U-PASS Advisory Board August 7th, 2012 Present: Adam Sherman- GPSS President Austin Bell- ASUW Representative Celeste Gilman- Transportation Services Evan Smith- ASUW Representative, ASUW President Josh Kavanagh- Transportation Services Katie Bass- U-PASS Liaison Lee Schooley- Transportation Services Melanie Mayock- GPSS Representative, Advisory Board Chair Michelle Rhoads- Transportation Services Miles Fernandez- ASUW Representative, Advisory Board Vice-Chair Zach Nostdal- GPSS Representative

I. II. III.

IV.

V.

Call to order at 9:06 a.m. Public Comment Period a. No guests are present to speak Approval of Minutes – Melanie Mayock a. Question (Melanie): Any modification to the minutes? b. Motion (Miles): Move to approve c. Second d. No objections Approval of Agenda – Melanie Mayock a. Question (Melanie): Any motions to amend the agenda? b. Motion (Miles): Move to approve c. Second d. No objections Next Steps Meeting Report Out – Melanie Mayock a. Comment (Melanie): This agenda item is meant to be the report out from the strategy meeting that several of us had last week. Evan, Adam, Melanie, Josh, Miles, and Katie had a meeting last week to talk about moving forward on the arbitration issue and the options available to students. Mostly discussed the process and how this decision is going to be made. It is essential for students to be part of the decision making process. Evan and Adam are going to be meeting with the Provost. That discussion is going to be focused around shared governance. There are several ways that this could be implemented with different consequences for each. Speaking with the union is one option to let them know what this could do that is potentially harmful to their members. b. Comment (Adam): We wanted to wait until after we talk with the Provost to see what our options are. This meeting with the Provost is not going to be about arbitration, but about shared governance. We are trying to shift the discussion tone.

VI.

i. Question (Josh): When is that discussion happening? ii. Comment (Evan): That discussion is happening on Wednesday at 2:00 p.m. c. Comment (Adam): There is a way of framing this issue so that we have a stronger position. Instead of just saying that students want to be part of this process, we should instead be asking how these precedents will look if students are not part of the process. Also, reminding the administration that we all set up these processes together and then try to find ways in which to fulfill them, without compromising shared governance. These policies are very student driven policies, and we want to maintain them. d. Comment (Evan): We can say that it is an agreement that we collectively bargained when we established the fee. e. Comment (Melanie): Shared governance is the top priority. f. Comment (Josh): One thing that I would add is to be sure that you have a very clear list of priorities. You are probably not going to get everything you want out of the gate. But knowing what you want and what is most important from day one will be useful. g. Comment (Melanie): I think that we need to have the Administration know that shared governance is our primary goal no matter what the policy choice is. Having the Provost know that will be useful. Arbitration – Josh Kavanagh a. Comment (Josh): I am reading a willingness on the part of some representatives in the Administration to let the U-PASS program be dismantled over this issue. Completely. b. Question (Melanie): Do we want to talk a little bit about policy options now? c. Comment (Adam): There is always a certain amount of leverage that parties can exert while negotiating. Threatening to dismantle the program might encourage the union to come back and bargain. Whether this is a tactical move or a legitimate threat is unable to be determined right now. I think that the complete dismantling of a program that has been around for 20 years and has helped a huge number of students would not be a decision that would be taken lightly. d. Comment (Josh): The line that I have heard is that if the program cannot sustain itself, then it should die. If I thought that all that I had heard was pure bluster, I would not be presenting it here. e. Comment (Melanie): With that in mind, we should consider the possible policy options available to us. One, the University pays for all ASEs. Two, the program becomes opt out for all ASEs. There are also two other options that Josh has mentioned that are not as problematic or unrealistic as the other two. Those are, allowing the ASEs to apply for a rebate after the quarter starts, which will allow the U-PASS to be turned off. Since most ASEs use the U-PASS this will be a smaller number. There are two potential sources of the rebates: the University and the U-PASS budget. f. Question (Adam): Is there a legal distinction between a refund and a rebate?

g.

h.

i.

j.

i. Comment (Josh): We are currently working that out with the administration. I can’t speak to the legal definition. But there are different connotations to the words. Refunds sound like money being returned to a non-user (e.g. opting-out). Whereas rebate sounds like a bonus an incentive for a specific behavior). I have encouraged the administration to call any money returned rebates. Comment (Melanie): There are a couple of technical differences between opt-in and opt-out. There is one option to have ASEs classified as staff and have them opt-in to the Faculty/Staff U-PASS and pay $132 per quarter. i. Comment (Josh): That is theoretically possible. That would get to the heart of who is in the universal population. But we could technically reclassify the universal pool to work that way. ii. Comment (Adam): There are significant implications to changing the pool. In terms of negotiation. iii. Comment (Josh): There would be greater attrition because of price elasticity if we allowed some students to opt-out. Question (Adam): At the tri-campus student government meeting we noticed that UW Bothell had a U-PASS that was close to $76 a quarter. However, UW Tacoma had a price much closer to $46. Can you explain that? i. Comment (Josh): Yes. Our office does the contracting for all of the campuses, even though the U-PASS is independently run on each campus. The price is determined not just by access to services, but also by intensity of uses, and average cost per trip. ii. Comment (Celeste): The cost of the U-PASS isn’t negotiated with transit agencies. Although, in transition to universal we were able to say that we wanted to look at a certain budget. iii. Comment (Josh): We price out the cost per ride, estimate the number of rides, and then set the universal price. Comment (Melanie): Going back to our different options. Theoretically with the rebate being paid for by the University, it’s a much smaller pool of money, and will help preserve universality of the program. However, if the rebate is paid for by students, then it is much bigger chunk of money being pulled out of the fund, and probably the end of universality. i. Comment (Josh): That’s more or less correct. Based on what I have heard from you today, not making a recommendation, just interpreting what I have heard, I think that I have perceived that shared governance is a very high priority for you. Following that, the sovereignty of students’ fee setting ability, following that, the universality of the fee. After that, my sense is that the rest is details. Comment (Melanie): One, the Administration might not be willing to separate shared governance from policy decisions, so we might have to have policy discussions with them. If the Administration think that having the UW pay is the only option available to them they might not be willing to consider other options.

k. Comment (Josh): My job is to help the administration understand the implications of different policies and to suggest recommendations to them. I will do my best to ensure that the recommendations that I am making are in line with the AB’s goals, but I don’t think that it’s as black and white as the picture you just painted. l. Question (Adam): Would it be helpful for us to craft a resolution to explicitly state our goals in order? Or should we keep it more flexible? i. Comment (Josh): I think that it might be helpful to have that. It is something that you can go back to. ii. Comment (Melanie): That sounds good to me. But I think that it would also be useful to have similar resolutions from the GPSS Board of Directors as well as an ASUW resolution. iii. Comment (Evan): ASUW can’t pass a resolution until our student senate reconvenes. iv. Comment (Adam): We can pass a resolution, but I think that there might be a lot of policy options out there that are worth talking about with other students. That is why I originally wanted it to be about principles. m. Comment (Austin): I think that a more specific resolution to detail what we believe will be useful. i. Comment (Melanie): The way that I interpret this is actually a broader document than our others. To discuss the principles that we believe in, rather than looking at specific polices. n. Question (Zach): Would changing from a specific policy to a series of objectives be seen as the AB backing down? i. Comment (Josh): I would cast it as restatement of the principles that underlie your original statement. I think that it would signal to the other parties an understanding of a complex situation. It would signal that you understand that you might not get the exact path you proposed, but that you are willing to talk about other options. o. Comment (Adam): I think that this document will be outlining thresholds. Once those are passed, we can look at many different policy avenues to pursue. It ensures that the administration understands that we have a seat at the table. I can see how it might be seen as a step back, but in my mind it is more important to discuss the policy goals. i. Comment (Michelle): I see it more as an invitation to the table to discuss. ii. Comment (Zach): I’m on board with that. iii. Comment (Austin): I’m on board with it. Except, I’m not really sure about how I feel about reclassifying ASEs to employees. iv. Comment (Melanie): We can do some word-smithing about maintaining a universal U-PASS fee. Anyone want to take the lead on drafting that? I can do it. And I think that it would be good if we can get very similar language between this resolution and whatever GPSS crafts, and perhaps a shared letter from ASUW Board of Director’s members.

VII.

