U-PASS Advisory Board October 26, 2012 Present: Aaron Lykken- GPSS Representative Austin Bell- ASUW Representative Celeste Gilman- Transportation Services Evan Smith- ASUW Representative, ASUW President Josh Kavanagh- Transportation Services Kate Callison- ASUW Representative Katie Bass- Advisory Board Staff Lee Schooley- Transportation Services Shuttles Manager Melanie Mayock- Advisory Board Chair, GPSS Vice-President Michelle Rhoads- Transportation Services Miles Fernandez- Advisory Board Vice-Chair, ASUW Representative Reed Keeney- Transportation Services Accounting Manager Rene Singleton- Student Life Sean Wilson- ASUW Representative Steven Do- ASUW Representative I. II. III.

IV.

V.

Call to order at 2:33 Public comment period- Mayock a. No one was present to speak Approval of Minutes- Mayock a. Motion (Miles): Move to approve b. Motion (Evan): Second c. No objections Approval of Agenda- Mayock a. Motion (Sean): Move to approve b. Motion (Miles): Second c. No objections Arbitration- Kavanagh a. Comment (Josh): I sent an email early this morning to the Advisory Board. That email details where things stand with the arbitration issue. There was a resounding rejection by the union of the UW’s last, best, and final offer. Both groups have sought relief with the arbitrator. Absent a satisfactory resolution from the arbitrator it is probably bound for the courts, or so is my unofficial reading of the tea leaves. i. Question (Evan): In your email, I thought that you brought up a very good point that student government’s ability to levy fees might be under attack depending on what is decided. Do you think that it would be useful for us to insert ourselves in this process by filing a brief? It seems to me that the crux of UW’s argument is that it is a student fee.

ii. Comment (Josh): I don’t want to insert myself as an advisor in things that are out of my depth. I will say that I have heard from this body frustration at being outside when decisions are being made about the U-PASS. iii. Comment (Rene): That’s a little bit tricky. The attorneys for the ASUW are the University’s attorneys. The state granted the student governments and students the ability to set those fees so this is a very interesting question because the University hasn’t said anything on that ability to levy fees directly. The University gave their response to the union; they have not said anything to its student government bodies about what is changing. iv. Comment (Josh): It has not. I did seek clarification on communications back and forth with the arbitrator to confirm that those were public record at this point and could be shared. The nature of the remedy that is being shared by UAW does appear to pull the arbitrator into the space of commenting on student government’s ability to levy these fees. I don’t know how the arbitrator will decide on these things. I think that if students wanted to assert themselves it could be done, and it could be done in a way that allows students to force this back into a compensation issue dialogue, and not a fee levy ability issue. b. Question (Rene): If we are taking an offensive approach, and asserting ourselves, then we will force the UAW and the arbitrator to question the state’s authority regarding these rights that they have given students. Wouldn’t they need to question the state first? I’m trying to figure out when would be a good time for the ASUW to get involved. Because the problem is the University’s problem, not necessarily students’. It might be unwise to get involved too early. If we get involved too early we might open up the door for the state to revoke the rights that students currently have. Are there other steps that you can take to show support for the whole process? Best not to get in the middle of the fight that is going on. We are all kind of affected, but we are not involved in the fight. We don’t know what the arbitrator is going to say next. i. Comment (Josh): Students may want to take a third path that isn’t taking either side. We don’t really want to get into a student versus student situation. If the arbitrator affirms the union’s grievance, it will be only a student versus student option left. Then it would be too late to pursue a third option. But if the Advisory Board gets involved earlier, we could avoid that. ii. Question (Rene): Why do we assume that if the arbitrator rules one way, then it would end up being student versus student? Is everyone reacting to something they heard from the

c.

d. e.

f. g.

