Tuesday, September 6, 2022

UI Parking and Transportation Committee meeting September 6, 2022

Notes by A. Jacob Odgaard, Observer from the Emeritus Faculty Council

Representing an age group with disproportionate need for access to the hospital, I found that the meeting provided enough useful information to justify sharing the draft minutes of the meeting, sent to meeting participants by Carrie Brus on September 12. They are attached.

As seen, most discussions were related to the West Campus Traffic Study and Shive-Hattery’s (SH’s) presentation. The link to UI’s 10-year capital plan helps put perspective on the study. As a rookie on the EFC, I also found the other links given in the minutes to be useful.

The SH presentation did not mention potential challenges for seniors. Hopefully there will be none.

The SH folks mentioned that their impact study (parking ramp and associated traffic issues) is still underway, and that we would hear more later. They mentioned that interviews (?) had been conducted, but not how they had been structured. They asked for input from the committee.

Note that the minutes encourage meeting participants to reach out to Erin Shane with ideas/feedback/concerns – on her listed email. Even though we are only observers, I suggest we take advantage of this opportunity. (If it’s not appropriate for observers to do so, we can always apologize later – after we’ve been heard).

I’ve not had the time to go through all past EFC minutes so I’m not up to date on our members’ current concerns regarding traffic in and out of the parking ramps and hospital parking in general. But, as a civil engineer, I would be naturally interested in knowing how the traffic will be managed during construction – staging and the phasing of the stages, and what demographic data were used for making management decisions. Would it impact parking for handicapped? If we are happy with the current set-up in the existing ramps, we should probably lobby for ‘no interruption’ of that and watch out for construction (access) plans that would compromise that.

The best we can ask for is probably to be in the loop when SH shares information with the committee. If I understand our role correctly, we are at the mercy of that committee as to what can be shared with us.

Hopefully, the SH team will be setting up a website on the project that’ll be shared with stakeholders and open for feedback. Face-to-face stakeholder meetings would be desirable.

Not sure if the CAMBUS update is of interest to our members. Driver shortage of course affects scheduling, but do our members use CAMBUS that much? I may stand to be corrected???

Parking and Transportation Committee Meeting Minutes

Via Zoom

Members Present: Connor French, Pamella Hughes, Nick Nachtman, Kara Park, Debra Trusty, Madeline Wilson, Rebecca Wilson, David Wittenberg

Staff/Others Present:  Marcus Januario, Brian McClatchey, Jacob Odgaard, Erin Shane, Debby Zumbach and Carrie Brus, Jen Hoffman, Martha Stoakes: Scott Froemming

Members/Staff Absent: Paul Hanley and Camden Studer

Meeting began at 1:05 pm

Carrie took roll call based on Zoom attendance

Parking and Transportation resources

  • Departmental website - https://transportation.uiowa.edu/
  • Charter Committee - https://president.uiowa.edu/shared-governance/committees


West Campus Traffic Study

  • Presentation made by project consultant, Shive Hattery
  • 10-year capital plans are the basis for this discussion

o https://now.uiowa.edu/2022/01/ui-embark-10-year-facilities-master-plan

  • Parking ramp study came first
  • Traffic study became necessary based on potential projects
  • Collected data and input from other stakeholders on campus
    • 37 intersections are involved in the data collection process
  • How do the changes start to impact traffic on the west campus?
    • Main piece would be vehicular traffic
    • Considerations will go to bicycles, pedestrians, and transit as well
    • Do those traffic impacts motivate any changes with traffic signals?
    • Building new ramp on Lot 43
      • Skyway connection in planning
      • Very dense section of campus
      • 700 additional parking spaces (net)

o Athletics projects

  • Wresting and baseball

• Feedback from the committee
o             Cell lot for patients using UIHC facilities?

