The University Senate unanimously endorsed a resolution Wednesday night condemning the University administration’s methods in selecting Howe Field for the forthcoming basketball arena.
The resolution, which holds no actual policy-making power, expresses the senate’s “strong opposition to the siting process for the arena and associated facilities that has taken place to date” and “urges and expects the University administration to submit its proposal to the Campus Planning Committee for review.”
Faculty members said they were not necessarily opposed to the site itself, but to what they saw as a lack of shared governance in the decision.
“There is a profound sense that this system is out of balance,” business Professor Mike Russo said. “We have planning processes for a reason.”
Russo, who presented the resolution, said it aims to “not only express strong opposition, but to remedy the situation.”
According to faculty members, the issue of contention is a violation of the University’s Policy Statement 7.000, which states that after a University vice president preliminarily accepts a building proposal, he or she must forward a statement of need, project description and budget “to the Campus Planning Committee for analysis and recommendation in accordance with established procedures.”
Russo said the University administration failed to do that.
“It has to go to the Campus Planning Committee,” Russo said. “It’s very clear on that.”
University Vice President for Administration Dan Williams admitted he did not follow the policy.
“It wasn’t really relevant to what we’re doing today,” Williams said. “This particular policy was written
in 1983.”
University Senior Vice President and Provost John Moseley said the plans for the campus change
frequently.
“The campus plan is something that has changed over time,” Moseley said. “There have been many amendments to it.”
One University economics professor said that it wasn’t in the Campus Planning Committee’s purview to decide whether or not the Howe Field site is a good idea.
“The way the Campus Planning Committee functions is that it’s largely about feasibility,” Professor Chris Ellis said.
Williams said the site decision was expedited because of a desire to build the arena in time for the 2006-2007 basketball season and the University’s decision to create a private, nonprofit corporate subsidiary of the University Foundation to oversee the construction of the arena.
Williams explained the decision to create the corporation.
“It’s more efficient, and we expect that they’ll be able to get a better deal for the money than the University would,” Williams said.
Williams added that the Campus Planning Committee was consulted to some extent.
“It’s not entirely accurate to say that we excluded the Campus Planning Committee from the process,” Williams said. “The consultants visited the Campus Planning Committee on, I think, two occasions.”
But Russo said that was not enough.
“The resolution sees the Campus Planning Committee as being earlier in the process,” he said.
Williams added that the administration will try to rectify what some faculty members feel was a lack of Campus Planning Committee involvement in the process.
“What the president is trying to do is include the Campus Planning Committee from this point forward,” Williams said.
Williams added that the administration held the arena consultants to the same standards they would have if they had followed the enumerated process.
Still, numerous faculty members expressed deep concern at the meeting.
“When one group decides that they can circumvent processes, it alienates the entire University community,” biology professor and former senate president Nathan Tublitz said.
At their next meeting, the senate will tackle a resolution regarding access to student records and a resolution to join the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics.