What started out to be a routine Transportation Advisory Committee meeting last Friday at Foley Hall turned into a heated discussion about a “close-in, far-out” parking fee scheme in which faculty lots are pushed back to the far-out end ? Lots 7, 8 and overflow ? and student parking is pulled in closer.

Another possibility of the close-in, far-out plan is that faculty, staff and students would all pay more to park in zoned lots closest to the center of campus, and less to park farther away.

TAC and Sac State faculty member Anne-Louise Radimsky was adamantly against the idea of any tiered plan that forces faculty to park in outlying lots.

“There are unseen consequences that faculty and students will suffer,” Radimsky said. “We are expected to be here at all times, and I consider myself very dedicated. It would not be fair to us if we had to park so far away.

“I think students should acknowledge that faculty is under separate circumstances than the students,” she added. “They?re only here for four, five or six years, and most of us (faculty) are here for much longer.”

The close-in, far-out idea was hatched after the California Faculty Association and the California State Employees Association disapproved of a parking fee increase proposed by Sacramento State President Donald Gerth.

Not all faculty think holding down parking fees is worth a fight. TAC chairman Val Smith said the union could make faculty look bad if it refuses to compromise, especially because students have already voted to pay increased parking fees.

“The union needs to stop being weenies on this and stop digging in their heels and play ball,” Smith said.

Last year, the Student Fee Advisory Committee agreed to the terms of the first two of the three levels of Gerth?s fee proposal, meaning parking fees will be raised $22.50 per semester starting July 1, 2002 for the next two years. By 2003, semester parking permits will cost $108, up from the current $63 fee. TAC is still waiting for final approval by the California State University Chancellor?s office.

But even inf the union doesn?t match the student?s decision to pay more, Radmisky thinks faculty should get the closet spots.”If I have to park in overflow, I?d retire,” she said.

University Transportation and Parking Services manager Nancy Fox said that fairness, not faculty or student status, should be the focus of future parking policy.

“What we?re aiming to do is come up with something fair and equitable,” said Fox. “Should someone pay more and have to park far away while someone else is paying less and get to park closer? We need to respond by changing the configuration of the parking lots, whether it means flipping faculty and student parking or integrating both sides and base it on who opts to pay more or less.”

UTAPS Support Services director Ronald Grant reminded the committee that the close-in, far-out scheme is just one of several ideas. TAC will not entertain a formal plan until the union and the university reach a fee agreement.

“This was just a preliminary discussion,” Grant said. “We?re just talking about how to make it work. It would be nice to give that kind of option to everybody.”