p. Comment (Josh): I’m sorry to share this but I think that you really have 24 hours to get this out. You should carry this into the meeting with the Provost. Also, the administration is working on this issue much sooner than two weeks from now. i. Comment (Melanie): We can do that. NightRide –Schooley a. Comment (Lee): I was invited this morning to do a presentation to you about the NightRide program. There is is currently a cooperation between UW shuttles and University of Washington Police Department on a Lean process improvement of the similar NightRide and Night Walk programs. b. Comment (Josh): If I may, just a reminder of why this is relevant. The program is primarily funded by U-PASS funds. You all have a right to periodic updates i. Comment (Celeste): Only about 20% of the program is funded through faculty/staff U-PASS funds. This may be an overestimate of their ridership. It also means that students are the primary stakeholders. c. Comment (Lee): The service was created in 1991 as an adjunct to the UPASS program. The purpose is to give people on campus a safe ride home within one mile of campus. In 2004, Shuttles took over the operation of the program. Grayline service has been operating it since before that. In 2005, we came online with an additional shuttle that serviced the IMA because ridership demand was so high for that. That shuttle was eliminated in 2009 when the ASUW and GPSS opted not to continue to fund shuttle service at that time. That year, we went from seven shuttles to four, and from three zones to two. Currently we have two zones: West and East. In 2011, the vendor contract expired. We elected to select a new vender, and switched from Grayline. That brings us to our current state. We still operate four shuttles. They all originate from the IMA. We find that many people get off the shuttles on campus. d. Comment (Josh): Just a quick bit of history on that- that service to the IMA replaced the IMA loop shuttle. That route was originally established by ASUW, and then funding was cut by ASUW. After two years of interim funding via Vice Provost Godfrey and Transportation Services, Lee and his team worked to find a way to incorporate it into their bit of service without significantly diminishing service. e. Comment (Lee): We have found that the UW police are feeling some pressure on their program. We are anticipating that they might be considering asking for a realignment of our program with theirs. If we were to realign our service with NightWalk, it might mean that we are working for seven hours per night. Currently, we are operating at five nights per week. This could change to seven nights per week to encompass NightWalk service times. The new total of the cost of the proposed realigned program is projected for AB members to see. It would be expanded to operate from 7:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. Also, there is data on

f.

g.

h. i.

j. k.

l. m.

n. o. p.

what will happen if we choose to move to seven nights per week, as NightWalk does. Question (Adam): Right now, when the program is operating five nights per week, is this based on student demand? Also, has there been any comparison with crime statistics? i. Comment (Lee): To the best of my understanding, when this program was created it was intended to take students home from late night studying. But, people are looking at things differently now. Such as ways to get home safely from activities that are not directly connected to studying in the library. Ridership is lowest on Sunday. UWPD tells us that Thursday and Friday are their busiest days for NightWalk. Comment (Josh): First, this joint project between UWPD and Shuttles has not reached any conclusions. It is just meant to provide information to the board about possible changes that the program could see. My inclination would be to allow that process to go forward, and to await recommendations, but I think that you as a board could be thinking about what recommendations you would want to see. Question (Zach): What is the busiest day for NightRide? Comment (Lee): I don’t know that off the top of my head. I could look it up. I believe that it is Wednesday or Thursday night. However, most week nights are fairly uniform. Question (Josh): Lee, do you have time data about when people are using the service? Comment (Melanie): I think that it would be useful to look at data about where people are boarding and exiting. This would help us look at where demand is coming from. Also, it wouldn’t make sense to serve the IMA until 2:00 a.m. if it isn’t open that late. i. Comment (Lee): I can get both of those data points. Question (Melanie): Any other questions? Comment (Melanie): I guess I would just add that it would be useful to know what percentage of the riders live on campus? We probably don’t think about who is being served. If it is mostly people that live on campus, they probably don’t use the bus very often. They might be otherwise underserved by the U-PASS but this could be a way to rectify that. i. Comment (Lee): That is a bit more tricky. We have a good idea about where people are getting off. Which gives us some idea, but it is not a perfect measure. ii. Comment (Josh): Might need some reconfiguration of stops to better serve the on-campus population if that is a goal. Question (Adam): If U-PASS goes, this program goes too? Right? i. Comment (Josh): Yes. Comment (Adam): So, public safety is at stake. Question (Austin): How will the new HUB affect this?

VIII.

IX.

X.

i. Comment (Lee): It will be interesting to see. We do have a stop there. But, we also had a stop at the HUB before it was remodeled and it wasn’t one of our top two spots. q. Question (Melanie): Looking at timeline and funding, are we looing at actual changes to service at the beginning of next year or midyear? i. Comment (Josh): We could do it midyear. Whenever the AB releases funding. Lee would need several weeks to contract with vendors. r. Question (Adam): What accounts for the dip in service use (pertaining to the visual aid)? i. Comment (Lee): I don’t know exactly. Weather, maybe. Part of the recent uptick has to do with the new vendor, and their great service. Annual Report –Melanie Mayock/Sean Wilson a. Comment (Melanie): I don’t have very much of an update on this. Theoretically it shouldn’t be that much work. Sean has an internship this summer that is making it difficult for him to contribute much either. b. Question (Josh): Would it be useful to have more staff support in crafting the report? i. Comment (Melanie): Yes. I was talking to Katie about this. I think that she is going to begin to craft a draft of the Annual Report, and my role will become more of an editing capacity. Agenda Setting -Katie Bass a. Question (Katie): Are there any agenda items for the next meeting? i. Comment (Michelle): Not for the next meeting but the one after that, we could do a NightRide LEAN update. b. Question (Josh): Where do we stand on AB appointments for the upcoming year? i. Comment (Katie): The agenda reflects the current list. The unassigned seat is to be assigned by the ASUW senate. Other than that, everyone is stable for the time being. Adjournment at 9:59 a.m.