Campus Concept Committee
Meeting Notes
July 2, 2002

CCC recently toured Rich Hall: drywall is up-classrooms looked small but they are rated at 35-40.  Electrical is rough wired but technology is not wired yet. Each classroom is configured a little differently; makes for an "individualized" affect.

Didn’t go to Johnson Hall as planned.

Overview

A draft time line for renovation projects was made available and discussed. Discussion about priorities and sequencing began with concerns for moving offices from Swetman to temporary locations as well as moving Education.  Need to meet deadlines as indicated in order to prevent delays.

Three major projects in design:
Riggs / Lakeside
Campus Center
Swetman West Phase that consists of the part of the building bordering on the Campus Center up to and including the center of the building.

Need relocation for offices and classrooms currently in the west wing of Swetman – need to complete moves by Fall 2003 for major construction in 2004.

Priority for moving Curriculum and Instruction into Wilbur and Business to Rich was discussed.  This timetable defers Curriculum and Instruction move to focus on Swetman west.

Curriculum and Instruction relocation and classroom availability issues made costs greater than anticipated for moving Curriculum and Instruction into a renovated Wilber and Park.  Volume of necessary renovation was beyond our means to lay out a plan to accommodate the number of classrooms and offices necessary.  To complete such a plan in a timely manner would necessitate starting construction now.  Curriculum and Instruction will fit in Wilber but some Ed elements may not due to changes in the size of program since the program study was completed: increase in the number of sections taught and adjunct faculty.

Sounds like it should be tied to academic planning.  Chairs should have estimated out five years in program study. Some decision needs to be made centrally about what enrollment planning means to department construction needs.  Provost’s office should be involved in this.  Too much has been driven by requests at the department level and not enough concern for efficiencies and synergies has been rolled into the study.  Should planning be based on active or projected enrollment?  What enrollment should we expect and what does that mean for space utilization?

Numbers used in program study were different than what we see now.

Business has eight classrooms they use currently.  They now have twelve in Rich Hall, but have a smaller enrollment.  At Mahar rooms are used among several disciplines.  How could Rich be available to take up the slack in Education’s need for general classrooms?  Curriculum and Instruction may not need all the classroom space projected.  What will be classroom utilization rate?  Will enrollment grow? Are the current program studies realistic? Rich on northeast side is empty now after renovation.

Began a discussion of Swetman West renovation.  Concern was raised for agreeing on "commons" space so that it is not lost in the project.  We should stipulate whether "commons" means special interactive space or the Education Planning Center (EPC).  Presently, "commons" means interactive space that the EPC and academic clusters will use to accommodate the learner-centered focus of the mission.

Swetman West stops at the cafeterium.

We are putting places in Swetman first that already have comfortable spaces in Culkin when we have difficult classroom and academic issues.

Can Curriculum and Instruction be moved first and the whole of Swetman addressed?

Would we want to delay Swetman in order to do it as a whole?  Might delay 1 or 2 years.

Education stated in the program study:  equipment, supplies, and materials.  Classes are not portable.  It is difficulty to get up and walk across campus and plug into another classroom. Need to be near classrooms that accommodate special needs of Curriculum and Instruction.  If Wilber is used as Curriculum and Instruction temporary space, when will that space be renovated permanently?

In what areas can we carry on relocation work?  What can we do without East Swetman spaces and Lower Poucher to get movement?  More classrooms and services?

We might consider that if we didn’t have services, at least advisement center, career services, and experience based education are elements that increase student traffic and maximize student/faculty interaction.  Put those in place, build in classroom space, interdisciplinary programs, advisement, experience based education, and careers?

What are critical program elements that we want to model for the interactive culture of the building? Interplay among classrooms, academic and service offices, and interactive spaces?

Proposal: business moved out, air condition spaces, continue to use business spaces as classrooms and have English in lower east.

Rehabilitate second level East to decent, up-to-date classrooms.

Make sure no interim move is taken as appeasement or surrendering of our original mission.

Discussion ensued as to whether the points the CCC weighed in on heavily in program study have evaporated.

What does CCC believe are the critical elements to be designed into relocations and what are the priorities to establish programs in Swetman in temporary space for future renovation?

ASSIGNMENT:  CCC will come up with prioritized list.  What are CCC’s assumptions?  What programmatic mix should open next fall (2003)?  Program mix will be permanent but the space may be renovated in phases

Each member should e-mail to the CCC list program priorities for renovation of space in Swetman.  What do you want to put where?  Spaces to be considered are:  Day Care, OLS, English, EBE, Project Smart classrooms, International Education, Continuing Ed, computer labs, classrooms, Disability Services.

Each member should also e-mail to CCC list program priorities for spaces to be freed up in Swetman East by moves while Swetman West is renovated.

Next meeting:  Tuesday, July 9, 1:00-2:30 p.m.; luncheon will be served