Thursday, February 28, 2008
Rec Renovation Project passes
Monday, February 25, 2008
Voting Starts Today
Friday, February 22, 2008
Editor's Note
Differing Opinions
Extreme Makeover: Recreation Renovation
I oppose the ISU Recreation Renovation
Panel discusses rec renovations, security
Students got a chance Tuesday night to hear more about the proposed recreation services renovations and also what ISU Police is doing in terms of campus security.
A panel of five ISU staff members spoke at the student forum, which was sponsored by the Freshman Council and the Government of the Student Body. About 30 students and some staff members gathered to ask the panel questions in the Sun Room in the Memorial Union.
The panel consisted of Mike Harvey, director of recreation services; Tom Hill, vice president for student affairs; Pete Englin, director of the department of residence; Jerry Stewart, director of public safety; and Kris Olds, assistant director of student activities.
Most of the night was focused on the proposed recreation services renovations, which will be voted on by students on Feb. 25, 26 and 27.
Brad Grandgeorge, freshman in agricultural studies, questioned the need for all the renovations and focused his arguments on the proposed leisure pool, hot tub and sauna.
"Looks to me like there's some stuff that's really not necessary," he said. "We're coming to Iowa State to get an education, not to be in a five-star resort or whatever."
Harvey said the proposed renovations were identified as the top needs by students, including the leisure pool, hot tub and sauna.
"It is something that is a very common amenity in our other peer recreation facilities that are going up around the country," he said.
Harvey also talked about what might happen if the vote next week fails, though he said the panel members were optimistic about it passing.
"But if it doesn't pass, we will regroup and figure out where to go from there, in terms of 'is it a scaled-back project,' 'is there a something else we can do,'" he said.
Although he said they had not talked extensively about what to do about a "no" vote, he said it may depend on the way the vote failed, considering factors such as how significant the vote margin was, who voted and what feedback they received from the vote.
Hill added that whether the vote passes or not, something will still need to happen.
"If it does fail, you still have two aging facilities that need work, so you're going to have to do work on them," he said. "If you're not careful, what you'll wind up doing is spending probably as much money over a shorter period of time to renovate an older facility."
This would still leave a "limited capacity" and a possible closing of some of the buildings.
"They're going to become unsafe at the rate we're going. That's how serious this thing is," Hill said.
In the wake of the Northern Illinois University shooting, Stewart also discussed what the Department of Public Safety is doing in terms of campus security.
"I was criticized, I think, by some last fall when I made a statement and said we need to think about possibility, not probability, and to do anything less is short-sighted and unprofessional on my part," he said.
Stewart said the department was training to deal with a possible active shooter situation as well as training with the Ames Police Department.
He also urged anyone who heard someone making threatening comments to report them immediately.
"Threat assessment is huge," he said. "We do that every day - you don't know about it, but we have a stack of threat cases this high that we're actively working," Stewart said, while gesturing to indicate the amount of cases his department deals with.
EDITORIAL: Rec renovations: Good idea, bad way to pay
Of course, there are a lot of good reasons to renovate: State Gym is falling apart; Lied is too crowded at peak hours; our facilities are subpar compared to those of our peer institutions; it will be attractive to potential students and ideally increase, or at least stave off a decrease in, enrollment; it's important to the future of the university; etc.
And for the most part, the proposed recreation renovations are a great idea - few people would challenge that. But ultimately, students are getting the short shrift in the project. The sales pitch is glossy to the point of being dishonest, making all the students foot the bill for a few (and by hundreds of dollars a year, no less) isn't a fair way to pay for such a project, and the gray area of what will happen if students vote down the renovations is intolerable.
A sales pitch
It's curious to see where the momentum for this project comes from - it seems mostly to be from a small group of dedicated students who have a vision of how much more the rec can offer. Support for this project is high in the university's upper administration - Vice President for Student Affairs Tom Hill appears in the promotional video for the renovations supporting the project, and ISU President Gregory Geoffroy publicly came out in strong favor of the project. Finally, Director of Recreation Services Mike Harvey and Associate Director Garry Greenlee are also guiding this pitch across campus.
What they're offering is something grand - an Extreme Makeover, per the campaign - new climbing walls, a leisure swimming pool, a seemingly endless number of weight machines, air conditioning in the Lied, etc. To back it up, they've got a video and the Web site to prove it.
And this Web site, www.recrenovation.recservices.iastate.edu , is shiny. You've got the feasability study (which was based off only about a quarter of the student population), a one-page summary of what students will get, and an expansive photo gallery of recreation facilities at other schools - not necessarily what Iowa State is paying for or will be constructing.
It's beautiful, and it makes your imagination race - this could be us!
But nowhere is anyone making clear where these photos are coming from or how they'll relate to the ISU renovations, because no one knows for sure what the renovations will look like, as they haven't even begun looking for an architect. It's an emotional ploy, which certainly isn't new to advertising. But it's coming from the university - if this project is supposed to be for the students, why are they trying so hard to sell it to us?
Fuzzy numbers
Initially, no one connected with the project really seems to want to discuss how much money this project will cost. For the first two years, once construction begins, it will be $20 per semester. Following that - and for the remaining 25 years of the bond that will be issued to pay for the renovations as they happen - the student fee increase will bump to $214 per year. And that might not be the final number - Rec services director Mike Harvey said the $107-per-semester fee could increase as prices inflate over the next two decades.
How deep do students' pockets go?
The Iowa Board of Regents has requested a 3.2 percent tuition increase for in-state students for the 2008-09 school year - a $172 increase. In comparison, the student fee increase is nearly 4 percent of this past year's tuition. Who thought the day would come when we paid more for our weight machines than our education?
To be fair, the $107 fee increase wouldn't kick in for another three or four years - when it won't be as significant a proportion of tuition. But for all of the Government of the Student Body's work in lobbying the Iowa Legislature to minimize tuition increases, President Brian Phillips keeps a strange bedfellow in endorsing something even more extravagant.
Of course, this doesn't address the most fundamental question: Why is this coming from student pockets?
Recreation Services has a canned line for why this project has to fall on student fees: It's the only way to get the money. The state won't fully fund our academic requests, let alone leisure ones. The athletic department - which uses all three of the facilities in question - has a master plan to eventually move its practice courts away from the facilities, so their help is out of the question. The ISU Foundation is already working on another multimillion dollar fundraising campaign, so we can't get their help. And by all accounts, it's difficult to find private donors for these types of projects. Clearly, increasing students' fees has to be the way to go.
That can't be the answer.
Sure, student fees could be a component of paying for this project. But to have them bear the entire burden - especially since so many simply won't use the renovations, or since many of them are satisfied with the facilities we have now - is an easy way out.
Some of these requests are simply extravagant - air conditioning in Lied, for example. Certainly it would be nice to have, especially on sweltering summer days, but it's a luxury, especially considering so many dorms and buildings on campus don't have it.
And having the maintenance on State Gym fall into students' hands is a copout. Yes, the building is in ugly shape right now.
But since when did millions of dollars of the university's deferred maintenance get put on the students' tab? And why should we trust the university to build new buildings when it refuses to keep up with maintenance on older ones? Case in point is Morrill Hall, and the university found donors to take care of its mess there. Harvey assured us that letting a building get to crumbling stages wouldn't happen again, but it's a hard promise to swallow.
If the university wants to increase student fees, why don't they update classrooms? Computers? Technology? More pay for better instructors? Do something that will enhance the university part of Iowa State University - give us an education that will set us up for the real world.
What's next
If the student body votes for the rec renovations, it's clear what chain of events will unfold. Other university councils and senates will vote on it. All these results will be passed onto Geoffroy. He'll make a recommendation, and it will move to the Board of Regents. If the regents OK it, it will happen.
However, if the student body votes down the measure, things get foggy. Harvey told the Daily that their current plans are contingent on students' approval of the measure. If students vote against it, however, they've got nothing. Harvey added that the ISU administration would nevertheless still have a conversation about the renovations' future.
Geoffroy doesn't necessarily need student approval - though we're sure he'd like it - to ask the Board of Regents to approve the fee increase. By no means would we expect him to go ahead with that. But it's likely that the renovations would be revisited - hopefully the maintenance issues and fundraising addressed - before this vote is presented to the students again in a couple of years.
In the end
Some bias has to be admitted by the editorial board - of the seven of us, we've maybe used the rec a dozen times collectively this past year, although several of us were frequent users in the past. It's hard to get excited about something none of us will be here to use, and something we'd be unlikely to use if we were here.
However, this situation is not uncommon for so many students. Many off-campus living areas offer free membership to another fitness club in town - why should they be paying extra for a facility they won't use? This doesn't even count the number of students who don't work out, or those who work out occasionally - or even frequently - and are satisfied with the current offerings.
Ultimately, this project could do a lot for the ISU campus. However, such an increase in student fees is not the way to go about it. It's simply short-sighted - not to mention devoid of creativity - to so significantly raise student fees.
Not only do we encourage students to vote against these renovations on Feb. 25, 26 and 27, we demand the university listen to the students' consensus on this matter. There's no point in letting the students have a voice if they plan to mute it when it matters anyway.
LETTER: Editorial reflects biased view
In response to Monday's editorial, "Rec renovations: good idea, bad way to pay":
I'll start by saying I'm glad you admit that the editorial board is probably a little biased. I'll also say I'm probably somewhat biased too, but my bias would actually mean that I know what our recreation facilities look like on a day-to-day basis.
I work at Lied. I work out at Lied about three times a week. I would say, altogether, I am probably at Lied an average of 22 hours per week. This is a lot of time to spend there, I know. This means that I can point out a few things you see as extravagant are simply errors in your biased perception of the "glossy" sales pitch.
First of all, I wonder if you realize that it is unrealistic to expect every single student to be included in the feasibility study. In statistics, the reason a sample is used is because it is representative of the population. In this case, a quarter of the student population was used. This is actually a fairly large proportion of the student body to use.
You talk about the fact that student fees would increase to pay for this project. This is true. I will also point out that the fees increase in relation to the amount of work that has been done. You cannot blame Recreation Services or put down the project because inflation may occur over 25 years (gasp!).
I wonder if you'll question the need for groceries if the prices inflate over the next 25 years. I realize that may seem like an extreme example, but the country is facing an obesity epidemic and our health system seems to be shifting to more of a preventive focus - therefore, exercise facilities' availability, especially to college students, is imperative. I would have to say that lowering the incidence of diseases caused by inactivity is rather important at this point. Exercise is vital.
Speaking of life and vitality, you mention that air conditioning in Lied is "extravagant." I would like to point out, and I know from experience, that Lied gets up to nearly 100 degrees in the summer and fall, and the temperature drop even at night is minimal. Have you heard of heat stroke? It is kind of dangerous. When the rec center is just as hot as it is outside, how are people supposed to get the exercise they need because it is too dangerous for them to work out for fear of nerve
damage or even death? It seems to me that you may not be looking at the big picture when it comes to some of this much-needed improvements to our facilities.
Since health doesn't seem to be an issue to you, maybe the staff of Lied, Beyer Hall and State Gym should not be trained in first aid and CPR. That could eliminate some cost. Perhaps rec services should not be spending money on such luxuries as the very available AEDs in case of cardiac emergencies. Yes, I would say that air conditioning is probably just as important from a health care standpoint. There is that whole "prevention" concept again.
Other than health being a concern of mine, I am worried you don't realize how many students actually live on campus. Upon researching Iowa State's Web site, I found out that about half of students live in university-affiliated housing. This includes residence halls, student apartments and Greek housing. These are all students who are not going to receive free fitness passes to other fitness centers.
I don't blame you for not necessarily wanting to pay for something that you don't use. Many students may never enter Thielen Student Health Center, but all students, excepting those with fewer than four credit hours, pay $92 per semester in student health fees. Some students may never use a campus computer because they tote around their laptop or never enter the library or a computer lab, but all students pay a $110 fee per semester if they are full time (price decreases as credits decrease). These fees are necessary because even if not all students use the available facilities, our resources must be up-to-date and available for students who do wish to use them, which actually ends up being a very decent proportion of students.
I beg all of you to look at the bigger picture. Our facilities, even recreation facilities, must be kept updated or the cost may be much greater in the future.
Lindsay Allen
Junior
Kinesiology