Student Life Committee Minutes
October 6, 1999
Present: Kris Bartanen, Heather Douglas, Patrick Geile, Jim Jasinski, Terry Mace, Carol Smith,
Kyra Riste-Pater, Carrie Washburn
Jasinski convened the group shortly after 1:00 p.m. The taking of the minutes will continue to
rotate through the faculty committee members. After one rotation, student committee members
will be included in the rotation. It was decided that the minutes will be distributed to the
committee through email after each meeting, and posted after the committee approves the
minutes at the next meeting.
The minutes of the previous meeting were approved.
The committee now has two charges from the faculty senate. The first is to consult with students
regarding campus services, identify and review areas of concern, and recommend ways those
areas can be improved within existing resources. (The precise text of this charge is in the
previous minutes.) The second is to review the integrity code and to make recommendations for
clarification and/or changes. (The precise text of this charge has not yet been received by the
committee.) The committee decided to focus on the first charge at this time and to address the
second charge later, perhaps in the spring.
The committee, having already solicited from students input on the first charge through email,
discussed which of the areas of student concern should be the focus of the committee’s work.
Some of the comments will be forwarded to the appropriate campus officials. Bartanen will
distribute the student input that relates to areas under the Dean of Students. The rest of the
comments will be distributed to the appropriate Deans by Washburn, under a cover letter to be
drafted by Jasinski.
The main areas of concern of the committee included parking, dining services, health services,
and security lighting. Douglas argued that parking was relatively easy on this campus compared
to other schools and that the field house lot, usually available during the week, was not far from
campus. A lack of lighting between the lot and the academic buildings was a concern, however.
Riste-Pater said that the parking slots at the field house were too small. Bartanen mentioned that
the parking plan was a complex document that had to address city parking requirements for
events. Washburn pointed out that according to 1995 statistics, most (80%) of students live
within 2 miles of campus. Perhaps encouraging students to use bicycles more would ease
parking concerns. There was general agreement that increased bicycle parking, particularly
covered bicycle parking was a project that the committee should pursue.
Geile noted that many of the complaints over parking arise from the contrast students feel
between parking 3-4 years ago and the current parking availability. Jasinski suggested that we
might help disseminate information about all the available parking areas to students. A map in
the newspaper might be effective. Bartanen will find out if the number of spaces available has
actually changed.
The parking discussion raised concern over the lack of security lighting at certain places on
campus. Riste-Pater noted how dark Thompson Hall Lot was at night. Bartanen will find out
what the plans are for lighting in that lot.
Douglas mentioned that her main concern arising from the student responses was the quality of
care offered at health services. She said that while disturbing stories were anecdotal, they raise
questions that need to be addressed. Smith noted that there were liability issues if health
services were not providing adequate care as well.
Finally, Washburn wants the committee to address the points system used by dining services. Of
particular concern is whether healthy eating is in fact more expensive and whether students can
eat adequately on the points allocated. Douglas wondered why a special point scale was used
instead of 1 cent = 1 point.
Of the areas of student response, four areas of concern were selected for committee attention: 1)
improving bicycle parking, 2) improving security lighting, 3) examining health services, 4)
examining the dining services point allocation system.
Geile asked whether the committee is focused on bringing certain parts of student life up to
standards or whether the committee could also focus on increasing the standards. Jasinski and
Mace pointed out that while the committee receives charges from the senate, the committee also
recommends charges to the senate for the committee to work on.
The meeting adjourned at 1:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Heather Douglas