PSAC Annual Report 2010-2011, p. 1. DRAFT 42911
PSAC Annual Report 2010/2011i
Summary of Recommendations:
1. Continue to work closely with the Workplace Violence Prevention Committee.
2. Cooperate with other campus entities in addressing inter-personal violence issues, for
example the Green Dot campaign.ii
3. Pedestrian Safety: vehicle encounters.
 Educational interventions: we continue to recommend attention to the possibility
of increasing awareness by both pedestrians and drivers.
 We note that there is a proposal for redesign of the main entrance to campus. We
anticipate that among other things, this will improve pedestrian safety in the area.
 We continue to recommend the relocation of bus stops so that all are “inside the
brain”, reducing the number of pedestrian street crossings. We are especially
concerned about the effect of the opening of several more residence halls in East
Campus, significantly increasing pedestrian-vehicle exposure (roughly by the
number of residents in Dickinson Community).
 We continue to find the lighted cross-walk markers helpful.
 We continue to recommend P-Stops on pedestrian walkways that may be
tempting for vehicular traffic.
 We continue to recommend sidewalk along the road between Mountainview and
Hinman, on the one side, and Lot M, on the other.
 We continue to recommend sidewalk along the East Access Road, with
accompanying Blue Light phone, when constructed.
 Continued consideration of a physical barrier to prevent students from cutting
across the traffic circle area.
 We continue to recommend that the University ask DOT to study the
configuration of the Bunn Hill entrance to campus with an eye to reducing the
dangers of pedestrians crossing toward Denny’s etc.
 We continue to recommend the redesign of Lot M to improve safety of students
crossing Lot M from Hillside and Susquehanna toward Hinman and the rest of
campus. Some crossing spots are not safe.
 We note that the recent Facilities Master Plan, available at
http://www2.binghamton.edu/physical-facilities/facilities-master-plan.html,
includes many safety features, including some noted here; we recommend
continuing close consideration of the safety aspects of the Master Plan.
 We note that the interior of East Campus was designed to minimize PedestrianVehicular conflicts. We recommend continued consideration of how those
features work out in practice.
4. Taxis. We are happy to note that Broome County now registers taxis. While not all
problems about taxis have been solved, the situation is considerably better today
than it was a year ago.
5. Safety of students at off-campus events.
 We continue to recommend proactive education of new students concerning the
dangers of drinking out of punch bowls and of drinking out of unattended cups.
We endorse increased bystander awareness of accountability related to
interpersonal violence, including sexual assault.
PSAC Annual Report 2010-2011, p. 2. DRAFT 42911

We continue to recommend that students have a serious buddy system at offcampus events.
 We continue to recommend that students call 911 or pick up a blue light phone if
an unsafe situation arises.
 We continue to recommend increased accountability for those who serve alcohol
to those under age 21, or to those who are already visibly drunk.
6. Pedestrian Safety: other than vehicle encounters.
 Lighting between the ITC bridge and the East Gym continues to be a concern.
 Lighting between the “Welcome Building” and Bearcat Stadium, through the
woods, is a concern.
 We recognize that these are fairly expensive projects, but we continue to
recommend what we believe to have safety significance.
7. Safety alerts.
 We recommend that new students be encouraged to sign up for cell-phone text
alerts.
 We recommend wide-spread acquaintance with the “Active Shooter” training
program.
More extended comments on recommendations:
1. In our 2010 report, we recommended merging PSAC with WPV; as it has turned out,
it’s just as easy to have overlapping membership and to work closely with the
WPV group. [42611 note: we should attach the WPV report to this report as soon
as it is ready.]
2. Initiatives in dealing with inter-personal violence:
 The Green Dot campaign is moving forward. Training the Trainers has begun.
 PSAC has been discussing extending the “Students of Concern” committee
concept to a “Persons of Concern.”
3. Pedestrian Safety: see the two Campus by Night reports, below.
4. Taxis – perhaps this is something we need not be so concerned about now?
5. Safety of students at off-campus events. The 2010/11 academic year featured a flurry
of discussion of Four-Loko; it was banned in New York in November 2010. This
governmental action has not prevented students from over-indulging in alcohol, or
imbibing potent mixtures of substances – it doesn’t even seem to have reduced the
number of persons transported to hospitals with alcohol poisoning and related
conditions. It is very difficult to prevent students from engaging in selfdestructive and self-damaging behavior – it takes all of us working together to
ensure that students make it all the way to graduation alive and in one piece.
