents where imposing punishment is for the content of a person's expression is considered unconstitutional. He noted that there is a possibility to include some kind of a provision saying that if someone violates an existing provision of the Student Code of Conduct, and there is clear evidence which indicates the motivation for doing so was racially or sexually biased, then this could be taken as an aggravated circumstance that could be used to enhance the penalty. VC Griesen stated that he will take Aguilar's suggestion under advisement and noted that there could be a section dealing with civility. Zorn asked if it would add anything by putting this section in the Code of Conduct? Bryant asked if there is a violation that addresses whether denying others their rights and responsibilities as a member of this community is a cause for action? VC Griesen stated that it is under section 4.10 regarding harassment. Scheideler asked if students are aware of the types of harassment that can lead to a violation? VC Griesen stated that there is a fair amount of awareness out there. Zorn noted that there is a statement in the Code of Conduct that reads that "each member of the academic community should actively encourage practice and policies to ensure that all races, colors, creeds, and religions are welcomed on campus and extended all the privileges of the academic community." Aguilar pointed out that it is not clear that racial misconduct is against the Code. Bender asked how many cases of racial misconduct are brought to the Judicial Board? VC Griesen stated that one or two a year and that they have never found the Code inadequate to deal with these cases. He noted that the Judicial Board believes that the Code is fine on this issue. Scheideler suggested that they keep the points raised by Aguilar under consideration. Zorn pointed out that the interpretation people put on specific language can often be quite different than the intent. The committee concurred with the changes being made to the Student Code of Conduct.

