THE FACULTY and the MASTER PLAN -- updated April 2002.
Please find minutes below:
First meeting of the Arts Faculty with an architect presenting the Master Plan, 8/31/00.
A regular faculty meeting discussing the plan and its donor, 11/14/00
A special faculty meeting to consider a motion of non-support for the plan, 11/15/00
"Faculty" subcomittee formed to examine Master Plan, in which adminstrators outnumber professors, 12/12/2000
New subcomittee meets for months with no elected faculty representation, 3/14/01
Academic Planning Policy Committee of faculty tries to re-claim it's authority over the subcommittee, 5/4/01
President's Special Advisor introduces motion to endorse the Master Plan Process in the subcommittee, 12/14/01
Endorsement of Master Plan process sent to President and Board... ?1/28/02
____________________________________
Arts Faculty Meeting with Architect
(The Studio Art and Music faculty first learned of the Master Plan when they were informed by an architect they just met that their buildings would be removed. They were offered no replacement possibilities, except for Zabriskie. Below is the meeting report prepared by the architect. Added material in italics.>
�Meeting: The following report was prepared by the Architect and will be assumed to be correct unless written exceptions are received within two weeks of the publication date.
Date: 31 August 2000
Project: Wells College Campus Redevelopment Plan, Project No. 98048
Subject: Discuss concepts of Campus Plan and begin to discuss functional space requirements with Studio Arts & Music faculty
Report Date: 1 September 2000
Attendees - Wells College: Susan Sandman, Music; Crawford Thoburn, Music; Ted Lossowski, Art; Bill Roberts, Art; Nancy Gilbertson, Music; Nan DiBello, Associate Dean; Ellen Hall, Dean. Holt Architects: Grace Chiang
Discussion
1. It was noted that this is a preview of the discussion that will take place with the entire faculty on Tuesday September 5. There has been some preliminary thinking in the campus planning process that would suggest that the two groups at this meeting, Studio Art and Music could be directly affected by the proposed plan, since the plan includes removal of Barler and Campbell, which currently house these programs. It was noted that Long Library is a third building being considered for removal and replacement and that this discussion had already begun with the library staff. Since the librarians have been on campus during the summer, work on a functional space program for the library is well under way.
2. G. Chaing introduced the major concepts of the campus plan:
a. Provide a working and learning environment that is attractive to both excellent educators and excellent students.
b. Optimize the current campus assets by increasing utilization. Identify underutilized and inefficient structures; look for opportunities of adaptive reuse or replacement. (This translated into the destruction of �underutilized� Barler and Campbell and the �reuse� of Zabriskie for Art and Music.)
c. Identify where new facilities are required. Reduce operating expenses and building maintenance costs.
d. Identify deferred maintenance and building code / life safety issues for long term capital improvement budgeting.
e. Strengthen connections through campus. Create clear pedestrian and vehicular circulation patterns.
f. Create a �sense of place� that is identifiable as the heart of campus
g. Strengthen the concept of an intimately scaled, residential campus for women.
3. The faculty wondered why they have not been consulted about the demolition of their buildings until now. E. Hall and G. Chaing noted that decisions about facilities at an overall campus site planning level must be made by the administration and Board of Trustees since these decisions are informed by campus planning concerns. Issues such as ongoing maintenance and upkeep of facilities, code and ADA compliance issues, and functional service are the areas of college responsibility. On the other hand, it is also the responsibility of the college to make sure that the facilities that are provided to the faculty and students serve the academic goals and needs. Therefore, the one primary purpose of this meeting, and the area where the faculty can be most helpful, is ascertaining the space requirements to determine a functional space program that meets academic needs.
4. The question was asked whether Barler and Campbell has been considered for renovation rather than removal. G. Chaing replied that this has been a consideration, however, there are several major challenges that work against the buildings:
a. The difficulty of making the buildings ADA compliant, since almost every space in each building is at a different elevation.
b. The complete lack of separation of the spaces. This presents both code problems which require compartmentalization for life safety reasons, as well as problems with air quality control: humidification, dehumidification, control of particulates in the air, control of fumes, etc.
c. Functional issues created by the building layout, where spaces are only accessible by passing through other spaces.
d. Ongoing mechanical maintenance and operational concerns.