administration that I haven’t heard yet? The problem right now is the University’s administration’s issue, not students’. iii. Question (Melanie): Rene, did you get Josh’s email? The way that I am interpreting it right now, is that the union went to the arbitrator to ask for ASEs to have voluntary U-PASS participation. iv. Comment (Rene): I think that if the arbitrator were to accept that request that he would be sticking his hands in something that isn’t his, and students could pursue legal action. v. Comment (Josh): He has already done that with the first ruling. If he does the same thing again, then it would create a direct conflict between students and the union. At this point, could offer a suggestion for the how the ruling be upheld, to try to guide that decision. Question (Sean): I am confused on the timing of this. Is there a deadline for when we need to make a decision about this? When do these things come into effect? i. Comment (Josh): No fixed timeline. The documents have been filed, so whenever the arbitrator acts on then then that is when he acts on them. ii. Question (Sean): So we don’t have any idea about when this is going to be decided? Any time and we can either decide to file a brief or not? iii. Comment (Josh): Correct. Comment (Rene): I am trying to figure out how an arbitrator can come in and tell an entire association and state that they cannot do what they are legally allowed to do. Question (Melanie): Can I go back and ask a question? We have talked about several different ways that this could be interpreted. Is there any way that we can read into the union language that ASE participation isn’t voluntary? i. Comment (Josh): The word decline in the motion is the problem. Honestly, it is really a well-crafted motion by the UAW. The reimbursement structure appears to be specifically set up to not invalidate the student fee setting structure. It’s a very delicate maneuver. Mostly, it’s that phrase that we just touched on, that academic student employees could decline it. That implies that students don’t have control over the fee in the first place, or the parameters, and that is the problem. Question (Melanie): Any other thoughts or questions about this language and how it will impact the group? Comment (Sean): I would really like to talk more about our options, and what they are. Don’t want us to just say this is our one option, and then do that. i. Comment (Josh): As I look around the table, I know that at least I don’t know more. I don’t like the feeling that there is only one

option out there. I am just offering one perspective and one option. But students could readily seek additional information outside this group. They could, for instance, make in inquiry of the arbitrator regarding process. That would indicate that there are issues that he has commented on that are of interest to students. h. Question (Rene): I am curious if there are other fees that the ASEs pay? I am asking about other inconsistencies in so far as the union’s actions. i. Comment (Melanie): I believe that when this was initially negotiated there were some fees that ASEs pay by agreement, and others that are waived. ii. Question (Rene): How is it that the union decided to make a distinguishing difference between those fees? It’s not who sets those fees up, it’s the fact that we have them, and they don’t get rid of all of them. They are part of the school first and foremost, not working first and students second. This particular class of students is separating themselves from all students. That might be an inconsistency. iii. Comment (Josh): I think that idea that they are students first and then employees second is something that has been in dispute for a number of years. The union asserts that they should be able to differentiate. In regard to why some fees are different, it is because they are new or substantially raised. The historic ability to decline the fee with the old fee went away. In the ability to decline the fee going away, the union believes that the University violated the contract. iv. Question (Rene): There aren’t any other fees that are falling into that category? v. Comment (Josh): No. i. Question (Evan): Your gut reaction is to want to step in when your authority is being threatened. Is it worth asking around to see if our input would be valuable? i. Comment (Rene): I think that it would be worth it to do research. j. Comment (Rene): There are several questions going on right now. Research might help you come up with a decision with where you want to go. Can’t imagine that our union here is the only one with these sorts of issues. What are other University’s methods for solving these sorts of issues? i. Comment (Michelle): The question then becomes if that is a state or a federal issue. ii. Comment (Rene): The mere fact that the state of Washington granted this authority to students means that it is something that is even bigger than the arbitrator. If you are going to give

VI.

and share information, it would nice if you would share it from the perspective of having a lot of information. k. Comment (Celeste): Rene you mentioned that the Attorney General’s office is where students can turn for legal advice. That’s where I would turn if I were a student. Also, perhaps reaching out to the arbitrator about his timeline, so that you know what constraints you would need to work within. l. Comment (Melanie): So that’s two steps to move forward. i. Comment (Sean): I can see three steps. Research, reaching out the AG, and reaching out to the arbitrator ii. Comment (Rene): Here is where this gets tricky. You can do these three steps. But you will only be able to have contact with the arbitrator through legal representatives. So, you can’t do more than those two steps anyway. m. Comment (Celeste): Might be useful to start having the AG’s office work on these projects. If you work too long on research you might miss your window of opportunity. n. Question (Melanie): So Evan do you want to reach out to the AG’s office? i. Comment (Evan): Yes, Adam and I will reach out to them. o. Comment (Melanie): For other universities that have mandatory transportation programs, how are ASE’s charged? And/or has there been any controversy about that. Katie will research this. p. Comment (Sean): I like Celeste’s comment about the timeline. I want to know within the next week or two when the arbitrator is going to decide. I am afraid of this moving out from under us. i. Comment (Rene): Nothing ever moves that fast around here guys. It takes months for these things to get decided. It has been months since the first grievance was filed with the arbitrator. ii. Comment (Melanie): I tend to agree with that too. But, as Evan and Adam gather knowledge, maybe they will find out better. Also, we have the resolution from June about what the University should do about arbitration. For one thing, Adam has been in contact with the University some about this issue. Think that I am going to pursue some communication with the union about whether they think that the U-PASS should remain universal iii. Comment (Rene): I think that once Evan and Adam do their research, that it might be beneficial to include some of that into what we might send to the Arbitrator. Steven Do’s introduction a. Comment (Steven): I am the new senate liaison. I am super excited to be joining the Advisory Board. I had no idea that all of this was going on. This whole thing with the union and what is going on is all new to me.

