Statement to Faculty Senate
May 14, 2007
President Jack Miller
In my opinion, there have been a number of statements made and positions taken with regard to the athletic and recreation fields project which indicate a lack of accurate information. If I have added to any misperceptions, I apologize. In order to dispel further misperceptions, I am posing a few of the questions I have received and stating a factual response to each. As has been the consistent case in the past, I stand ready to discuss this in any forum.
1. Was this project discussed with the Faculty Senate’s University Planning and Budget Committee in sufficient time to allow for meaningful deliberation prior to Board of Trustees approval?
Mr. Bachoo presented the four alternate versions under consideration at the UPBC’s meeting in December 2006. Additionally, the Facilities Planning Committee, on which the Senate has representation, discussed these alternatives on August 16, 2006, November 14, 2006, and April 17, 2007. Mr. Wilder has provided financial information on several occasions to the same group. In particular, he gave a detailed report on October 4, 2006 explaining how much in fees had been collected and what could be expected during the completion of the project. I commented on this along with a series of items concerning the budget at the UPBC meeting this February. I am not aware of any requests for information or discussions which have gone unmet. If there are further requests, we will provide further information.
2. Has there been open and widespread discussion beyond the UPBC/Senate or has this been a “secretive” process?
Conversations have been ongoing involving many members of the administration (Mr. Bachoo, Mr. Wilder, Dr. Toston, Dr. Lovitt, me and many stakeholders). The Student Government, Student Affairs recreation staff, the Facilities Planning Committee and others have been involved at varying points over two years. Further, I and other administrators have commented to the Recorder, The Herald, and the Courant. I talked about this in the opening year meeting on August 31, 2006. This has been an open, two-year long conversation with all those choosing to be involved.
3. From what sources have the funds been received to pay for this?
In October of 2000 an Athletic Fee was requested. Final approval was granted by the Board of Trustees for a fee specifically for Recreation and Intercollegiate Athletics to begin in FY 2002. Through this year about $6.6M in fees have been collected. During the three years of the project about another $3.6M will be collected. These funds have not been spent each year and thus placed in reserve until a proposal to expend them was approved. They are not fees which could be spent for purposes other than the one for which they were collected. Nor could they be spent without Board of Trustees approval.
4. Will this project cause delay, or take money away from, more important academic capital projects?
There will be no negative impact because these are two completely different sources of funds. The capital projects are part of the Systemwide 2020 initiative for which we are all diligently lobbying. The system initiatives include funds for the new academic building, Willard and DiLoreto Halls, library, etc. As noted, the “fields” project comes from student fees collected specifically for Recreation and Intercollegiate Athletics. If anything, there may be a positive impact because $7.7M had been placed on the CCSU master plan to build a track known as the “Barbour Road” project. That can now be removed from the capital projects list.
5. Why do we have varying figures and ranges of figures on the cost?
Because we never know exactly what a project will cost until it is formally bid, we have brought in the consulting firm of Macchi Engineers and sub-contractor Geller Sports, and they have prepared good faith estimates for four different versions of the project. This provides flexibility in the project if bids differ from the consultant’s estimates.
6. Is this mainly a football stadium facility?
First, this project impacts many students’ recreation (and faculty and staff) by creating dedicated space for recreation as well as placing all-purpose turf on several fields so they can be used for many different recreational purposes. Second, the plan includes a track for all to use including, but not limited to, our men’s and women’s track and cross country teams who now have no track. Approximately 2/3 of the estimated cost is for fields, not “seating.” Of the 1/3 for seating, that will serve six sports of which football will be one as will men’s and women’s soccer, men’s and women’s track and field, and women’s lacrosse. It is important to re-emphasize that the fee is for recreation and intercollegiate athletics and has been since its inception.