( NB: Faculty comments, arguments, and solutions regarding these �challenges� were not recorded. )
5. A concern was also raised about possible toxic chemicals that have leached into the built-in fabric of the structure of Zabriskie, and what implications that might have for present and future occupants. An example was given of a situation at another institution where, while there was never evidence uncovered substantiating the source of the problem, a number of the building occupants ended up with strikingly similar health problems.
6. Discussed concerns of locating Art and Music in a building together and the potential conflicts: a.) Ceramics dust is insidious and if not completely contained will present a problem for musical instruments. b.) Music generates noise that may not be compatible with the other programs....
Prepared by,
Holt Architects, P.C.
Grace Chaing, AIA
Vice President
c: Attendees, L. Ryerson, A, Bellinzoni, J. Woolford�
END OF REPORT
Top of Page
Return HOME
_________________________________________________
MINUTES OF THE THIRD REGULAR MEETING OF THE WELLS COLLEGE FACULTY
November 14, 2000
President Ryerson called the meeting to order in the Art Exhibit Room at 4:40 PM.
I. Approval of the Minutes...
II. Announcements...
The President updated the Faculty on the campus planning effort. ...
Professor Lossowski stated that it had come to his attention that Pleasant Rowland** had indicated to a student that the decision to remove the current Arts complex had already been made. President Ryerson replied that she would not like to comment on a conversation that she was not a part of. Prof. Roberts pointed out that, while the role of benefactors was appreciated, their role should not interfere with processes that need to be followed on campus. President Ryerson stated that she is taking ultimate responsibility for all levels of campus planning, and that ultimately decisions land in the hands of the Board of Trustees, not donors. Professor A. Shilepsky pointed out that what was important was not necessarily who makes the final decision, but rather process and shared governance.
Professor Roberts stated his understanding that the only decision made by the Board of Trustees thus far was the one to erect a new science building. President Ryerson added that the Board of Trustees had also decided to adopt the current draft master plan as a �guiding instrument.� Professor Bellinzoni indicated that the Board�s decision to build new science facilities was coupled with the realization that some structure(s) would have to be removed from campus. President Ryerson added that this would not necessarily be a square foot for square foot substitution. Professor Lossowski stated that during the course of the last Board meeting, several Board members had indicated that the decision to add a new science facility had not been connected to any plans to remove structure(s) from campus. In response, President Ryerson stated that the decision to build a new science facility had led to a need to examine the whole campus for space needs and program requirements in relation to square footage. Professor Lossowski asked if it was then possible that no square feet would be removed from the campus. President Ryerson indicated that, based on discussion she has had, she felt that square feet would indeed be removed during the execution of an emerging master plan that was based on deliberate and responsible planning. ...
The Faculty adjourned at 5:47 PM
Respectfully submitted,
Niamh O�Leary
Secretary of the Faculty
** (Pleasant T. Rowland P '62 was seen on campus conferring with architects for months before the plan was unveiled. She is a member of the Forbes 400 List of wealthiest people in the country, founder of the American Girl Doll Company, and a VP at Mattel. She is perceived by many faculty, alumnae, and students as the driving force behind the Master Plan.)
Top of Page
Return HOME
___________________________
MINUTES
Minutes of an Informal Meeting of the Wells College Faculty
November 15, 2000
A quorum was not present for this meeting of the faculty.
[President Ryerson presided; 17 faculty, 6 administrators, and 2 students were present]
The meeting began at 4:40 PM. The meeting had been called by Professors
Thoburn, Roberts, and Lossowski to discuss, and possibly vote on, a motion
that had been circulated amongst the faculty [see below]. Professor
Roberts had also circulated some additional materials related to the motion
in the campus mail.
Professor Thoburn began by reading the motion and referring to the
supporting materials. Professors Roberts and Thoburn shared their view that
the Arts faculty had not been consulted in the campus master planning
process, and that any implication that they had was erroneous. Although he
was on leave in spring 2000, Professor Roberts stated that he had heard
nothing of Arts division involvement in the planning process during that
semester. Professor Thoburn described the precedent for faculty involvement
in facilities planning at Wells. Professor Roberts indicated that the Arts
Faculty would like an opportunity to be consulted on all of the
ramifications of the planning process and to talk with members of APPC, the
administration, and others. He indicated that although the current version
of the master plan had been presented as a draft, he felt as if it were
effectively in final form. Professor Dibello sought some clarification of
the motion. It was confirmed by the Arts faculty present that it was the
portion of the master plan that involved the removal of Barler and Campbell
that was problematic to them.
