January 28, 2002
Present: Grace Chang of HOLT Architects, Terry
Martinez, Anne Rollo, Arthur Bellinzoni, Scott Heinekamp, Nan DiBello, Laura
Purdy, C.J. Koep, Melissa Golden, Kirsten Strigel, Crawford Thoburn, Patti Callahan,
Erna Coon, Ellen Hall
The meeting convened at 9:02 a.m. in the Henry
Wells Room.
1) Discussion
about last meeting and subcommittee resolution, as sent to President and Board
No agenda had been sent out prior to this
meeting, but Scott Heinekamp voiced a plan to construct one for posting. The four proposals for Zabriskie use
scenarios have been emailed or otherwise received by all sub-committee members
and these will soon be given to APPC along with this meeting's additional
input. Scott Heinekamp reported that
the APPC met after the last meeting of this sub-committee and has reviewed the
proposals and asked for the SPC to keep working.
In addition, Heinekamp noticed that the SLRP’s
endorsement of the resolution did not appear in the draft APPC minutes although
a number of APPC members recall his mentioning it in the last meeting. Subsequent to our last meeting, the Dean
asked Heinekamp how we, as a subcommittee, planned to communicate with the
Board of Trustees in terms of this resolution.
His idea involved the writing of a brief letter carrying the text of the
endorsement to the President [This has been circulated and sent to the
President – as of Jan.11]
2. Discussion
about communicating to our respective constituencies
Heinekamp and other members of both APPC and our
subcommittee have been acting as reporters/liaisons between the two and will
continue to do so. A question was
raised as to the reporting of our subcommittee proceedings. Arthur Bellinzoni was under the impression
that we were not reporting it, but rather working under the established
framework set out by the Board of Trustees.
It was his impression that our job is to scrutinize and evaluate the
plans within that framework and communicate to the administration whether or not
we buy into the presentation.
Thoburn pointed to a problem which he had
brought out in several previous email
exchanges (and to APPC), and those were, as he
put it, the issues of substance and procedure.
In terms of substance, he argued that this sub-committee was established
by the faculty to address the assumptions present in the approved plan
document. Thoburn does not believe that
we have addressed these fundamental assumptions. By endorsing the Master Plan Goals
and Objectives document, we dishonestly imply that we have done that. Secondly, he feels that the line of
reporting should go from this sub-committee to its parent committee and then
directly to the faculty and then a recommendation could be made to the Board of
Trustees.
Athur Bellinzoni replied that we don't discuss
our agenda with APPC or even make a statement of agreement with the Board - and
this is because it is they who have set the framework for our activity. Heinekamp confirmed that our agenda is set
by the APPC and they support our work so far (i.e. have set no directives).
Dean Ellen Hall reminded the sub-committee that
we were created by the President to follow a framework set by the Board of
Trustees and that this sub-committee includes representatives of every campus
constituent body (including faculty, alumnae, students, the Board, and even
direct appointees of the President), each of whom are free to carry news back
to their respective group.
Thoburn agreed and thinks that it's perfectly
legitimate to have individuals report respectively and specifically to the
President. He does, however, feel that
this committee has taken an improper action that could be misunderstood by the
Board as being a community endorsement of this plan as presented, which he
points out is not true. He does not
think that this committee is empowered to speak for the Wells community.
Heinekamp suggested that the Master Planning document and resolution referred
to in the endorsement be posted [it has not yet been despite some confusion].
3. Review
of subcommittee’s larger role and building fates
There followed some discussion concerning the
role of this committee in regards to its function as a forum/examiner of
faculty input versus that of dealing only with the utilization of physical
spaces. It was basically agreed that
the latter is the truer cause for this sub-committees' existence. Crawford Thoburn said that in his
estimation, a significant amount of the faculty does not understand it to have
been created only to deal with physical space.
He believes that we have had a mandate from the faculty to examine and
discuss the underlying assumptions present in the document and he hasn't seen
anything posted that might alleviate faculty fears (especially those of
buildings coming down). Thoburn called
to attention the fact that this committee has never called in faculty
representatives to be heard in respect to the business of our specific
evaluative duties.
It was then stated that no documents which the
committee is dealing with currently involve or include the demolition of any
buildings. If indeed buildings may come
down, it will be an eventuality dealt with as it may arise - and it is not an
issue that is currently on the table.
Thoburn reiterated his view of the need to
remain mindful of possible demolitions because, according to him, we as a
sub-committee have endorsed a document that is based on the assumption that
demolitions are an immediate reality.
Several committee members strongly disagreed with this assertion,
including Purdy, who voiced her understanding of the situation as one in which
thoughtful and inclusive decisions had been made according to proper procedural
decorum.
Koepp commented that the current and present
focus of this sub-committee is to find a use for an empty Zabriskie. She reminded the group that the fate of
Zabriskie is not only the most pertinent issue at hand. It is important to keep this as our primary
focus and to consider the goal of ensuring that this space will be used
effectively long-term.
4.Approval of Minutes from December 14, 2001
Rollo moved that the Minutes from the last
sub-committee meeting (set forth by Koepp) be discussed in terms of approval so
that they can soon be posted. The
posting of official minutes is important in terms of information being shared
but also and more specifically to prevent the circulation of unconfirmed
reports. Amendments were made and the
altered minutes were tentatively approved.
5. Review
of test Scenarios
Grace
Chang took the floor to share the results of Zabriskie scenario tests. She cautions that these are assessments, not
solutions. She had to consider how much
of a given program could fit in the existing space and tried to give us an idea
of the magnitude of compromises that might arise.
Grace
presented diagrams and documents intended to be used as a tool to understand
the general implications of each idea.
·
Humanities,
Book Arts and Art History
·
Social
Sciences and Mathematics/Computer Science
·
Studio
Arts
·
Studio
Arts and Book Arts
·
Theater/Dance
and Music
The
sub-committee agreed that the first two scenarios seem least contentious and
most obviously viable. There was also
some discussion about the extent to which adjacency should be a factor in the
deliberations. Scott Heinekamp said
that he would compress the information in the scenarios and circulate by e-mail
for comments, in preparation for our next meeting.
This
sub-committee will next meet on Monday, February 25 at the same time. Future meeting times will be considered at
that time.
The
sub-committee extended its thanks to Grace for her hard work. She reminded us that she is available if
anything is needed.
The
meeting adjourned at 10:40 a.m.
Respectfully
Submitted,
Kirsten Strigel