University Facilities
Minutes of the March 28, 2001 Meeting

Attending: Rowell, Hosier, Boyd, Dodd, Fry, Ragon, Manning, and Jim Dragna

Mr. Fry reviewed discussions that took place at the March 22nd VC meeting. As a result of the issues raised by the Committee, the Cabinet decided to have a mini-retreat on April 10th to discuss bond funded projects and other facilities related items. Mr. Fry will develop the agenda for this retreat and will review retreat items with the Committee at its next meeting. Concerns were raised about the role of the Faculty Senate's Building and Grounds Committee. This Committee's charge will be reviewed prior to the next meeting.

Dr. James Dragna, Executive Director of Student Development, presented the needs of various student services in Westside Hall as they relocated during the renovation process. He expressed concerns about Committee decisions that he understood had been made to meet the perceived needs of the Westside Hall group. He was assured that the Committee had taken no action at this point other than to recommend that modular facilities be used during this transition period. Dr. Dragna indicated that the use of modular facilities may be problematic considering the legal, contractual, security, confidentiality, ADA, etc. guidelines that are in place for these types of student services. After lengthy discussion, Dr. Dragna and the Committee agreed that he would form a study group which would look at the needs of the offices and look at various ways in which these needs could be met. He will report his findings to the Committee within two weeks.

The group had rather extensive discussions on the decision-making process being used for construction and renovation projects. This discussion focused on the following:

1. Committee members felt that the process should be clarified with senior officers.
2. It was recommended that a critical path model (CPM) for each project be developed so that all decision points are recognized. Mr. Manning reported that the model developed earlier for OP can serve as the beginning point for this model.
3. When involving users in the development of construction and renovation plans, it will be necessary that they present their requirements and not their "wants."
4. The Committee should be involved in the macro level decision-making and not in micro level issues except when it comes to activities related to personnel moves.
5. Question was raised about the items that will be funded from project funds.
6. Certain members who had been involved with previous construction projects feel that the OC-25 documents need to be made public so that VC's and Committee can determine if allocations are accurate.

Return to the Facilities Committee Minutes Menu

fryb@uncwil.edu

Last Updated: 08/07/01