Professor Bellinzoni reminded the faculty that there had been a presentation
for all faculty on the emerging master plan in the spring 2000 semester.
Several faculty pointed out that this presentation was scheduled at a busy
time towards the end of the spring semester, and that it had been poorly
attended. Professor O' Leary stated her view that given the poor attendance
at the presentation of the draft master plan late in the spring 2000
semester, something should have been done at that time to secure faculty
involvement in the process. There followed some discussion of the extent of
the building code violations in Barler and Campbell, and whether those would
need to be addressed.
Professor Roberts shared his understanding that the Board of Trustees had
only specifically approved the construction of a new science building. He
stressed that the process was the issue, and that the process should be open
to all. President Ryerson stated that the current master plan had been
endorsed by the Board of Trustees as a "guiding instrument". She stated that
it is a draft plan that is on the table for all, and is related to the open
and ongoing process of program planning being conducted by APPC. Dean Hall
mentioned that both facilities planning and program planning would be
discussed by APPC. Dean Hall also indicated that many charettes would be
upcoming to further discuss facilities planning with faculty. Professor
Vawter stated that, in his view, the master planning process had proceeded
to an advanced stage without faculty input, and it appeared that the draft
plan may not be academically motivated, but motivated by a possible donation
from an alumna. Professor Torres asked what the estimates were for cost and
timeframe of the draft master plan. Professor Ryerson indicated that there
were none yet.
Professor Roberts indicated that although the current master plan was
presented as a draft, he had been led to believe that there was a strong
possibility that buildings would come down as the master plan was executed.
Professor Bellinzoni pointed out that nothing would happen in terms of
implementation of any master plan for 3-4 years. Professor Flowers
highlighted the fact that facilities planning takes a lot of time.
Professor Lumumba-Kasongo asked whether Barler and Campbell were
dysfunctional. The Arts faculty present indicated that they were not.
Professor Lumumba-Kasongo then asked why the Arts faculty were not involved
in the process from the beginning. Dean Hall pointed out that even in the
case of the science facility the building itself was not actually designed
yet. Dean Hall also stated that the Board of Trustees has responsibility for
buildings, renovation, and master planning, and that the development of a
master plan was a Middle States requirement. Professor A. Shilepsky
suggested that the Wells community take a step back from the model.
Professor Ryerson reiterated that the model was indeed just a model, a
guiding instrument for campus planning. Professor Flowers sought
clarification. Was the President suggesting that Barler and Campbell could
conceivably remain? President Ryerson indicated that her comments suggested
that this was a possibility, and stated that she believed in responsible
planning, and ensuring this was her responsibility. Professor Roberts voiced
a concern that student input on the current Arts facilities had been
interpreted as criticism of the Arts program and faculty. President Ryerson
said that she had had discussion with both Arts students and faculty on the
facilities and the program. Ms. Borders, a student representative from APPC,
stated that she thought it had been irresponsible to place the model of the
proposed master plan on display. President Ryerson indicated that the lack
of visibility of particular programs on the draft master plan model did not
imply that those programs were not valued. Professor Bellinzoni pointed out
that the buildings in the models were "hollow shells", and that the model
had been driven by programmatic concerns, not by fund-raising concerns.
Professor Bennett pointed out that it was difficult to accept Professor
Bellinzoni's statement due to the poor public relations that had surrounded
the issue.Professor A. Shilepsky asked why, once we realized master
planning was necessary, we went outside of Wells, rather than relying on
in-house expertise.
Professor Roberts expressed concern that a known donor** [see above]had been quoted as
saying that the demolition of Barler and Campbell was a certainty. He went
on to say that this was not just a concern of the Arts faculty, but of the
entire faculty. Precedent could be set for something similar to happen again
in the future. A violation of process has occurred in his opinion, and the
motion under discussion would send a message to that effect to the Board of
Trustees and the administration. Professor DiBello questioned what exactly
was meant by "process". Professor Vawter stated that he believed a process
of some sort had taken place to develop the current draft master plan, but
that this process had not involved an important element - the faculty. He
reiterated Professor A. Shilepsky's suggestion that the draft master plan be
retreated from. Professor DiBello emphasized the need for more discussion on
this topic. Professor Klitgaard suggested that the administration put in
writing a statement that no building would come down without faculty input
into that decision.
