February 20, 2019
Dear Chancellor Newman,
Since you were unavailable to meet with the union and student delegation that visited your office on February 6, and since you have not accepted the CSU and PSU request for a meeting, we are sending you this open letter.
As we see it, your administration is at a crossroads: it can reach an agreement with the union coalition that would maintain more affordable parking for students and lower wage employees while bringing in sufficient revenues to cover all operating costs and assist in paying down the garage debt, or it can implement your administration’s proposal which would add to student debt, deepen the economic inequities on our campus, and financially punish part-time parkers.
We hope you will take the time to read this letter and not dismiss it as ‘inappropriately’ raising bargaining issues. There is nothing inappropriate about raising these concerns with you, the Chancellor of our institution, the person ultimately responsible for the impacts of campus policies on every member of our community.
The question we had hoped to discuss with you is this: why won’t your administration accept the union coalition’s proposal?
The union coalition’s proposal is better for the entire campus community in the following ways:
1. It establishes more equitable parking costs for students and lower-wage employees.
Many of our students and employees were already struggling to buy monthly passes for $96. Our proposal would reduce the monthly pass costs to $80 for students who choose to park at Bayside only. This reduction would also be available to employees earning less than $40,000 annually, with parking costs increasing gradually up to $128/month, depending on employee salary. Parking rates at all other lots would range from $112/month (for students and employees earning up to $40,000 annually) to a maximum of $192/month (for the highest paid employees).
By contrast, in your administration’s plan, Bayside monthly rates range from $126 to $160. On-campus rates under your plan are even more punishing for your staff: while students and faculty would be charged $122.22/month, charges for staff would start at $180/month for those earning less than $40,000 per year, and would climb to $240 for those earning above $100,000 annually. (See the chart at the end of the letter.)
The administration’s plan is inequitable. You have publicly committed that students and those earning the least should pay the least, but under your administration’s plan, every employee and every student would pay more than tenured faculty. Does that seem equitable to you?
2. It provides equitable discounts for part-time parkers, ensuring that they do not have to pay the daily “cash” rates simply because they drive to campus less frequently.
More than half of our students take classes only two or three days a week. Your administration’s pricing structure makes it more costly for them to buy a semester pass than to pay the new $9 or $15 daily rates. Similarly, many full-time employees only park on campus a few days a week; on the other days they telecommute, take public transportation, or commute to other locations as required by their jobs. They too will be forced to pay the high daily rates.
At the last Town Hall meeting you assured a concerned student that nobody would have to pay $9 or $15 a day, yet your administration’s proposal forces a significant portion of students and employees to do just that. Accepting the unions’ proposal to continue an equitably priced multi-use pass would address this flaw in the administration’s proposal and drastically reduce the number of students and employees who would have to pay the full daily rates.
3. It ensures that lower cost parking will remain available to our community regardless of how Bayside is developed.
With the UMass Board of Trustees’ decision of February 14, 2019, this is no longer a question of ‘if’; we now know Bayside will be developed in the next few years. We have heard words of assurance that your administration “doesn’t want to sell us a pig in a poke,” so why won’t you agree to maintain at least the current ratio of parking available at lower rates?
4. It raises sufficient revenue to cover operating expenses and pay down the debt.
The University’s consultants put the annual cost of staffing, operating and maintaining all parking areas, purchasing new equipment, and contributing to a “sinking fund” at a yearly total of $2.7 million. The same consultants predict that the unions’ plan would bring in $5.3 million annually. So the revenues from our proposal would cover all operating expenses and make a significant dent in the debt payments for the West Garage, while at the same time reducing costs for students and lower wage staff, and providing discounted parking for those who park less than four days a week.
5. It ensures that parking rates will be renegotiated if the campus is relieved of debt.
You have said publicly that it would be “a tragedy” to use proceeds from the lease or sale of Bayside to pay the debt for the new garage, and that you do not want to take the MA legislature off the hook for paying for our crumbling substructure. We have been working for the past two years to hold the Legislature accountable for our campus’s legacy debt, and we would welcome working with you to make that a reality.
Yet, in the meantime, it seems that you are willing to leave students and employees on the hook for the West Garage debt. Are you? Do you recognize the tragic consequences of making students and employees bear that burden? Your administration’s refusal to agree to simply reopen negotiations over parking fees should the Legislature or Board of Trustees act to provide the campus with debt relief certainly implies that you are comfortable with us being left on that hook, and that you are comfortable with the consequences of higher fees on working class students and low-wage employees.
Your administration’s insistence on its plan of high rates, no multi-use passes, and no commitments regarding future changes in parking availability or campus finances, appears to be a bald attempt to take as much money as possible from students and employees, apparently without concern for the impacts on those at highest financial risk. It is shortsighted, greedy and cruel, and all the more so for being unnecessary, since there is a viable alternative awaiting your approval.
We hope you will take the time as UMass Boston’s Chancellor to delve into the details of this situation with as much rigor as you apply to your own research into inequality in the larger society. Inequality is no stranger to our campus. The campus parking policy offers you an opportunity to address it. Please don’t ignore that opportunity.
Anneta Argyres, Professional Staff Union
Janelle Quarles, Classified Staff Union
Juan Blanco, Graduate Employees Organization