  • How much of a need is there?
  • For families that wish to wait in the vehicle instead of going inside UIHC

o Transit

  • Does it make sense to move where the buses drop off?
  • Improve experience for bus riders

o Parking ramp

  • Net increase of 700 once the facility is completed
  • Still working on who will actually park in this new facility
  • Primary use will be for employees

o Parking lots make great sites for new buildings

  • Potential for losing additional lots
  • Lot 14 specifically
  • Academic building

o Residence Hall moving in and out

  • Access to emergency rooms
  • Need really good communication

o Pedestrian safety

  • Additional signals for pedestrian crossings

Concerns for parking when you take it away for buildings

▪ Need to have as much parking restored as possible o

For future ideas or feedback

  • Reach out to Erin and she can share with the team
  • Email – erin-shane@uiowa.edu

o Impact on city streets

  • University and city streets are interwoven
  • Work with their team closely

o Ponder Grand Avenue, Melrose Avenue and Byington Road section

  • Very active section for CAMBUS
  • Impacts to emergency room access, CAMBUS and Housing

CAMBUS Updates

  • Handout and content provided by Brian McClatchey
  • Introductory comments
    • Several different communications about the current staffing situation at CAMBUS
    • Started the fall semester, CAMBUS was about 60 drivers short of fully staffed
    • Implemented service reductions to accommodate for staffing shortage

• How did CAMBUS get to this point?

  • Impact of the pandemic
    • Key hiring periods were paused
      • Fewer students seeking employment
      • Students leaving sooner due to a favorable labor market
      • DOT went to pre-scheduled appointments and fewer appointments available
        • No more walk-in appointments
      • Changes to training program

• How has CAMBUS responded?

o Increase the student wage

  • First to $16.50
  • To begin this fiscal year, increased to $17.50

o Implemented a hiring bonus

  • Started with $400 in two installments
  • To begin this fiscal year, increased to $1,000 in three installments

Expanded recruiting efforts

Collaboration and great support to make all of these changes

Third party CDL testing

  • Two full-time trainers will complete training/certification in October
  • Possible to provide on-site testing by November

o IDOT improvements

  • Priority scheduling for CAMBUS
  • Reserving ten slots per week for CDL testing

o Hiring of temporary employees approved

  • Those in the area that already have a CDL
  • Seeing several former CAMBUS employees come back to help out with that

• Current status

o Received 160 student applications since August (previously would have been about 50)

  • 63 interviews and 54 have accepted job offers
  • 21 drivers in training
  • 5 temporary employees have been hired
  • Service restoration
  • Hopefully by November, some service can be restored
  • The hope is by spring semester to be fully staffed and at full-service levels

• Ridership

o Record low in FY 2021 due to pandemic
o Recovery began in FY 2022
o FY 2023 ridership is tracking higher despite the service reductions

• Kudos to Mia Brunelli and the student employees for all the great work they provide every day

Next meeting

  • October 20 at 1:30pm via Zoom
  • Future meeting topics

o Please reach out to any of us if you have ideas ▪ Kara, Erin, Debby or Carrie

o Meeting minutes approval from spring semester


  • Motion to adjourn and seconded
  • Meeting ended at 2:02 pm

Faculty Senate Meeting

 Sept. 13, 2022

----The Senate discussed the Report of the Instructional Faculty Track Review Committee.  Their Report was first presented at the April 26th meeting of the Faculty Senate last academic year. (See May 2 Committee Reports for notes on this meeting).

Co-directors of the Review Committee, Caroline Sheerin and Anne Stapleton, reminded the Senate of the Committee’s charge--to look at the impact of the 2016 Instructional Faculty Policy on these three areas: the number of TT and clinical faculty; the composition of faculty governance bodies; and ITF access to faculty dispute procedures. In addition, the Review Committee added these areas to their Report: titles and ranks, length of terms, roles, review and promotion, and morale.  The Review Committee’s report, the Senate was reminded, was based on a survey of ITF (61% response rate); interviews with Deans; and reviews of peer institutions and university data.