Professor Hildahl asked if there would be any value in a non-binding ballot
on the motion under discussion. This ballot would not be binding due to the
lack of quorum at the meeting. Professors Greenwood and DiBello left before
the informal balloting took place. The results of the non-binding ballot to
support the motion were:
17 Ayes, 2 Nays, 1 Abstention
Seven proxy Ayes from faculty not present were submitted by Professor
Thoburn.
[As of 12/6/00, the Ayes total 30, a majority of the 42 member faculty]
MOTION
"The Wells College Faculty endorses the Master Plan proposal to build a new
science facility. This proposal was developed with the careful and
comprehensive insight, approval and assistance of the science faculty.
However, at this time the Faculty cannot endorse the other provisions of the
Master Plan which deal with the removal of existing academic structures.
Unlike the planning of the proposed science facility, these proposals were
developed and presented to the Faculty without any consultation with those
who teach in these structures, with the Arts Division, or with the APPC.
We therefore request that the Administration and Board of Trustees follow
the established precedent which they maintained in planning the science
facility, and that they make no decisions regarding other provisions of the
Master Plan until careful consideration has been given to Faculty
recommendations about these provisions."
The faculty adjourned at 6pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Niamh O' Leary Secretary of the Faculty
Top of Page
Return HOME
____________
In answer to the concerns expressed above, the faculty moved to established a sub-committee to examine the Master Plan. The President intervened in the constitution of the committee, so that when it was presented for approval, administrative positions outnumber faculty positions on the sub-committee two to one.
A PROPOSAL FOR LONG RANGE AND STRATEGIC PLANNING
AT WELLS COLLEGE
Approved by the Faculty at the meeting on December 12, 2000
The academic program must guide long-range and strategic planning
and master site planning at Wells College.
Under the current governance structure of Wells College, the
Academic Program and Policy Committee is responsible for making
recommendations to the Faculty regarding policies and planning for
the academic program. Accordingly, the Academic Program and Policy
committee shall act as a steward that integrates academic planning
with site planning and other long range planning at the college.
An ad hoc subcommittee of the Academic Program and Policy Committee
- the Interim Subcommittee on Long-range and Strategic Planning -
shall be created to assist APPC. In the spirit of shared governance
and to ensure broad representation from different constituencies of
the college community, the subcommittee shall consist of the
following members: 2 Faculty member of APPC; 2
Faculty members elected by the Faculty; Dean of the College; Dean of
Experiential Learning; Dean of Students; 2 Students to be chosen by
Collegiate; 1 Presidential appointee; 1 Representative of the
Development Office; 1 Staff member; 1 Trustee;
1 Alumna (Association President).
The interim subcommittee shall:
* Gather information
* Issue reports, and
* Make recommendations to APPC related to the academic program,
master site planning, and long-range strategic planning in general.
* The subcommittee shall meet regularly and report to APPC monthly or
as appropriate.
* The Chair of APPC shall determine the agenda of subcommittee
meetings in consultation with the President and Dean of the College
and shall submit the agenda to APPC for approval.
* The charrettes will be a major source of information for planning
the agenda.
* The Dean of the College shall provide necessary staff support to
the subcommittee.
APPC may recommend to the Faculty modifying the subcommittee as
needed. The subcommittee will make a recommendation to APPC about
the continuation of the body and possible alternatives during the
Spring 2002 semester.
Top of Page
Return HOME
____________
Minutes of APPC Interim Subcommittee on Long-Range and Strategic
Planning Wednesday, March 14
(Why is Trustee and Pleasant Rowland Foundation employee Jay Woolford presenting the plan?)
This was the first meeting of the newly-and-as-yet-partially-constituted group:committee members in attendance:APPC members and subcommittee
co-chairs Michael Groth and Scott Heinekamp; Deans Ellen Hall and Susan Ryan; Nancy Karpinski in Dean Terry Martinez�s stead; Trustee Jay
Woolford; student members Melissa Golden �03 and Kirsten Strigel �03; Vice President Ann Rollo. Also in attendance at this meeting was architect
Grace Chiang. It was announced that the alumnae representative had been chosen:Patty Callahan, and that the election process for the remaining two faculty members is under way.The listserve address for the group is [email protected].