4.0 Parking - Assistant Vice Chancellor Jim Main

Scheideler pointed out that President Latta met with Assistant Vice Chancellor Main to discuss parking. Scheideler asked what options were reviewed for the parking plan. Assistant VC Main stated that three basic options were reviewed: restriction of parking to a specific segment of the campus population, such as freshmen or sophomore students, remote parking, and parking garages. He stated that the parking garages gained momentum because they could deal with the congestion on the campus interior. He stated that the last option was discussed at the Chancellor's cabinet and that it was agreed there that the parking structures were the viable option. He pointed out that Vice Chancellor Griesen, ASUN, and student leaders objected to the first option and the remote parking option would require the purchase of additional land. Scheideler asked if faculty were present at this meeting? Main stated that the President of the Academic Senate attend the Chancellor's Cabinet although he does not know whether that person was present at this particular meeting. Scheideler asked if the cost factor of the garages was reviewed before the decision was made? Main stated that it was not available at that time. Mayo noted that the idea of perimeter parking and garages has created much concern about safety, particularly for those who work at night and he asked whether there was much discussion concerning this issue? Main pointed out that interior lighting in the garages and the transit system will be improved and that the idea of the transit system is that there will always be one within eyesight. Scheideler asked if they anticipate that everyone who parks in the garage will want to take a bus? Mayo asked if the bus will be there at odd hours? Main stated that the bus will be available from about 6:30 am until 11:00 pm. Mayo stated that he is concerned with the people who work from 7:00 - 11:00 pm. Main stated that the custodians and food workers have expressed concern about this. He noted that the police escorts will be available after 11:00. Main pointed out that these employees currently are moving their vehicles in closer to their buildings after 8:00 pm. Mayo asked if these internal lots will still be available for them to use? Main stated that they will be there. Main noted that he and the parking services were charged to come up with these plans. He stated that Sara Russell, the current President of ASUN at the time, introduced a motion at the Chancellor's Cabinet that a moratorium be placed on construction until the parking problem is resolved. Scheideler pointed out that there is a parking problem on city campus, not on east campus. She noted that the fees are a huge problem for faculty and staff. Zorn pointed out that an inevitable consequence of the master plan is a problem with parking. He noted that the cost reflects the lack of parking but he stated that he thinks they will be more upset if they can not find parking or if it is very inconvenient or dangerous. He stated that it will effect the campus atmosphere and that faculty will not be coming to campus if it's difficult to park or they may not want to teach in the evenings due to the danger of parking so far off campus. He stated that one of the important issues raised by Latta is who is going to pay for these parking structures? Scheideler pointed out that many people do not feel safe parking in garages or on the periphery of campus. She noted that there needs to be flexibility in the system. Aguilar pointed out that night students and those using the library late at night also have safety issues. Main noted that the UNO parking garage was built for them by an outside source. He stated that Latta raised the issue of having the garages included in the capital improvement fund. Main reported that they spoke with the legislative fiscal officer for the governor and the legislative fiscal officer for the appropriations committee and both indicated that the state would not fund the building of the parking garages. He suggested that the Senate, UNOPA, and UAAD work together to discuss strategies for getting support for the funding of the garages. Main stated that if funding is not obtained elsewhere, then it will be up to the permit holders to fund the building of these garages. Bryant noted that Latta had raised the issue of the time line for building these garages. Main stated that the time line is over the next 5 - 7 years. He pointed out that they are scheduled to go to the Board of Regents in June to ask permission to sell bonds to build the first garage at 17^th and R. He noted that the first two years of the fee increases are not where the dramatic increases are but rather in the subsequent years when more garage structures are added. Scheideler asked how many stalls will be lost and gained with the first garage? Main stated that the first garage will add 1200 stalls but that there will be the loss of stalls in lots 17A, the 10 Temple Lot, 10 Lot next to the Engineering building and the Holdrege Street extension. He stated that there is time at that point to start looking at other alternatives. Bryant pointed out that the parking crisis is being created by the master plan which is constructing buildings on existing parking and which is being governed by some degree by this notion of a pedestrian friendly campus. He asked why the plan can't be revisited in lieu of the crisis that is occurring? He pointed out that the plan never addressed the work that the faculty and staff do and what they need to do their job. Scheideler noted that when Professor Baum Kuska, an architect, provided the consultants on the master plan with positive, informed feedback at the meeting they ignored her comments. Aguilar noted that we are being expected to subsidize the building of the garages. She stated that the garages should be built first before the fees are raised and those who want to have garage parking can pay the necessary fee. She asked what the logic is in expecting people to pay for it now? Main responded that the preferred mechanism is to start the increases now because they are more gradual. Scheideler stated that they may not be getting as much of an income because people will not buy parking permits. Griffin stated that she has been receiving email messages at the Senate office from people suggesting that everyone ban together and not buy any permits and that they park on campus because there are not enough tow trucks in all of Lincoln to tow everyone. Main pointed out that perimeter parking will be available at significantly less although it will be more inconvenient. Bryant pointed out that perimeter parking is not an option for those who do service work off campus. Scheideler noted that it is already a great inconvenience. Griffin asked if parking received income from football parking? Main responded that they did and that this currently helps offset the cost of fees today. Bryant asked what the money collected by parking service is used for? Main stated that it is used for salaries, payment of debts, and services for the maintenance of the lots. He stated that football pays approximately $200,000 a year for the use of the parking facilities and then so much per car is paid in some of the lots. Aguilar pointed out that they are in essence double collecting, from the employees and from the sports events. Main stated that it all goes into the same fund to pay for the operation of parking. He stated that what is being paid today covers the existing debt service that parking has and the cost of the operation. Griffin pointed out that there is unwise use of land on campus with having intramural fields, which are used for a significantly minimal amount of time during the year, on campus. She suggested that these be turned into parking lots and the intramural fields be moved to the periphery of campus. Scheideler pointed out that when the Chancellor's cabinet met, the gravity of the expense was not related. She stated that had that been made clear earlier, the Senate would have acted more quickly on the issue. She noted that if this is not revisited, there will be significant problems because the faculty and staff are so upset with the proposed plan. Mayo stated that his concerns are on the cost. He asked if people will really utilize the garages if people feel they are unsafe or are too expensive. Secondly, he stated that unless the students get behind it, we will not get funding from the legislature. Mayo asked if the intramural fields were used if it would make a sizable contribution? Main stated that it would address the concerns on the short term but he is unsure of the long term. He pointed out that the large student group has been very passive in this process. Scheideler noted that this is because they are getting what they want. Griffin stated that at the March 11^th parking meeting, Tad McDowell specifically stated that commuter and residence students were benefitting the most from this plan. Aguilar pointed out that charging the staff the same as faculty is unfair. She noted that the employees need to see if there will be any flexibility. Main stated that at this point, the fees for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, are set to help pay for the first garage. He noted that research has shown that whenever situations like this occur, there is an immediate downward spike in the amount of permits purchased but that within two years there is a rebound in the purchasing of permits. Griffin asked if they have any idea how much parking will occur off campus in the surrounding neighborhoods? Main stated that they do not know the amount but that what will happen is the people in the neighborhoods will eventually complain to the city council which will result in parking bans. Main stated that he is talking with the heads of UNOPA, UAAD and the Senate and would like to work with them on possible strategies. Scheideler suggested having student representatives in the group. Bryant stated that the construction plans need to be put on hold until this issue is resolved. Scheideler pointed out that there needs to be a policy put in the process of planning these buildings that deals with the parking issue.

5.0 Approval of 3/31/99 and 4/7/99 Minutes (Bryant)

Approval of minutes postponed due to the lack of a quorum..

6.0 Unfinished Business

6.1 Slate for Executive Committee Elections

Postponed.

7.0 New Business

No new business.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:21 PM. The next meeting will be held on April 21st, 201 Canfield Administration Building. Respectfully submitted, Miles Bryant, Secretary.