6. Pedestrian safety other than vehicle encounters: see campus by night reports, below.
7. Safety alerts. No further comment.
Fall campus by night: October 21, 2010
Elahd Bar-Shai. Don Brister, Colleen Halley, Lisa Havtur, Doug Parks (UPD), Tony
Preus, Beth Riley, Wayne Schneider, Casey Wall
Items visited, more or less in order:
•Walkway from East Gym to ITC. We strongly recommend better lighting. This walkway
is definitely used – every time we have been there we have seen people walking this
PSAC Annual Report 2010-2011, p. 3. DRAFT 42911
route, in the dark. We discussed the possibility of a couple of solar-powered pedestrian
lights through there.
•We note that a blue light currently behind the construction fence is scheduled to be
moved outside the fence. We agree that this is a priority.
•Walkway from East Gym Parking to Bearcat Stadium. The Committee agreed that a
light on the west side of the current zebra crossing of the main entrance drive is needed –
currently that location is exactly halfway between two current lights, and is consequently
as dark as can be, and traffic can be intense at this point.
•We also looked at the pathway through the woods to Bearcat Stadium. We believe that
lighting on this pathway is desirable, but not urgent, since there is an alternate route along
the roadway both to Bearcat Stadium and to the Event Center.
•We looked at lighting in the ITC parking lot. This has been recently upgraded and is
fine. However, the blue lights anticipated for this area have not yet been installed.
•We noted places were P-stops have been installed; they are still needed on the path
between CIW and Mountainview, in certain locations in Hinman, and at the bottom of the
path coming down from Hillside.
•We went up to Mountainview and took a look at the Appalachian Trail. We don’t think
that blocking this trail is a particularly safe solution. Probably cooperating with students
in constructing an improved path would, in the long run, be the best solution.
•We looked at the location on the official path down from Mountainview where a railing
was suggested. We were unsure whether an extension of the current railing is really
needed.
•Looking at the construction fence around the East Campus project, we noted the
ongoing issue of pedestrian traffic in this area, remarking that once those buildings open,
there will be SERIOUS pedestrian traffic in this area, in ways that are doubtless difficult
to anticipate until it happens.
•We like the lights embedded in the crosswalks, wherever those exist.
•Visiting Lot M, we looked at the location of the project of putting in a pedestrian
walkway across Lot M from the Hillside trail toward Hinman. We discussed the
relocation of the walkway down from Lot M to Lot L and the highly desirable walkway
along the roadway east of Hinman, from Lot L to Mountainview. We also discussed the
relocation of bus stops in Lot M. All of these projects, as described by Wayne, seem to be
very good ideas.
•We also visited the location of the new scales, by the Maintenance Building, and the
location of the new bus stop by those scales. Since the bus stop is farther from anywhere
that students are likely to go than the present bus stop, it seems to us to be likely to be
less popular.
•We still are eager to see a system that puts bus stops, as much as possible, on the
ACADEMIC side of the street, by running the busses clockwise around the brain. This
will become all the more urgent with the opening of East Campus, since we are certainly
NOT going to want busses running in both directions past East Campus.
•We checked out the main entrance to campus and agreed that the little pedestrian
crossing of the turning lane needs a crossing light. Better lighting in the area might also
be a good idea. For vehicles coming onto campus, there was discussion of extending a
PSAC Annual Report 2010-2011, p. 4. DRAFT 42911
double line for some distance from the entrance to discourage vehicles from shifting
lanes too soon.
•Newman House bridge and lighting – see the Spring campus by night, below for an
update on the situation.
•We proceeded to the new Dickinson parking lot, where we looked at the lighting at the
stairwell and agreed that lighting is definitely needed for the stairs. There are issues for
vehicles getting out of the lot, but that is a problem also shared by all the vehicles parked
nose in along this part of the road.
•We also note that the fence directly on the curb-line at the East Campus project is
seriously inconvenient, and we look forward to the day that it can be moved back a bit.
4/29/11: it will soon be gone.
•We proceeded to the loading dock of LH, and agreed that an additional light on the wall
of the building would help this area a lot. We also noted that the promised additional
lighting at the main entrance to LH has not yet been installed. 4/29/11: lights are in.
•We did not look at the impact of Science 5 on pedestrian routes.
