Academic Commons Planning Committee Meeting Minutes

Friday May 19, 2006

Present: Jane Boomer, Albert Borroni, John Bucher, Allison Choat, Ray English, Leo Evans, Jessica Grim, Rachel Karasik, Shozo Kawaguchi, Cindy Murnan, Anne Sherif, Fred Zwegat

1. Architectural issues.

   Ray distributed a list of architectural firms that are receiving our request for qualifications, along with a sample of the letter that went to each of those firms.

   Leo Evans reviewed with the committee various aspects of the building project. He noted that architectural design costs for the project would probably be in the range of $20,000 to $30,000, and perhaps as much as $50,000, depending upon the architect chosen. He suggested the following possible schedule for the overall project:

   • Select architectural firm by mid-July
   • Programming completed by the end of September
   • Schematics completed by mid-November
   • Design development in mid-December timeframe
   • Construction documents, beginning in January 2007
   • Construction, summer 2007

   Leo noted that the design firm can put together a timetable with firmer dates. Decisions made by the “Services, Staffing, and Management” subcommittee will effect several aspects of the architectural design. There was some discussion about whether or not it will be possible to stick to the overall timeframe suggested by Leo. If the renovation is not done during the summer of 2007, it would be difficult (though perhaps not impossible) to complete it during the academic year. So in that event we could be looking at a 12-month delay. Leo emphasized the importance of doing things correctly. John also reiterated the importance of thinking about the Mudd building as a whole.

   It was agreed that we will add Jessica and Cindy to the architects review team. Other members are Alan, John, Ray, and Leo.

   Both Ray and John will speak with Al MacKay about the architect selection process and final approval for the project as it relates to the Board of Trustees.

2. May 25 Workshop.

   Ray disputed copies of the proposal from Terry Hajduk. Members of the committee agreed that his proposal does address what we hope to get out of the workshop. A primary goal of the workshop will be for committee members to better understand architectural aspects of the project that need to be considered in planning. The workshop will be held in Room 254 of the Science Center and food and drink will be provided. It was agreed that it would be useful to invite the following people from outside the Library and the CIT: Patty deWinstanley, Sebastiann Faber, Linda Gates, Larry Gibson, Brenda Grier-Miller, Nick Jones, Al Mackay, Barbara Sawhill, Ron Watts, Steve Wojtal.

3. May 31 Meeting.

   Jessica and Cindy briefly reviewed plans for a meeting of staff who work in the Mudd building. The goal of the meeting is to share information regarding the academic commons project and also for staff to get to know one another better. The meeting will be held on the morning of May 31.

4. Services, Staffing, and Management Subcommittee.

   Next meeting is Thursday, June 1. The inventory of services is in progress.

5. Constituent Input Subcommittee.

   The faculty survey has been completed and there were approximately 80 responses. Faculty are definitely fans of extended hours and they would also like to see more comfortable seating in Mudd. The café idea is quite popular, but not overwhelmingly so; a minority (perhaps 10%) are not in favor of it. The subcommittee will do focus groups for faculty and also a survey of library and CIT staff.

6. Staff meeting on May 31.

   There will be a meeting of all staff who work in Mudd Center on the morning of Wednesday May 31. The purpose of the meeting will be to share information about the commons project and also share information about individual work responsibilities. Cindy and Jessica are taking the lead on this. They will meet with Ray and John to discuss the overall approach to the meeting.

7. Café Subcommittee.

   The café subcommittee met on May 11. The primary purpose of the meeting was to hear presentation from a representative of Cuyahoga Group, the company that provides the campuses vending machines. If it is not possible to provide a staffed café, one option might be to provide gourmet coffee and pastries through vending machines. While vending machines would not contribute to the desired atmosphere of the café, they do have certain financial advantages, since they don’t require staff and can be available at all hours. The minutes of the subcommittee provide more specific details.

8. Next Meeting

   The next meeting of the planning committee will be on Monday, June 5 at 9:00 a.m. in the Thornton Room in Mudd.

Minutes by Ray English