Committee
Members Present:Michael Groth, Crawford
Thoburn, C.J. Koepp, Erna Coon, Ann Rollo, Ellen Hall, Kirsten Strigel,
Scott Heinekamp, Susan Ryan; Jay Woolford, Trustee. Grace Chiang, Holt
Architect was also present.
New
members Crawford Thoburn and C.J. Koepp were welcomed as the two faculty
representatives.President Ryerson
is close to making an appointment of an additional member.
Minutes
of the March 28, 2001 meeting were approved with changes.
The
first agenda item addressed the alumnae letter/petition sent to APPC.Michael
Groth set a framework for the discussion.The
APPC Subcommittee will not respond to the petition but rather convey reactions
and ideas to APPC.
Jay
Woolford asked whether the APPC Subcommittee had seen Chair of the Board
Tobie Tyler van der Vorm’s response to the alumnae petition.Jay
feels it will be helpful for this committee to see her response and will
ask Tobie for a copy of it.
Jay
summarized some of Tobie’s comments from the response to alumnae.He
noted that the Board approved the fall 2000 document as a set of guidelines
that will continue to evolve. The Board doe not plan to make additional
decisions regarding the guidelines at the May 2001 meeting.
C.J.
Koepp emphasized the need for the faculty process to take over from here
on out and shared concerns that signing the petition, which is linked to
“save the arts” web page, is destructive to moving forward with processes
established by faculty.
Crawford
Thoburn feels he represents some faculty in supporting the alumnae petition.He
indicated alumnae feel strongly that faculty should have been consulted
prior to the development of the master plan. Crawford also said he was
surprised what the APPC Subcommittee was working on when he read the minutes.
He feels this committee should be working on bigger issues than student
life spaces and park benches.
Ellen
Hall reminded the committee that the Board By-laws gives the Board of Trustees
the right to make physical plant decisions.Furthermore,
she reminded the committee that there have been huge efforts to bring more
people into the process.Ellen also
requested that a clear distinction be made between those who work at the
college and those separate from the college (meaning architects) working
with the college.
Michael
Groth shared that APPC will be requesting a clarification from the President
on what decisions in master planning have been made.He
will request that the update provide explicit information.
Jay
feels there are misperceptions about the master plan and the Board’s endorsement
of the plan.He reminded the committee
that no decisions have been made in the master plan with the exception
of the science building.In response
to Crawford’s concerns about what the subcommittee discussed at the previous
meeting, Jay shared that he had asked the subcommittee to imagine no plan
had been developed and for members of the subcommittee to raise issues
that need to be discussed regarding campus use.
Crawford
shared that faculty directly involved feel certain assumptions have been
made that buildings will be taken down before planning procedures have
begun.
Grace
Chiang shared that the process for developing a master plan came out of
the need for a new science building.The
plan is a series of ideas that will evolve as more input is provided.Grace
commented that the master plan helps move the process along as it allows
community members to have something to react to.
C.J.
commented that we are now able to move forward and feels we should all
support wanting the best facilities and supporting all disciplines.She
has faith in the subcommittee and feels many faculty support the subcommittee
as well.
Jay
asked that members have trust in this subcommittee.Ellen
agreed that we now need to move forward and not keep talking about the
past.She requested that the subcommittee
move on which “involves suspending any disbelief.”
Michael
feels certain questions need to be asked.What
is a master plan?How binding is
it?What do we mean by a decision?What
are the distinctions between official decisions (decisions made by the
Board and President) and working assumptions that are guiding future planning.
Ann
Rollo discussed her understanding of shared governance; her understanding
is that everyone does not do everything.The
Board of Trustee by-laws indicate the Board makes physical plant decisions.Faculty
manage program planning.She sees
architects can help the two processes come together, but not everyone has
to be involved in all aspects of the planning.Furthermore,
she feels it is important to address how much misinformation alumnae have
(and they have signed the petition based on this misinformation).Ann
is concerned with the “demands” from alumnae and threats to withhold funding.The
petition does not allow for input and dialogue. Crawford shared that he
believes alumnae have the right to do this.
Michael
returned the conversation to how the subcommittee can proceed from here
on out.He asked for recommendations.
The
next agenda item included an update from Grace on the Science Building
design and the relationship of spaces (labs, to classrooms, to offices).There
will be 3 classrooms (2 classrooms will be able to seat 30 students and
1 will seat 20) and 1 large lecture room with seating capacity for 80.
Grace shared two different approaches to be considered.One
approach is to cluster classrooms together with a separate entrance so
that anyone outside of the faculty with offices in the building could use
the classrooms without the feeling of walking through a lab or office.With
this approach, the classrooms could perhaps be clustered in a wing of the
building.The other approach is to
connect the classrooms to the science labs.
Crawford
asked why the new science building would be placed in the Macmillan parking
lot.Grace indicated the desire to
place the new building in an academic corridor is already the most traveled
path.Connecting the science building
to this academic corridor would help alleviate feelings of isolation.
Crawford
commented that students congregate where they feel comfortable and he feels
students are most comfortable in their rooms and academic spaces.He
feels the location of the science building seems tight and would have liked
to see the building placed in a more open space.Crawford
also shared that he does not believe students feel isolated on campus and
asked student committee member Kirsten Strigel her opinion about this.
Kirsten
agreed that she does not think students feel isolated on campus.She
expressed concerns she has heard from students that they have not been
consulted about the plan and feels student input is very important.Ellen
indicated student charrettes would be planned.
Returning
to the topic of the classroom cluster in the new science building, several
committee members supported this approach.Michael
asked how scheduling the space would be handled.Ellen
commented that the normal scheduling process for academic space (through
the Registrar) would need to be followed.
Grace
asked if there would be any possibilities to fund a named classroom cluster.Ann
recommends that we plan for the best buildings and then she will develop
a funding strategy from the plans.
It
was agreed that Dean Hall and Erna Coon would look for a meeting time for
our next meeting tentatively scheduled for the morning of May 3rd.
The
meeting was adjourned at 12:35.
Respectfully
submitted,
Susan
Ryan