Campus by Night, April 13, 2011
Participants:
Wayne Schneider, Driving Van
Don Brister
Dan Chambers
Lisa Havtur
Colleen Hailey
Paola Ortega
Beth Riley
Tony Preus, Chair
•The manager of Campus Store is concerned that the front door can be closed only from
the outside. Should there be a threat to the store from that direction, the person who
closes the store is in the midst of the threat. PSAC looked at the situation (with the door
closed) and suggests investigation whether the electric controls for the door can be
duplicated on the INSIDE of the door. We understand that some progress has been made
in fixing this problem.
•A concern was also expressed about lighting by the back door, where the manager exits
each evening. PSAC checked it out, and thought that the lighting seemed adequate.
•We were notified of the bad condition of the railings from the paid parking lot to Bartle.
We checked this out, and noticed that the wooden fence was also seriously damaged, and
the cable fence east of the P-Stop; also the P-Stop is destroyed. We are assured that all
this will be repaired in the near future. We also noted that round railing on the north side
of the road also has been partially pushed over.
•In this connection we continue to find that the Appalachian Trail represents a hazard.
•SW entrance near student accounts. We were informed that water pools by the entrance
to SW near Student Accounts. This restricts the use of this entrance, and also seems to be
causing structural damage to the building. We took a look at this; facilities is attempting
to remedy the situation.
PSAC Annual Report 2010-2011, p. 5. DRAFT 42911
•We were told that the drainage inlet near sidewalk leading into Lot L from SW has a
sidewalk cracked and heaving and the inlet sinking. We couldn’t find this particular
problem.
•Crosswalk in Lot M from Hillside Trail: we believe that there is an imminent project to
solve this problem. See also the Committee’s ongoing recommendations.
•Walks down from Lot M: Two paved walkways from Lot M are crumbling where the
sidewalks meet the high-traffic road. These are the two walkways closest to Lot L. We
note that they need serious attention.
•Hillside: P-Stop needed to prevent vehicle traffic between Fillmore and Glimmerglass.
We also note locations where soil erosion is quite serious.
•We were notified that there was a tripping hazard on the Back Step of Science II toward
the parking lot. We couldn’t find the problem; it may have been repaired in the time since
the problem was reported.
•Poor lighting entrance to Science 4 off lot C (next to Anderson Center) – issue about
temporary loading dock. We suggest putting a light on the side of the temporary loading
dock toward the door. 4/29/11: this has been done. That will work as long as the
temporary loading dock is there; after that, a light on the building will be needed.
•Campus Preschool Lighting: Campus Preschool has a concern about dim lighting in the
parking lot area behind the tennis courts. We looked at this situation and note that the
problem is actually between the preschool building and the parking lot – the parking lot
itself is quite well lit. The inadequate lighting also impacts the route from the ITC bridge
– we may be able to provide better lighting for both purposes from a single sources. Stay
tuned.
•For drivers turning onto campus from the east at the main entrance, the center island is
not sufficiently visible. There are definite plans to make it more visible in the near term;
in the somewhat longer term, there are plans to make this entrance a good deal more
grandiose.
•PSAC looked at the Murray Hill Road crossing. The lighting seems adequate (just), but
the crossing needs to be better painted so that drivers realize that this is a pedestrian
crossing.
•PSAC took at look at developments in ITC and resolved to look at ITC in more detail
when the building currently being finished becomes available.
•PSAC looked at the Newman House Bridge. The lights on the side of Newman House
were out. The lights on the campus side of the bridge were on, but need work.
•We continue to look at the issue of crosswalk illumination. It would be fair to say that
various crosswalks differ in how well lit they are.
•We look forward to checking out Science 5 and the new buildings of Newing College
when those become available to us.
•Although it had been mentioned, we did not check out the Burma Road in particular.
i
Function of the PSAC:
PSAC Annual Report 2010-2011, p. 6. DRAFT 42911
a) State-wide documents:
i) Establishment of Safety Advisory Committees:
http://www.suny.info/policies/groups/public/documents/policies/pub_suny_pp_038125.htm provides
the following information concerning the mandate for the PSAC:
Policy Title: Establishment of Campus Safety Advisory Committees
Effective Date: July 1, 2004
This policy item applies to: State-Operated Campuses
Summary:
It is the policy of the State University of New York (University) to comply with legal
requirements of Article 129-A of NYS Education Law §6431 (Regulation of Conduct on Campus
and Other College Property Used for Educational Purposes). Accordingly, the Board of
Trustees of the State University of New York has adopted written rules requiring campuses to
establish campus safety advisory committees. These committees will provide advice and
written reports on issues relating to personal safety on the campus as well as perform identified
requirements of 20 USC §1092(f), also known as the “Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus
Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act.” (See the University procedure on Campus
Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Reporting for information regarding the
requirements and format for reporting official crime statistics.)
