| Approved by the: |
University Senate - May 5, 2011 Administration - no action required* Board of Regents - no action required * I appreciate the concerns expressed in the statement regarding classroom infrastructure and technology and the intent of the recommendation. Given the current financial uncertainties, however, I cannot endorse so specific a resolution.
|
Classroom facilities and
technologies require periodic maintenance and replacement, and identification
of and planning for lifecycle costs is a fiscally prudent approach to
management of classroom facilities and technology infrastructure.
We note with great concern
that classroom upgrade work continues to be funded primarily with one-time
funds (e.g., capital projects like STSS). The recurring lifecycle costs for
these classrooms have not been funded. We are, however, accruing these costs.
Given the importance of general-purpose classrooms, we cannot continue to defer
these costs without jeopardizing our teaching and learning mission.
Central classroom operational recurring funding levels had risen to 79%
of requirements (FY08) then fell to 37% of lifecycle need with recurring cuts
in FY10 & 12. At such low
levels, faculty and students will be required to endure facilities and technologies
that are substantially beyond their planned lifespan, and whose failure will
result in degradation of the learning experience. The University of Minnesota invested in
these spaces, but without maintenance and renewal, at some point the
technology, fixtures and furnishings will be inaccessible due to failure.
Consider an instructor who comes to class prepared to utilize
PowerPoint, a DVD, and material from the internet but who finds that one or
more parts of the necessary technology are not functioning correctly and cannot
be immediately fixed. Even though
the frustrated instructor scrambles to make this class period as effective as
possible, the educational experience may be diminished. While this scenario may occasionally
occur even with the best facilities and support staff readily available, we are
concerned that chronic underfunding of OCM will cause this to occur more often
and seriously hamper effective course delivery. Students also deserve classroom space
that contains furnishings that are not broken and are in reasonably good
condition.
Given the budget reductions
and future uncertainty, OCM has placed the following projects on hold:
|
Project |
Cost |
Notes |
|
20 Tech. Lifecycle Renewals |
$350k |
Deferred technology updates to 20
Projection Capable Classrooms |
|
Blegen Hall - 3rd floor, WB |
$400k |
Remove fixed seating; ADA, Fire/Safety,
carpet & finish upgrades |
|
Borlaug 335 & 365, St. Paul |
$475k
|
Replace 230 seats (no longer supported);
carpet & finish upgrades |
|
Ruttan Hall B25/35/45, St. Paul |
$700k |
Replace 445 seats (no longer supported);
carpet & finish upgrades |
|
Keller 3111/3115/3125/3230, EB |
$925k |
Replace 315 seats (no longer supported);
carpet & finish upgrades |
|
TOTAL |
$2.85M |
|
The Classroom Advisory
Subcommittee (CAS) recommends a minimum level of recurring funding at 50% of
lifecycle requirement to maintain the basic-level of maintenance and renewal of
classroom infrastructure. CAS
furthermore recommends restoring funding to 80% of need by the 2014-15
biennium, in order to provide a quality standard for classroom facilities,
technology and support that is appropriate for a major, nationally ranked
university.
*******************
The Senate
Committee on Finance and Planning endorses the last paragraph of the statement
from the Classroom Advisory Committee and believes that funding for classroom
facilities and technologies should be a high priority among the many priorities
to be considered. The Committee
expects to participate in discussions about allocation of resources among those
priorities.