VII.

b. Comment (Melanie): I am going to have to be stepping down. Other obligations need more attention. GPSS is currently looking for another representative. NightRide Annual Report- Schooley a. Comment (Lee): I am Lee Schooley, for those who haven’t met me, the manager of the shuttles program at UW. I will be giving the annual report on the NightRide program which is funded by the U-PASS program. I oversee the program as the manager of UW shuttles. I wanted to give the Advisory Board a summary and highlights of report which covers FY 2011-2012. Is anyone at the table not familiar with NightRide or has questions about the program? There are interesting things to talk about in the cost section of the report. In that section, we compared the current year and the past year. To see where we have been and where we are now. We switched providers from Gray Line to SP Plus. The numbers that you see here, the cost for fiscal year reflect not only the vendor rates that they charge us, but also TS overhead that is required to run the program. The overall program has increased in cost, but the cost per rider has decreased significantly because we switched vendors, which significantly increased ridership. Also, we saw a significant rate increase in the drivers fees of our old provider. Now we are at a lower rate with the new provider than we were with the old. i. Question (Melanie): I feel like I don’t really understand. When did the price per hour go down? ii. Comment (Lee): It went from $54 to $63 under our old provider. Now it’s $61 per hour with our new provider. iii. Comment (Josh): The current price is higher than the beginning of the year with Greyline, but lower than the end of the year, and higher than the average. We will update the report so that it is more obvious. b. Question (Austin): Why the decrease in cost per rider? i. Comment (Lee): Increased ridership. c. Comment (Lee): We need to look at what happened in 2012. The biggest difference is that we do have a new vendor. They have brought some very positive things with them. For example, we now have GPS and wi-fi on the shuttles. The fleet is new and it is uniform in its appearance. We have better appearance as a service provider. Also, they have streamlined lost and found. There was a sharp increase in ridership this year; that is probably because the new vendor is providing better service. In winter 2010, it was very mild. So weather also probably has something to do with ridership. We conducted a customer survey in early 2011. That yielded a 98% satisfaction rate with NightRide. We are hoping to replicate or improve on that when we do our next survey. They only had one minor accident and only two customer complaints on the whole. We are also routing both of the routes (East and West) on the same route now. They are both

starting at the IMA. This has helped eliminate overcrowding on the East zone shuttle. We will expect to see less overcrowded busses leaving from the IMA. As you would expect, ridership will be highest in the winter when there is more darkness. We are in a LEAN project with the police department to coordinate services between the NightRide and NightWalk programs to connect those two programs. We are doing a lot of outreach and communications to the student base. We have enlisted the help of HSF, UW libraries, and UW media. At a previous meeting, I was asked to look into ridership on Fridays. SP Plus has indicated from the first four weeks that there is 30% higher ridership on Fridays than Sundays and it is trending upward. i. Question (Celeste): Is there advertising on the shuttles about the Friday service? ii. Comment (Lee): Yes. We have put announcements on the shuttles about the change in service. d. Question (Sean): You mentioned that Sunday used to be the lowest ridership, but now that it is Fridays. What percentage of the other days ridership do we have on Fridays? i. Comment (Lee): We have about 40% of the ridership that we have other nights. ii. Comment (Michelle): That is still a significant increase over Sundays. iii. Comment (Evan): It might be worth it to look at some sort of promotion about Friday hours because Odegaard just extended hours the Friday before finals. iv. Comment (Sean): Along with what Evan said, expanding to just one more day- the Sunday of finals week. That would be three days a year, and if there would be any Sunday that people are going to be working, that would be it. That would match up with Odegaard’s new hours. v. Question (Melanie): Is that something that is possible to be looked into? vi. Comment (Lee): I’m sure that would be possible. There will be a bill to be paid if we decide to pursue that avenue. e. Question (Aaron): As a student, I’ve always known that service is available, but never really known how to use it. Has there been any thought to better signage or a way to let students know? i. Comment (Lee): We use metro stops. So we are very limited in the amount of signage that we can put there. Would, say, a sandwich board be useful? ii. Comment (Aaron): Yes, but I think that we need it more obvious than that. iii. Question (Rene): Do students look at sandwich boards? iv. Comment (Sean): Yes, but it would be useful to have a more permanent solution.

VIII.