Key Findings:

  • Morale among ITF is low.  Issues include unequal access to faculty grievance procedures; the devaluing of their jobs and role in the university; low salaries/crushing workloads; limited access to participation in faculty governance; unclear or unrealistic promotion criteria; no real job security; and no or very limited access to research opportunities or university funding.
  • The number of ITF faculty has not reduced the number of TT or clinical faculty.


Dispute resolution procedures:  Provide a minimum of three-months’ notice for probationary ITF and six months for all other ITF, access to peer review processes for all ITF except those in a probationary period, and a 20-day time period for both the grievant and the university to initiate and respond to a grievance.  Ensure the fairness of review committee composition and process. 

Composition of Faculty Senate committees and University committees: Adjust representation on Faculty Senate to be commensurate with the percentage of ITF in each college and strengthen language that addresses the integration of ITF at all levels (university, college, department).

Titles and ranks: Change the title of “Lecturer” to “Assistant Professor of Instruction” or “Assistant Professor of Practice”’ and clarify the distinction between “Instruction” and “Practice.” 

Length of terms: Adjust contract terms to reflect the title associated with each level of promotion: Assistant 3 years; Associate 5 years; and Professor 5-7. 

Roles: Clarify definitions and descriptions to emphasize the ways in which ITF enhance programs and colleges through teaching, service, and professional productivity.

Review and Promotion: Direct departments, divisions and colleges to adopt clearer policies regarding how effort allocation is determined for ITF (i.e., clarify expectations regarding teaching loads, service, and professional productivity).  Clarify the role of teaching evaluations in the review of ITF and ensure that people on ITF review committees are familiar with ITF policies and diverse roles. 

Morale: Recognize, clarify and support the essential roles that ITF play.  Create funding opportunities specifically for ITF.  Create an advisory board, standing or ad hoc Faculty Senate Committee, or a separate body of governance for ITF and other non-tenure track faculty so their voices can be heard at the university and collegiate levels.

Discussion: A question was asked about recommendations regarding notice of job termination.  Professors Sheerin and Stapleton emphasized the importance of giving ITF time to look for new jobs, something that has been lacking in the past.  A question was raised about term limits:  why limit a Professor of Instruction to a 5–7-year term?  Professor Stapleton said her own view was to recommend longer terms.  The Committee’s recommendations, however, were an important first step towards ensuring job protection to ITF across the university.

What next?  Faculty Senate President Ana Rodriguez-Rodriguez emphasized that different bodies across the university and within faculty governance must work this year and next to implement these recommendations.

The Senate voted to approve the Committee’s Report

----Senate President Rodriguez-Rodriguez gave a presentation on the differences between Faculty Council and Faculty Senate also pointing out the ways in which their work at times overlapped.

----Michael Fletcher, Director of University Counseling Services, gave a presentation on resources offered by UCS to students and faculty.  He emphasized the ways in which UCS can help students manage their mental health and well-being and the training and consultation UCS can provide faculty, both for their work with students and in managing their own mental health issues.  Director Fletcher emphasized self-care, mindfulness, behavior modification, and kindness to self and others. 

Discussion: Faculty asked about the effects of the pandemic on students and what they should be aware of in terms of student mental health issues.  Dr. Fletcher talked about how to help students who show signs of disengagement, lack of energy, or anxiety find mental health support.  

----Anna Flaming, Director of the Center for Teaching, and Brianna Marcelo, Director of Inclusive Education and Strategic Initiatives, Division of Diversity Equity, and Inclusion, gave a brief presentation on the Sparkshop series sponsored and organized in conjunction with Faculty Senate.  Their goals are to help people who participate in these sessions “gain skills around relevant DEI topics, learn more about larger DEI initiatives across campus, and build confidence around inclusive and equitable practices.”

Discussion: A faculty member raised the issue of hostility among some students to DEI initiatives in his college (Business) and what can be done when encountering it.  Director Marcelo suggested that a Sparkshop session could be developed around this topic.

Submitted by Maryann Rasmussen