After introductions, Jay Woolford gave a summary of the planning process and the development of the Master Plan. As an outgrowth of planning and
site discussions for the new science building, it became evident that a more comprehensive review of facilities utilization on the Wells campus was in
order.Some guiding principles: to see whether we are using our facilities effectively for a student body size of roughly 450; to have input from Holt et
al. (architects); to look at issues of accessibility, pedestrian flow, and automobile parking.
At this point, the way is clear to agree to, or amend, or expand the planning process and its impact on the Plan.Three motives are woven into the Plan in
its current form, all of which have as their goal to create and strengthen the sense of Wells as an intimate learning environment.These three are
1) To optimize assets and increase utilization; to adapt and/or reuse existing facilities, in particular Zabriskie, when it is vacated; to reduce operating and
maintenance costs;
2) To provide better accessibility to all points of the campus;
3) By restoring logical pedestrian flow, to create a unified campus environment;
Grace Chiang was then asked to review the status of the ongoing process of program charrettes, whose reports have informed and will continue to
inform our work.Space design charrettes for the science building are imminent.
There was then a discussion of how our group will share minutes and other information.Concerns about public access to internal documents, if posted
on the local server aurora.wells.edu, were brought out and discussed.In general it was felt that this group should err on the side of openness and that our
minutes should be posted for the community to see.It was felt that �sensitive� material can be conveyed in a manner that gets across the sense of what
is discussed without needing to provide detailed blow-by-blow accounts of every conversation � that they can be �judiciously forthright�.We agreed
that we would use the third-floor-Macmillan meeting room to house our working materials (which would be available to the community), and to meet
there as well, so that our resources are at hand.
Our next meeting will take place in two weeks, on March 28 2001, at 11:30.
Respectfully submitted,
Scott Heinekamp, co-chair and secretary pro tem
Top of Page
Return HOME
____________
RESOLUTION Drafted by the Academic Program and Policy Committee, May 4, 2001
The Academic Program and Policy Committee is firmly committed to:
1. Maintaining and improving the academic program at Wells College.
2. Ensuring a genuinely open, forthright, and inclusive process for
strategic planning at Wells College.
APPC is committed to working with its Subcommittee on Long Range Planning
and the process proposed by APPC and approved by the Faculty in December
2000.
The committee considers it premature EITHER to oppose OR to endorse the
demolition of any specific structure(s) at this time. APPC shall make
recommendations regarding the removal, preservation, or renovation of any
existing spaces or the erection of new and superior facilities only after
careful, deliberate, and open planning with the paramount objective of
meeting the academic needs of Wells College.
Top of Page
Return HOME
____________
Minutes of the APPC Subcommittee on Long-Range and Strategic Planning >
December 14, 2001
Present: Melissa Golden (student), Scott Heinekamp (prof.), Erna Coon (adminstrator), Crawford Thoburn (prof.),
Arthur Bellinzoni (special assistant to the president), Laura Purdy (prof.), Nan DiBello (asst.dean), Ellen Hall (dean), Jay Wolford (trustee employed by the Pleasant Rowland Foundation), Grace
Chiang (architect employed by Pleasant Rowland), Terry Martinez (dean), Karen Green (dean), Patti Callahan (alumnae association president), Cynthia Koepp prof), Ann Rollo (adminstrator)
The meeting was called to order at 8:38 a.m. in the Henry Wells Room.
Erna's minutes from last meeting were approved and applauded for their
coherency and completeness.
Preliminary discussion on New Ideas for Zabriskie
Scott reported that he had solicited the faculty asking for ideas on a new
use for Zabriskie Hall.Out of the responses, he was able to fashion six
sets of ideas which he shared with this subcommittee (see attached "Summary
of Zabriskie Academic Adaptation Ideas").Scott also distributed drawings
of current floor plans and square footage of Zabriskie ( see attached).
He asked that we use this meeting to start the process of ranking the
suggestions and express the reasoning behind our priorities.
Scott urged us to use this time to get moving. Arthur made similar
comments. He urged the subcommittee to endorse the master planning
process. He suggested that there may be funding possibilities for
Zabriskie, but they may not last if we wait too long to make our decisions.
