Syracuse University Chancellor Kent Syverud addressed faculty concerns regarding the proposed University Place promenade at a feedback session on Tuesday evening, saying he understood the concerns and he would relay them to the Board of Trustees.

His remarks came a day after the first feedback session, when faculty members voiced concerns about what they believe has been a lack of transparency from SU officials regarding the promenade and other aspects of the Campus Framework plan, which is a component of Fast Forward and has not yet been approved as a whole. Faculty members also doubted whether the promenade fits into the university’s Academic Strategic Plan, whether the promenade would make campus safer and whether the cost of constructing it would be justified.

Syverud addressed each of those concerns on Tuesday but spent most of his time on the topic of transparency and agreed with faculty members that the university has not communicated plans regarding the Campus Framework well enough. Some faculty members said that Syverud’s addressing of their concerns was a positive sign, but added that Syverud will need to turn his remarks into progress.

Syverud’s comments came toward the end of a meeting that, like Monday’s, was often heated and featured sparring between faculty and SU officials. Monday’s and Tuesday’s sessions were scheduled after a petition of the promenade was circulated Thursday and signed by 108 faculty members before being submitted to Syverud. At both sessions, faculty members filled room 250 in Newhouse III, forcing some to stand in the back of the room.

Many of the concerns voiced Monday were again discussed Tuesday, including the faculty’s belief that the promenade would increase traffic on Waverly Avenue, which faculty members say is already the site of frequent traffic. The University Place promenade would run from South Crouse Avenue to College Place and make that area — in front of the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications, Schine Student Center and Bird Library — a pedestrian-friendly zone, eliminating traffic in the area. It would also move the bus stops in that area to Waverly Avenue.

School of Architecture Dean Michael Speaks again pointed to a traffic study conducted by the city of Syracuse that he said shows Waverly Avenue would be able to accommodate the increased vehicles. He questioned whether the faculty members who voiced concerns about the potential for increased traffic had read the study.

Tula Goenka, an associate professor in Newhouse’s television, radio and film department, said she has read the study but doesn’t trust the city’s traffic assessments. She cited the controversial traffic pattern changes made along Comstock Avenue and Waverly Avenue in 2014, which included floating parking lanes that were ultimately removed.

“We are extremely concerned about what happens to (Waverly Avenue),” she said. “… I do not believe in the traffic survey.”

Goenka also said it’s possible the University Place promenade could be beneficial to the campus, but added that she doesn’t understand the rush to implement it before the Campus Framework plan gets approved.

Susan Nash, Newhouse’s director of administration, echoed those sentiments and said the faculty members are only asking for a delay in determining whether to approve the promenade until the Campus Framework plan is released publicly.

“It’s a simple transparency issue,” she said, adding that faculty members have not been given a real opportunity to provide input on the plan. Nash also said that decisions regarding the Campus Framework plan have “apparently all been made” by people other than faculty members and that faculty want to see a connection between the promenade and the Academic Strategic Plan, another component of Fast Forward.

“The Academic Strategic Plan promises a One University in which everyone’s voices are heard and respected,” she said. “… (Faculty members) want a process that respects that and respects them, and that’s not happening right now.”

Speaks said, as he did on Monday, that there have been multiple outreach efforts from SU officials to the campus community, including a March 2 update session in Goldstein Auditorium. Some faculty members said those meetings weren’t sufficient and that no concrete or specific proposals were shared. At the March 2 meeting, Speaks stressed that the promenades were in a conceptual stage and that nothing had been approved.

Speaks said only faculty members who have attended meetings are in a position to voice concerns about them. Deborah Pellow, a professor of anthropology in the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, took issue with that comment.

“To tell me that it’s my fault because I missed a meeting in April — I teach, I have service to do and I have research,” she said. “And yet there’s this whole different layer of meetings and no reporting out of those meetings. Even the (University) Senate has reporting, so if you don’t go to a meeting you know what happened. We’re not getting any of that.”

Nader Maroun, a Syracuse city councilor, said he was unaware of the University Place promenade until it appeared on the Common Council’s agenda on May 4. He said he asked it to be temporarily held because he felt plans had moved forward between SU and the city without ever consulting the Common Council.

Maroun said the council will soon have a committee meeting to discuss the promenade because it is a “larger issue than just the university.”

“I have some concerns about how we’re going to go about this,” he said, adding that he’s particularly concerned with the amount of construction it will require.

Syverud, who was unable to attend Monday’s meeting, said Tuesday that of the concerns that were relayed to him following Monday’s meeting, the issues of transparency and communication concerned him the most.

“Neither the communications nor the process of the promenade were as good as they should have been,” Syverud said. “I think we should say that and get over it. We’re not all perfect.”

The purpose of communicating, Syverud said, is not to say that there have been communications, seeming to reference the fact sheet circulated on Thursday by SU Vice President Pete Sala and Speaks that outlined SU’s outreach efforts regarding the Campus Framework. He added that the format of those outreach efforts made people uncomfortable sharing their concerns about the Campus Framework.

“I’m going to look at this specific project, and I’m going to confer with Pete (Sala) and the Board (of Trustees),” Syverud said. “And I’ll advocate for the decision I think is best under these unfortunate circumstances.”

In a post-meeting interview, Nash, the director of administration at Newhouse, said the chancellor’s words “were hopeful.”

“It sounded good and I think he heard us clearly and accurately, and so now the proof will be in the results and how the process changes,” she said.

Published on May 10, 2016 at 9:51 pm

Contact Michael: [email protected]