Parking at USU to see changes this summer
The Parking and Transportation Committee passed a resolution that will change the operating hours in the Big Blue Terrace and open more parking stalls across campus beginning in July.
Daryn Frischknecht, Student Advocate vice president, and Emily Esplin, Executive vice president, are voting members of the committee and announced the changes at the USU Student Association Executive Council meeting Tuesday.
The Big Blue Terrace will become a 24-hour parking lot Monday through Friday. Currently, the gates open during the week at 10 p.m. When the change takes effect in July, the parking arm will stay down from 7:30 a.m. Monday to 7:30 p.m. Friday.
The cost of parking in the terrace is $1.50 per hour with a maximum of $7.50 per day.
Changes were also made to the blue premium lot directly east of the Big Blue Terrace.
Currently, the lot allows students with a blue parking pass to park free of charge for two hours and pay $1.50 for each additional hour from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. Monday through Thursday and 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Friday.
The resolution changes the closing time to 11 p.m but allows students to park free of charge from 5-11 p.m. A blue parking pass is $99 for a full year, $57 for a semester and $43 during the summer.
The resolution also opens 66 stalls in the red parking lot after 5 p.m. The lot is located west of the Merrill-Cazier Library.
As an incentive for students to use the George Nelson Fieldhouse and Health and Physical Education Recreation buildings, Parking and Transportation will provide parking validating for students who use those buildings from 6-8 a.m.
The council also passed legislation amending the election bylaws to allow write-in candidates to have their name on the final ballot if they receive the first or second position in primary elections and 10 percent of the final vote count.
The bill passed almost unanimously. Brittney Garbrick, Graduate Studies senator, did not vote.
“In smaller colleges such as science, natural resources and art, often times there’s a very small number of people voting,” said Sam Wright, Caine College of the Arts senator. “10 percent could be 10 people.”
He recommended the council amend the bill to require at least 50 votes of a write-in candidate to be on the final ballot.
Frischknecht sponsored the bill, and it was decided on a percentage so it would be the same for every race.
Garbrick said if only 40 people vote, a write-in would only have to receive four votes, which could be as simple as asking four friends to vote.
“I don’t think that that proves write-ins are running a good campaign,” she said.
Kevin Meacham, Service VP, did not support adding a quota, or a base number of votes. He said even if write-in candidates could get 10 votes out of 100 voters, they’d have to go through final elections.
“I think numbers indicate getting it really messy,” Meacham said. “I think it’s making more work for ourselves to do. Even if you get five votes in the primary, you still have to really step it up in final elections.”
USU/SA President Doug Fiefia agreed with Meacham. He said the candidate would still have to go through final elections.
The council also discussed a new piece of legislation sponsored by Matt Anderson, College of Humanities and Social Sciences senator and senate pro tempore. The bill proposed changing the USU/SA Constitution to allow the Academic Senate to vote on the annual budget.
Although the Academic Senate has been voting on the budget for approximately the past five years, it is not in the constitution. Anderson believes it’s a good practice and should be officially added.
“Very similar legislation was passed last year by the body but not put into the constitution, so it became null and void,” Esplin said.
Fiefia was initially concerned with the fact that academic senators are not elected by the entire student body, and there are more senators than there are Executive Council members. He proposed Academic Senate discussed the budget separately and passed it on to Executive Council as a recommendation.
“There are officers that we make decisions for, hence the programmers, that don’t have a say,” he said. “It happens all the time, though I don’t agree with it, which is why I think it should be passed as a recommendation from Academic Senate.”
Anderson said the purpose of the bill wasn’t to override the decision of the Executive Council, but to make official what was already being practiced and give the Academic Senate a voice.
“They’re elected by their constituents, and I think they should have a say,” Anderson said.
The bill passed through a first reading unanimously. If passed through a second reading the bill would need to be voted on by students, because it would change the constitution.
Twitter: @daniellekmanley