Furthermore, without a decision about what should happen in Zabriskie,
administration and BOT may slow down progress on new science building.
Arthur said that this subcommittee should try to work in partnership with
BOT and administration.
Crawford expressed some dismay that we were being asked to prioritize from a
list that we had just received. He urged that we take more time to reflect
about possibilities, scenarios. Melissa made a similar point. Arthur and
others noted that we had met over the summer, had extensive tours of the
buildings, and had already much information at hand.
Dean Hall pointed out that the BOT were going to be on a retreat this
February and hence not making a lot of decisions about buildings at February
meeting.She seconded Arthur's idea that we should endorse the planning
process. She said that we need to work with the understanding that some
disciplines will move to new places. She suggested the need that we make
real steps toward a decision about Zabriskie decision.We still don't have
final approval for science building.
Ellen also said that we need to think of academic clusters, of grouping
disciplines together:that we need to look at what's feasible technically,
what makes sense in terms of the academic program, and what scenarios would
follow from particular suggestions. But we have to start by first focusing
on Zabriskie, and then go from there.She noted that there is some concern
that the new science building is on hold - so we need to show that we are
working and finding a solution for Zabriskie and want to move ahead.
Scott then went through 6 suggestions. (See attached for original sheet.)
1. Use a large space as an online/media (smart) class room,
2. A suite of rooms to serve as an Academic Support/Learning Center.
3. Rehearsal and production spaces for Theater, Dance
4. Rehearsal and production spaces for Theater, Dance, and Music
5. Humanities and Social Sciences faculty and teaching spaces
6. Studio and Book Arts
Early reactions to this list:
Crawford noted the shortage of printers during peak times and urged that we
consider adding more capacity to print -- perhaps by expanding number of
computer labs.
Crawford also suggested that it would be much better to attach a Black box
theater and production spaces to Macmillan , closer to Phipps. Others
agreed.
Scott reported that Diane Koester no longer was suggesting an academic
learning center in Zabriskie, for that would mean taking it away from the
Writing Center and Math clinic in Macmillan (although Koepp noted that
perhaps all three could be together there or somewhere else).
Ellen spoke up in favor of an academic quad: a grouping of buildings perhaps
linked together in some way. For example, we could strengthen the
connections between social sciences, natural sciences, and computer science
(think of neuroscience, environmental studies or animal psychology as fields
with roots in several disciplines). One could put the social sciences in
Zabriskie: with social science labs into existing labs, special
observational labs fitted with one way windows/mirrors, close access to GIS
labs. Perhaps computer science could also be there with their labs; perhaps
even the photo labs and graphics could be here. In this scenario we should
consider making spaces flexible rooms that could be labs or classroom.
Laura mentioned that we ought always to remember the need for growth: that
social sciences would need more square footage than they currently occupy in
Macmillan. Grace said that she had tried to project more space based on
faculty surveys, etc. Laura also wondered if a new library might be
designed to contain faculty offices or classrooms.
If the social sciences were to move to Zabriskie, then we could move the
foreign languages/literatures to Macmillan into the spaces they formerly
occupied, thereby freeing up Cleveland Hall (the most flexible space,
according to the architects). There would no doubt be technical things we
would need to consider carefully.
The subcommittee next agreed to eliminate # 3 on the sheet, as a black box
theater and production support spaces seemed better to be in or near
Phipps.
At this point Arthur again urged approval of the master planning process in
principle. And the group discussed the status of the master
planning document. Crawford said that he was not willing to sign on the old
master plan. Others on the subcommittee said that master plan document as
it stands is open to change and future decisions that we and others would
make, based on all information available to us, but that it was the process
that we should support. Our long term goal, as the Dean and others
suggested, was to make sure that every program has first class facilities.
Scott and Melissa also expressed concern about precisely what we could
endorse at the meeting and how it would be worded.
Ellen said she always assumed that we would need to reduce square footage on
campus. For example, the auditorium is in Zabriskie, but it is to be used
by everyone. She too urged that we speak up in favor of a vigorous
master-planning process, saying that we need to make a statement that we are
moving ahead.
Ann Rollo pointed out that we were not agreeing to a specific plan but to
the process of master planning.
Jay noted that we did have the process going for a few moments there as we
began to discuss scenarios and the consequences of moving programs.He
witnessed it.
Arthur mentioned the five buildings in the report and the need for our
subcommittee to see whether or not any of them were viable.
