麻豆传媒

Presented to the M膩noa Faculty Senate by the Committee on Administration and Budget for a vote of the full Senate on Wednesday, October 17, 2018.聽 A resolution raising serious concerns about the proposed parking rate increase by the Office of Commuter Services.聽 Approved by the M膩noa Faculty Senate on October 17, 2018 with 56 votes in support of approval; 1 vote against; and 0 abstentions.

RESOLUTION RAISING SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROPOSED PARKING RATE INCREASE BY THE OFFICE OF COMMUTER SERVICES

WHEREAS, Commuter Services has proposed an increase in the fee for parking on the M膩noa campus; and

WHEREAS, the current parking fee policy is an accumulation of decades of ad hoc decisions; and

WHEREAS, the current proposal continues that tradition of ad hocery; and

WHEREAS, as a result, the current proposal does not reflect a clear, consistent, and equitable set of principles; and

WHEREAS, such proposals in the past have failed to gain community support for needed fee increases to meet repair and maintenance requirements; and

WHEREAS, the people who use services should generally be the ones who pay for them; and

WHEREAS, the proposed fee increases violates fairness that in several ways by including several price differentials that are not fully justified in the proposal and based upon some arbitrary decision [1], and uses the parking revolving fund to finance services and facilities for which its use is inappropriate [2]; and

WHEREAS, the use of more appropriate or creative funding mechanisms has in some cases been discouraged or actively prohibited [3]; and

WHEREAS, Commuter Services has made a good case for the need for increased revenue for repair and renovation of facilities and present and future services; therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED, that the M膩noa Faculty Senate opposes the proposed increase in its current form, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the M膩noa Faculty Senate asks that before the Board of Regents makes a commitment to a new long-term pricing structure, a set of principles should be established, and agreed to which justifies pricing decisions, and that university employees be given a meaningful chance to contribute to, and agree upon these principles; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that regular parking fees not be used to finance subsidies for things like athletic events or student relief [4]; and

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that other funding sources be sought for non-parking operations, including the Rainbow Shuttle.

Notes:

[1]聽 CAB was told that the price differential for students was to make up for the fact that they get less access to parking that employees, but charging students less in no way increase availability of new spaces for them.

The price differential between upper and lower campus lots has traditionally been justified by the idea that the former is more convenient.聽 More convenient for whom?聽 Lot 20 is very convenient for, say Law School faculty and football coaches, and has additional attractions of its own, such as protection from rain and availability of electric car charging.聽 If convenience or desirability is going to be factored into pricing, it should be done fairly.

[2]聽 For example, funding the shuttle from parking requires those least likely to use the service to pay for it.聽 CAB was told that supporting the shuttle through advertising was rejected for aesthetic reasons, that charging fees per ride (as many of our peer institutions do) might negatively impact use, and that charging a nominal annual usage feed was prohibited by administrative fiat.

[3]聽 One issue here is that Commuter Services is required to be self-supporting and that they have little ability (or incentive) to seek different sources of funding for their operations.聽 CAB believes that the Shuttle, for example, would be a natural candidate for funding from sustainability initiatives.聽 If the restrictions on CS funding cannot be modified, then any project which could try for external funding sources should be moved to a budget line where this is permitted (and encouraged)

[4]聽 For example, athletics gets unlimited聽 1/2 price parking passes which they then mark up and resell.聽 We understand that this helps them attract more spectators for their events, but the subsidy should come from some other revenue stream, not from a tax on employee parking.