U-PASS Advisory Board October 12th, 2012 Present: Aaron Lykken (by phone) - GPSS Representative Austin Bell- ASUW Representative Celeste Gilman- Transportation Services Evan Smith- ASUW Representative Josh Kavanagh- Transportation Services Kate Callison- ASUW Representative Katie Bass- Advisory Board Staff Lee Schooley- Transportation Services Melanie Mayock (by phone) - Advisory Board Chair, GPSS Representative Michelle Rhoads- Transportation Services Miles Fernandez- Advisory Board Vice-Chair, ASUW Representative Rene Singleton- Student Life Sean Wilson- ASUW Representative
I.
II. III.
IV.
V.
Five minute public comment period a. Mary Edwards- A masters student in the school of social work. She thanked the Advisory Board for the work that they are doing, as the U-PASS is important. She wanted to provide information from the perspective of someone with disabilities. She asked that the Advisory Board please consider an amendment. Her reasoning is that she already has a card to ride at a reduced fare, which is true for other people with physical disabilities. So, she pays a third of the price that other people pay to ride the bus. As such, buying a U-PASS is very expensive. She emphasized that she was speaking from experience. She can’t work as much as people who don’t have disabilities, which makes riding the bus very hard. Also, because of her disabilities, her degree is going to take five years instead of the normal two. She is requesting that the AB not make it required for someone who has a reduced fare card from Metro to have a full-priced U-PASS, or that the price of the UPASS be reduced to match what the Metro price is. Call to order- Fernandez a. At 2:52p.m. Approval of minutes -Fernandez a. Motion (Miles): Move to approve the meeting minutes from August 7th b. Second c. No objection Approval of Agenda- Fernandez a. Motion (Austin): Move to approve b. Second c. No objections A Reconsideration of the Bylaws –Fernandez a. Resolution Presentation (Miles)
Universal Student U-PASS Advisory Board Resolution 1.03 Friday, October 12, 2012 Submitted by: Miles Fernandez, Vice-Chair A resolution to amend the Universal Student U-PASS Advisory Board Bylaws WHEREAS: The Universal Student U-PASS Advisory Board Bylaws state that proxies shall not be used to calculate quorum; and WHEREAS: Quorum is necessary to conduct the official business of the Advisory Board; and WHEREAS: The Advisory Board was unable to meet quorum several times during the summer; and WHEREAS: The ASUW Student Senate defines quorum as consisting of the presence, either in person or by proxy; and THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE UNIVERSAL STUDENT U-PASS ADVISORY BOARD OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: THAT: The Universal U-PASS Advisory Board Bylaws amend Article III. Operations by amending the clause “Proxies shall not be used to calculate quorum.” to state that “Proxies shall be used to calculate quorum.”; and THAT: A copy of this recommendation be sent to the ASUW Board of Directors and the GPSS Executive Committee. b. Motion (Sean): Move to add a second THAT clause that states “Article III. Section one of the bylaws be amended to state that: special quorum shall consist of a simple majority of current members of the Advisory Board, and shall be empowered to hear testimony and collect information, but shall not be empowered to vote on official business.” Also, that the first THAT clause be amended to say “calculate quorum and special quorum.” c. Motion (Austin): Move to vote d. Vote (Miles): Yes e. Vote (Evan): Yes f. Vote (Kate): Yes g. Vote (Austin): Yes h. Vote (Sean): Yes i. Vote (Melanie): Yes j. Vote (Aaron): Yes
VI.
k. Comment (Miles): On a vote of 7-0 organic resolution 1.03 is adopted. (See attachment) Arbitration – Kavanagh a. Comment (Josh): The University has made a last and final offer to UAW regarding the arbitration issue. They are due to receive a response on the 19th of this month. We won’t know anything more until then. i. Question (Evan): Is the offer more or less on the lines of the rebate program? ii. Comment (Josh): I don’t know that I am allowed to speak on that. iii. Question (Evan): Do you think that our interests are being protected? iv. Comment (Josh): There is nothing in the offer that is inconsistent with the methodologies that we’ve discussed in the past. v. Comment (Evan): I will be sure to give you a call on the 19th. b. Comment (Miles): Sean and I were made aware today that there is a petition online that is on behalf of the Union concerning the arbitration. Will pass it along to the rest of the Advisory Board. Additionally, while in one of my classes, the lecturer mentioned that the Union might be sending out a poll to the student body regarding their support of the Union. c. Comment (Evan): I sent out two all campus emails. Some responses to those were regarding the U-PASS, mostly from grad students and ASEs regarding the fee. Also, at the Regents meeting there were several comments regarding the fee. d. Question (Evan): Do you think that we can look at doing an opinion survey midyear? i. Comment (Josh):I spoke with a grad student named Kevin Hicks. He put in an information request into the office that TS is working to support him on. He suggested that as part of the reconsideration of the fee on a goforward basis that the AB might want to conduct a follow up survey similar to the one that was sent out to establish the fee. So I agreed to relay that to the AB. ii. Comment (Celeste): We are also getting ready to launch our biennial survey. We have contracted this out with a survey organization and we will be asking students about their experience with the U-PASS and their participation in the program. Those results will be available at the end of the year. iii. Comment (Sean): I think that if we were to try to use some numbers, would like to see a survey that is as close to the original survey that was sent out as possible for comparison. We need to start negotiating the fee in winter quarter. So, I think that it is best to prepare during the this quarter to have it prepared for the tight deadline of negotiation during winter quarter iv. Comment (Josh): If the survey were done in the beginning of next quarter we would want to allocate staff time to help students analyze it because of the expediency issue. e. Comment (Rene): We should think about how the arbitration deadlines are going to affect the U-PASS AB fee? It seems that all of this is going to be hitting at the same time. Is there a way that we can make a timeline for strategically timing