Policy:
I. Establishment of Campus Safety Advisory Committee
It is the policy of the State University of New York (University) to comply with legal
requirements of Article 129-A of NYS Education Law §6431 (Regulation of Conduct on Campus
and Other College Property Used for Educational Purposes). Accordingly, the Board of
Trustees of the University has adopted written rules requiring campuses to establish campus
safety advisory committees.
A. Committee Composition – The committee shall consist of a minimum of six members:
1. at least half of the committee shall be female;
2. one-third of the committee shall be appointed from a list of students that contains at
least twice the number to be appointed, which is provided by the largest
student governance organization on the campus;
3. one-third of the committee shall be appointed from a list of faculty members that
contains twice the number to be appointed, which is provided by the largest
faculty organization on the campus; and
4. one-third of the committee shall be selected by the president.
B. Committee Responsibilities - The committee shall review current campus security policies
and procedures and make recommendations for their improvement. It shall
specifically review current policies, plans and procedures for:
1. educating the campus community, including security personnel and those
persons who advise or supervise students, about sexual assault
pursuant to §6432 of Article 129-A of NYS Education Law;
2. educating the campus community about personal safety and crime
prevention;
3. reporting sexual assaults and dealing with victims during investigations;
4. referring complaints to appropriate authorities;
5. counseling victims; and
6. responding to inquiries from concerned persons.
PSAC Annual Report 2010-2011, p. 7. DRAFT 42911
C. Written Annual Reporting - The committee shall report in writing, at least once (June 15)
each academic year to:
1. the campus president;
2. the entire campus including faculty, staff, administrators and students in
publications or appropriate mailing; and
3. when requested, applicants for enrollment or employment.
This annual written report does not constitute the mandatory reporting of official crime statistics
(see the University procedure on Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Reporting
ii What’s With the Green Dot?
Visualize for a moment that unforgettable image of small red–dots spreading across a computer generated
map of the US‚ symbolizing the spread of some terrible epidemic – with each tiny red dot representing an
individual case. With disturbing speed‚ the three or four single dots multiply and spread until the whole
map emits a red glow comprised of a zillion tiny dots.
Now imagine for a moment a map of our campus. Each red dot on this map represents an act of
power-based personal violence (partner violence‚ sexual violence, or stalking) – or a choice to tolerate‚
justify or perpetuate this violence. A red dot is a rape – a red dot is a hit – a red dot is a threat – a red dot is
a statement that justifies or minimizes the violence – a red dot is an individual choice to do nothing in the
face of a high risk situation. Power-based personal violence is not a huge‚ solid mass that can simply be
removed with one swift action or policy. Rather‚ it is the accumulation of individual decisions‚ moments‚
values‚ and actions made by the men and women from every corner of our campus. It’s hard to know
exactly how many red dots are on our map at any given moment – but we do know there have been enough
red dots to create a culture that sustains far too many women and men experiencing violence.
Now imagine adding a green dot in the middle of all those red dots on our map. Imagine that a
green dot is any behavior‚ choice‚ word‚ or attitude that promotes safety for all of us and communicates
utter intolerance for any form of violence. A green dot is pulling a friend out of a high risk situation – a
green dot is putting a green dot statement on your Facebook page – a green dot doing a paper about
violence prevention - a green dot is hanging an awareness poster in your hall or classroom– a green dot is
wearing your green dot gear – a green dot is encouraging discussion in class about violence prevention - a
green dot is striking up a conversation with a friend about how much this issue matters to you - a green dot
is organizing a fundraiser for campus prevention efforts - a green dot is getting your organization to go to
green dot bystander training. A green dot is simply your individual choice at any given moment to make
our campus safer.
How many green dots will it take to begin reducing power-based personal violence ?
How many green dots will it take to begin reducing power-based personal violence on our campus?
How many of us need to add 2 or 3 or 7 or 50 dots to this map to begin to make a difference and begin to
outshine and displace those red dots? We cannot know the exact number‚ but we do know this: if most of
us choose inaction – if most of us choose to close our eyes to this issue – if most of us choose apathy and
indifference – then the red dots stand! If we do not begin replacing moments of violence and inaction with
moments of support and safety‚ then we will surely continue to have our partners, friends and co-workers
become victims of violence. That is not OK. That must not be OK with any of us.
The power of Green Dot is this simple shared vision and common goal; this map of our world and
a clear image of our role in it. “I can either be a red dot or a green dot.”