As the Renovation Planning Committee discussed upcoming renovations to the Union, some controversy caused a slight stir between students and committee members.
The committee, composed of architects, engineers, faculty and student leaders, met last week to discuss the project and to present the renovation plan to Chancellor Mark Emmert and Provost Risa Palm.
Senate Speaker Michael Busada said that during the week some University administrators voiced their concern that students were not present at some of the meetings.
“I know the majority of the committee wanted student input,” said Busada. “But there were some that might have wanted to shut us out.”
The committee, which met for three days during the middle of last week, focused on concept planning, said Union Director Shirley Plakidas.
The purpose of the meetings was to come to an agreement about where things were going.
“We felt that we didn’t know exactly what they were doing all of the time,” Busada said. “We want student interests to be represented.”
Prior to last week, the committee gave Student Government President Allen Richey an itinerary with meeting times and lists of the people scheduled to attend.
“Student Government had a complete itinerary and were invited to all meetings,” Plakidas said.
On the list of meetings, Plakidas marked with a highlighter the meetings students were officially scheduled to attend, as pointed out by Richey.
Brandon Smith, a Senator from the College of Arts and Sciences, was adamant about not knowing all of the facts. He offered his comments from a neutral standpoint.
“From questions I’ve asked of Union officials, this was the result of a very large miscommunication between SG leaders and administrators,” Smith said.
Smith supports the referendum to renovate and wants input from students on the new plans. Smith co-authored the piece of legislation approved this past spring.
“I would like to see both sides sit down and talk together head-to-head,” Smith said. “Anyone can sling mud, but until we meet and get the issue straightened out, it is all just hearsay.”
Richey and Busada said they both wanted the issue to be resolved and for planning to progress.
“There were administrators concerned that not enough students were involved in some meetings,” Richey said. “Some might have perceived it as malicious, but my hope is that it was a simple oversight.”
Plakidas also shared sentiments that there was never any intention by the committee to exclude students from meetings.
“We made an effort to include students in as many meetings as possible,” Plakidas said. “We are interested in student ideas and input.”
During the meetings, the committee focused on the importance of giving priority to things discussed in the initial proposal that students ranked as high priorities before voting on it spring 2003, Plakidas said.
The Union hopes to go into architectural selection later this semester, which would put it ahead of the timetable by three or four months.
“We are about one and a half years away from contractors getting bids,” Plakidas said. “After that, we can start doing work.”
The committee held open dialogues with students and student organizations for input on the plans.
Renovating the ground floor into a late-night facility, theater renovation and putting SG offices on the first floor were all topics of concern for both students and faculty.
“We wanted to make sure that the entertainment provided would attract students to come to the nighttime programs,” Busada said.
Richey said he, as well as other SG officials, had a general feeling of playing catch-up as to what was going on at meetings they did not attend.
“There was one particular time when I heard two administrators say they wanted to talk to architects afterward, maybe away from campus,” Richey said. “That made me feel a little uncomfortable.”
After the presentation to the chancellor and provost, Busada and Richey talked with Palm about their concerns.
“After the meeting, our concerns were given the attention they deserve,” Busada said. “I don’t know what the final decision about the planning will be, but the committee was receptive to our ideas.”