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
this? If the arbitration goes south and there is reaction to that, and simultaneously we are having a generic survey, those two are going to interact. i. Comment (Miles): Yes. If we send out a poll at a time when there are sour feelings in the air because of the arbitration that is going to affect the results of the survey. ii. Comment (Rene): If we aren’t careful we might end up with a survey that is exactly the opposite of what it was when we started. We just want to be careful and think about other factors that influence it. I think that having a plan and being ready to go is a good thing. Comment (Josh): Just a clarification, it is my recollection of the process that we only need to update the agreement if the fee were to change. i. Comment (Rene): Correct. Comment (Josh): Celeste is within days of starting the preparatory work of cost modeling for next year’s contract, so we will get that to the AB in due course. It may be the case that the AB will want to view price uncertainly in transit differently in light of uncertainty as far as renewal goes. We might want to only renew one year with a stable price rather than change the price for two years in an unstable environment. Comment (Sean): Like Rene was saying, if the arbitration is supposed to come out on the 19th, by the end of the quarter we could have enough time to really consider these questions, but also to give it enough space. Looking at viability of the future of the program, we should know what people are willing to accept when we renegotiate. Comment (Josh): Following up on what you were saying, it would be a good idea to follow-up on the survey of two years ago as closely as possible. We want to include a projected fee level of universal as well as a projected fee of opt out. Or, some sort of hybrid. Discounting any rate that is put out by the AB would be undesirable because the Administration would not want to transfer any risk to the University. Comment (Sean): The third option that was in my head when I was making my past point, was to offer the idea of a way that we could consider a small number of exemptions for the group of people that have been coming to us. i. Question (Evan): Would that be a rebate or refund? ii. Comment (Josh): I think that it would be a change in the population. iii. Comment (Sean): I would want to have it be a rebate. iv. Comment (Celeste): That would work best for the software systems that support U-PASS management. v. Comment (Josh): Also, like we talked about eight months ago, it could be looked at like a scholarship program. It is important that we don’t rank this in the same set of options as we presented in the last survey to avoid skewed data. Comment (Sean): I think that we are having a great discussion on this survey. It would be great to have some research based on the last survey so that we can have a more tangible discussion about our next survey. This will allow us to start working on it, and so we can control the rollout. i. Comment: Survey data from last time is in the binder.
VII.
VIII.
Transit Contract Update- Gilman a. Comment (Celeste): Once the current faculty/staff transit contract pricing update is finalize we will start moving toward starting pricing negotiations for students. Last contract the King Country Ferry District was brand new, so we did not reach a two year agreement with them for students. We are still finalizing this year’s pricing, but in round numbers it should be about $5,700 for students. What was paid last time was about $6,700. So, this represents a savings from the last period. b. Question (Sean): Am I to understand that when we originally had the U-PASS formed we didn’t have discussion with the Washington State Ferries, and since then you have had discussion with them? i. Comment (Celeste): No, the Washington State Ferries are still outside of the U-PASS program. The addition last year was the King County Ferry District, who are participating in the ORCA system because they are partnered with Metro. They are like another Metro route in the ORCA system. So we now have them as part of the transit package that the UPASS provides access too. But that addition happened with the rollout of ORCA. It was a new relationship, and so we didn’t have data to establish a two year contract. Now they are more integrated into the way that others are contracted. ii. Comment (Josh): Just so that it is clear, they are like another Metro route in the way that they integrate with ORCA, but they are an independent agency and have a different pricing structure. c. Question (Austin): Where do they operate? i. Comment (Celeste): The Elliott Bay water taxi and the Vashon passenger only ferry. d. Question (Sean): So just to be very clear, those were things that were initially included in the Universal U-PASS? i. Comment (Josh): Yes and no. When we initially started universal UPASS, they were not included. They were added under the MOU language that allows us to make minor changes to the program. So we added them last October for a one year contract. NightRide Follow-Up-Schooley a. Comment (Lee): When we last met, school was not in session, but it is now. There were some questions about the vendor and if they could get on board with the new schedule that quickly. Turns out, yes they could. I talked to the manager; he said that things are going just fine on all nights, including Friday. However, we won’t have ridership data to see how many people are riding on a Friday for a while. b. Question (Michelle): Do we know anything anecdotally about ridership on Friday? i. Comment (Lee): I asked, and he didn’t have anything yet. ii. Question (Michelle): Since you are coming back to the Advisory Board on the 26th, would it be possible to have ridership data by then? iii. Comment (Lee): All I would have is the last week of September by that time. So it wouldn’t be very significant, but by the end of November, we will have more robust data.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