Next we worked on fashioning a statement which in the end read as follows:
The APPC SLRP is enthusiastic about working with the administration and the
BOT toward accomplishing the master planning goals (as cited in Master
Planning: Goals and Objectives document) in order to move campus
planning forward.� This motion presupposes that all academic programs will
have excellent facilities in which to carry out their work.�� Now the
subcommittee is moving forward with suggestions for the possible uses of
Zabriskie Hall and the effect that that will have on other academic
facilities.
At this point the subcommittee members supported this statement with a voice
vote with one vote in opposition.
Discussion of buildings and scenarios.
We discussed briefly Morgan Hall and its possibilities, if Book Arts were
moved to Zabriskie. Grace and Jay pointed out that Cleveland Hall would
likely be the easiest building to reconfigure by virtue of its open spaces.
Scott suggested that we keep in mind three criteria as we sort through
possible scenarios.
1.Fundability
2.Practicability
3.Smoothness of transition
Then we as a group went through some scenarios.
A. Moving Theater, Dance, and or Music to Zabriskie
What are some of the implications?
Such a move would empty Barler and Ballroom of Student Union, but would not
open up other spaces.
Ideally these disciplines need flexible spaces, as well as specific spaces:
green rooms, dressing rooms, box office, costume shop, scene shop, lighting,
etc.
We might end up having to duplicate some spaces if located too far from
Macmillan
Great need for black box theater�probably should be near Phipps, so that
supporting offices and shops, dressing rooms etc could be shared.
B. Moving the Visual Arts Center, Including studio arts, book arts,
Would empty Campbell and at least some of Morgan
(could also include art history and slide library)
(could include graphics lab now in Morgan)
Zabriskie seems well suited for visual arts in some ways:
Large, open spaces, long walls,
Good lighting,
Book arts and studio arts have some of the same needs
These fields work with equipment, paint, ink, etc-
so would need good air handling capabilities
Good programming of relative clusters.
Then perhaps Morgan could become learning and advising support center?
On face of it, seems cost effective as far as move itself
Life safety issue, codes, upgrades important
Visual arts seems fundable and coherent.
C. Social Sciences, Education, math, computer science, (graphics lab)
Get adjacencies with science building. Creates a science complex.
Access to auditorium, GIS, etc
Provide space for new kinds of labs needed for social sciences in future
Esp. neuroscience labs, observation labs, etc
Frees up space in Macmillan which is currently overcrowded.
Could move FLLC to Macmillan which would free up Cleveland
Perhaps all learning centers could go in Zabriskie or Macmillan?
(Should we think about Morgan for arts then?)
We should remember that Educationis part of Social sciences.
Somewhat fundable
Good programming connections in this scenario
Plan D.Humanities, Book Arts, (and perhaps FLLC, Graphics Lab, slide
library)?
Frees up a lot of space in Macmillan
Opens up possibilities of more space for theater
(though maybe not in the right places)
Good academic cluster, related fields and interests
Empties Morgan
Empties Cleveland
Seems fundable and smooth transition
We need to think carefully if either Morgan or Cleveland are feasible for
arts and music.
Koepp suggested that we consider possible changes to the Sommer Center too,
which is currently an underused space.
Is there a new use for it? As a campus hub: mail room or fitness center?
Ann Rollo pointed out that we would need to work with donor to make changes
here
Scott then said that now is the time to play with numbers, keeping in mind
the square footages, academic coherency, potential feasibility, and
fundability for the four rather flexible combinations. We will keep
discussing these issues next time
We adjourned at 11:20 a.m., after deciding to meet on Jan 28 at 9:00 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cynthia J. Koepp
Top of Page
Return HOME
______________________
Minutes of the APPC Subcommittee on Long-Range and Strategic Planning 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.
v
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.
QUESTION: Since the scenarios that involve putting Studio Art and or Music into Zabriskie never make mention of putting anyting else into Campbell or Barler, doesn't that mean those buildings will be destroyed? Or, will they sit there empty? Why doesn't this committee seem to be discussing the fate of Long Library, which has been named repeatedly by adminstrators and trustees as a prime candidate for demolition?
4.Approval of Minutes from December 14, 2001...
Respectfully Submitted,
Kirsten Strigel
Top of Page
Return HOME