IX.

v. Comment (Melanie): We assume that you have a more permanent solution in place for marketing solutions. vi. Comment (Lee): Yes. I would extend an invitation to the whole group to attend one of our LEAN meetings. They are all about generating ideas. And it would be great to have participation from students. f. Question (Aaron): I am curious how often contracts are reviewed? Considering that there was significant ridership changes. If we are correlating this new vendor with really high usage, why weren’t we alarmed when ridership dropped? Why didn’t we tell our old vendor that we were dissatisfied? i. Comment (Lee): There were discussions with them about the lack of uniformity and the signage. It is an ongoing dialogue with the vendor. Conversations were happening, and they also happen with the new vendor. It just a matter of protocol. ii. Comment (Celeste): Isn’t that a large part of why we went out to bid and wound up with a new vendor. iii. Comment (Lee): Yes. And they were part of the bid process. We got five bids, and Gray Line’s rate was the worst. iv. Comment (Michelle): Part of it is about the contracting process. The contract language is everything. Through the process we reviewed the contract language so that we have more tools to manage the performance of the agency. We were dealing with an old contract that we have since improved upon. Certainly they seem to be much more responsive in many ways. The weather also is a factor. There was also a realignment of the service last year, when the routes changed, which might have increased ridership. Lots of things were involved. v. Comment (Lee): With our last vendor, we also question the accuracy of their reporting about ridership. Survey- Wilson a. Question (Sean): There was a survey that I created from our last meeting. Would it be useful to add things about NightRide? Or would that just muddy the waters? b. Question (Melanie): Can someone fill me in on this survey? i. Comment (Sean): We just tossed around the idea of doing research about looking at another survey that is similar to the one we sent out two years ago. That way we can get a better idea about what the student body is thinking. ii. Question (Melanie): So we don’t have a launch date? iii. Comment (Sean): Correct. Just wanted it available if we decide we need it and decide that we need to launch it quickly. Quarterly financial report- Keeney a. Comment (Reed): For those of you that have not seen this before, and I think that the bulk of you have, it is the quarterly financial report. I think that most of you have seen the revenue. We have now decided to

b.

c.

d.

e.

just give the detail on the sources of revenue. The other thing about this handout, we are striving to the best of our ability of identify not just allocations, we are trying to identify individual invoices. i. Question (Melanie): Can I ask you to just back up a little bit. The year to date, is that starting in July? ii. Comment (Reed): Yes. Fiscal year to date. iii. Question (Melanie): And actual year is from January? iv. Comment (Reed): Yes. Comment (Reed): To summarize briefly, if you go to the far right column: Generally revenue is down from what we were expecting. But, so are the budgeted contracts. Mostly, that is transit services cost. In total, we are not doing quite as well as the business plan was hoping. But the direction is the same direction that we were expecting. The other thing that I would caution: we kind of average things out over 12 months, summer quarter is never an indicative quarter. A big indicator is having data from Autumn quarter, or even October. i. Comment (Melanie): Another thing about the student U-PASS during the summer, there are fewer students. ii. Question (Sean): Does the budget take into account this dip in summer? iii. Comment (Reed): Yes, more or less. We do try to seasonalize revenue because we see such significant swings in that. Question (Rene): Can we get a report for fall quarter in late January/February? i. Comment (Reed): Yes, that would be fine. I think that the expectation was that I would come quarterly. Comment (Melanie): At this point, revenue is just a reflection of enrollment, and not a reflection of rides. Does the contract reflect the number of rides, or just the contract price? i. Comment (Reed): Just the contract price. There is a little bit of variables for ridership for things like vanpools. When you compare what we are off by to the whole budget, it is quite close. The next page is contract services. Going through the line items and where the budget is being sent. Comment (Sean): I think that this is great. But for the next report, would like to see more of the quarters behind it. Would like to see changes quarter to quarter to see changes in seasonalization. Is that possible? i. Question (Reed): What I am hearing you say is that you would like me to bring a six month report, and compare that to budget, and then also bring last year’s six month compared to last year’s budget. ii. Comment (Sean): That is a great principle. But since last summer was weird, it would be nice to see fall quarter to fall quarter. Year to date year to date comparisons.

X.

XI.

iii. Comment (Michelle): So compare the two fall quarters, and the two summers. And year to date comparisons. Advisory Board annual report first readings -Bass a. Comment (Katie): Everyone look at the draft of the Annual Report that is now available on the upassab website. Please look for edits. We will discuss the annual report more at a future meeting. Agenda setting a. Add survey to next meeting b. Add annual report edits to next meeting as well c. Adjournment at 3:48 p.m.