iv. Comment (Josh): We would appreciate if you would make the ask from the vendor for some anecdotal evidence. Comment (Lee): I continue to collaborate with the NightWalk folks. They are still very interested in having NightRide operate after midnight. We are still looking at preliminary numbers of what that would cost. One of the ideas that has been floated is to only have one shuttle operating after midnight rather than four. Another possible solution would be to have two additional hours after midnight rather than three. Still the cost associated with just operating one shuttle after midnight is still going to be $20,000 or so. i. Question (Michelle): What kind of service levels would that mean after midnight? ii. Comment (Lee): Probably every 30 minutes. iii. Comment (Michelle): We would want to consider what the perception of safety would be if students are having to wait up to half an hour. Question (Josh): Has the team modeled what the service ridership would be after midnight? i. Comment (Lee): The team has put together some of the statistics based on what NightWalk has had for the past two fall quarters. Just to remind all of you, the practice recently has been to give people a ride in the police van, hence why there are transports and escorts listed in the data. So, you need to combine those two categories to get accurate data. Question (Rene): Will there be an automatic uptick after we change from daylight saving time? i. Comment (Lee): I don’t think so. We haven’t seen that in the past. ii. Comment (Michelle) - We can look at the data and see if that is something we have seen in the past. Question (Austin): How long does it take for the van to make the loop through campus? i. Comment (Lee): Not long, about 10 minutes. Question (Sean): I don’t exactly know the route for NightRide. i. Comment (Lee): Starts at the IMA, goes north, goes up the hill, and loops through campus and from there exits campus into west zones and east zones. And then from there it will drop you off within a mile of campus. Comment (Josh): If we look at current data, it costs something like $4 per net ride. But if we switch to one van to operate after midnight, it will cost something like $10 per net ride for those rides. Question- Is there a direct correlation to cost per shuttle? i. Comment (Lee): We are assuming that they would charge us the same rate if they start operating after midnight. But we don’t know that as it would be a contract re-negotiation. Question (Sean): What time does the IMA close? i. Comment (Lee):10:30 p.m. ii. Question (Sean): So, perhaps this shuttle wouldn’t need to run all the way down to the IMA and could go on a bit faster loop. Are most people coming from the libraries that late?
IX.
X.
iii. Comment (Celeste): Anecdotally, it is both the libraries and also students riding from the residence halls traveling between east campus and west campus. iv. Comment (Sean): So, that might be best for the NightWalk, because they can cut straight through campus. Agenda Setting- Bass a. Comment (Sean) : I will draft survey questions for the next meeting. Katie, send out an email to check in soon. b. Comment (Rene): Going forward we might want to have a conversation about what we need to do to transfer the reins at the end of the year, so that it’s a smooth transition for the next group. That way next summer it could be a smoother meeting. This would be great if we get a meeting with not so much to do. Plus, winter quarter there is probably going to be a lot to do that is time sensitive, so it would be nice to discuss transitional protocols before then. i. Comment (Sean): Everyone on the committee is graduating this year. So it would be extremely valuable to start working on getting people in. c. Comment (Josh): Just checking in with the annual report. i. Comment (Katie): It is coming next meeting. ii. Question (Miles): Is that available to us? iii. Comment (Katie): Yes, it is available on the Upassab email Google drive. Adjournment at 3:43- Fernandez
Universal Student U-PASS Advisory Board Resolution 1.03 Friday, October 12, 2012 Submitted by: Miles Fernandez, Vice-Chair A resolution to amend the Universal Student U-PASS Advisory Board Bylaws WHEREAS: The Universal Student U-PASS Advisory Board Bylaws state that proxies shall not be used to calculate quorum; and WHEREAS: Quorum is necessary to conduct the official business of the Advisory Board; and WHEREAS: The Advisory Board was unable to meet quorum several times during the summer; and WHEREAS: The ASUW Student Senate defines quorum as consisting of the presence, either in person or by proxy; and THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE UNIVERSAL STUDENT U-PASS ADVISORY BOARD OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: THAT: The Universal U-PASS Advisory Board Bylaws amend Article III. Operations by amending the clause “Proxies shall not be used to calculate quorum.” to state that “Proxies shall be used to calculate quorum and special quorum.”; and THAT: Article III section one of the bylaws be amended to state that: special quorum shall consist of a simple majority of current members of the Advisory Board, and shall be empowered to hear testimony and collect information, but shall not be empowered to vote on official business; and THAT: A copy of this recommendation be sent to the ASUW Board of Directors and the GPSS Executive Committee.
