Here are what I think the issues are and what I've achieved so far.
Permits typically used by St Lucia campus staff have risen by between 140% and 270% since 1994 (to 2008). A red, blue or multi-level permit has risen an average of 10% p.a. By contrast, the CPI has risen at about one third of this rate over the period, and staff wages by not much more than that. The history of increases is here.
Staff realise that charges need to cover the cost and upkeep of parking infrastructure, but they wonder about the period of amortisation of the capital investment - is the University trying to recover the full amount of the debt over too short a period, instead of the full economic lifespan of the infrastructure? Well yes, they pay off the loans in 2-5 years and the structures probably have an economic life of 50 years.
I understand that the charges are also meant to have a 'disincentive' component - to encourage drivers to use alternate means of transport to the campuses. But I think we should be conscious that alternate means of transport are not true alternates for many staff, if the University is interested in enhancing the flexibility and productivity of its staff and is interested in the work-life balance of those staff members.
The recommendations for charges come from the Traffic and Parking Policy Advisory Committee to Senate's Finance Committee before being put to Senate as a resolution. What I had to say about 2007 increases at the 30 November 2006 Senate is here.
News about changes to parking arrangements from 1 January 2008 is part of my report of the Senate meeting of 22 November 2007.
News about changes for 2009 is part of my report of the meeting of 20 November 2008.
While parking is not a statutory condition of employment, many staff see it as an important part of the employment relationship and wish to be consulted about major proposed changes.
Some years ago, the Secretary and Registrar agreed that the Annual Parking Report would go to the Joint Consultative Committee (now the General Staff Consultative Committee) before it went to Senate, but this seems to have lapsed.
I'd like to see reports of the TAPPAC go to the GSCC (and its academic equivalent) before they go to Senate (via Finance Committee). Ideally, there should be an elected staff representative on the TAPPAC.
I'd also like to see reports on the Paid Parking Scheme that require Senate resolution come to a meeting earlier than the last of the year, perhaps to the next-to-last meeting, so there is more time to consider and consult about changes before they are due to be imposed.
At the 22 March 2007 meeting of Senate, I put up the following motion, seconded by the elected academic staff representative, which I'm pleased to report was passed:
(a) That Clause 6 of the Principles of Car Parking be amended by adding the following: �Determination of fees will also take account of relativities such as the cost of living and staff salary increases, and the desire of the University to enhance the flexibility and productivity of its workforce and to achieve a work-life balance for its staff.�
(b)That membership of the Traffic & Parking Policy Advisory Committee be expanded to include an elected staff representative of each of the Academic Staff Consultative Committee and the General Staff Consultative Committee, and a student of the University, nominated by the President of the University of Queensland Union.
You can read the full preamble to the motion here.
During 2007, the TAPPAC, which included Eddie Hall of Security (also a senior LHMU delegate) as the general staff rep, looked at proposals for significant changes to the zonal system of parking and the fee structure. Eddie kept me informed and sought my input, and achieved a number of improvements to the proposal as it was drafted.
The proposal was released to the UQ community for comment in February/March 2008. A staff forum was held 25 March 2008 which I attended. Professor Trevor Grigg, chair of the TAPPAC, reported that more than 100 written submissions had been received. At the forum, concern was generally expressed that permit-holding staff were being pushed to the perimeter of the campus unless they were willing to compete with students for all-day ticket parking slightly closer to the core of the campus.
The changes, detailed here, came into effect from 2009.
Parking charges for 2010 did not come to the Senate because the July 2009 meeting of Senate resolved on the advice of the Legal Office that TAPPAC report directly to the Exec Director (Operations) from then on. The charges went to TAPPAC in November. There is a GSCC representative on TAPPAC, but she resigned (unbeknownst to me) from the Committee before the meeting to discuss 2010 charges, so my early warning system failed! She resigned by the way because she felt she couldn't input to decisions, as the decisions appeared to have been made at working parties before they got to the main committee.Maybe I need to get on to TAPPAC myself.
The rises range from 7% to 38% (12.1% for a multi-level permit). There remains a problem that the rate at which the charges rise is just so far above the inflation rate, and the question needs to be asked as to why after 15 years there is no slowdown, unless further significant infrastructure is on the drawing boards. And even if there is, what about the principle I got added (see above) to take account of cost of living, staff salary increases and work-life balance when determining increases (as opposed to just considering how quickly UQ can pay off a loan to build a new carpark). And once loans are paid off, where is all the extra money going?
See my report of the Senate meeting of 14 April 2011 for details.
Although the Academic Staff Consultative Committee and Professional Staff Consultative Committee continued to supply nominees to the Committee (renamed Traffic & Parking Advisory Committee - TAPAC - in 2010) and it met subsequent to the July 2009 decision that it report to the Chief Operating Officer, meetings declined in number. Then a former TAPAC member (a superseded nominee of the PSCC) received an email from the office of the Director of P&F in April 2014 saying that TAPAC had been disbanded. The COO had replaced it with a "smaller, more diverse committee". It still had an academic staff representative and a professional staff representative, but that's where the problem starts.
The President of the NTEU had been approached by the COO asking for a nominee for the committee (was a conversation at the end of another meeting and no background provided), but the professional staff representative appears just to have been appointed. No consultation wth the PSCC. Astonishingly, when challenged about this, the University's response was to say that because the COO had authority over TAPAC, he could amend the membership. Never mind that there is no inherent link between the change to TAPAC's reporting lines and the overruling of a Senate resolution that determined how staff and student representatives were to be appointed!
What we appear to have is an arbitrary management decision to override a principle of how membership was to be determined, with a consequence that professional staff, through their elected representatives on the PSCC, do not get a say about who their TAPAC rep is to be. The COO knows what's best for them.
When the Together Union and NTEU called for a ASCC/PSCC meeting to sort the mess out, they were told it would be an inappropriate use of time. Why get slapped on one side of the face when you can get slapped on the other side too?!
Together wrote to the COO 4 July 2014 expressing concern. It was chased up 20 August. The reply was to see email correspondence from the HR Director months earlier. The union's letter had already acknowleged that correspondence and pointed out that it did not settle the issue. That's why the COO was written to! So he was written to again 15 October seeking a meeting with concerned staff. The response came from the HR Director and again avoided the issues. So the union wrote to the Vice-Chancellor 13 November seeking a response by 21 November. A response came 10 December still avoiding the issues of (a) lack of consultation and respect; and (b) inconsistency (arguable bias) in that one union was asked for a suggestion for a member of the 'revamped' committee and another was not. The union is considering its position.
It was proposed at the 21 August 2014 meeting of Senate to change the PPL on Parking on University Sites such that Senate's authority to set parking fees is transferred to the Vice-Chancellor. The argument was that this is management business, not Senate business - Senate needs to concentrate on higher-level, strategic issues.
While understanding the argument that parking fees can be seen as operational rather than strategic, and noting that the proposal completes the removal of any role by Senate in carparking - something that has occurred in steps over recent years - I sought to have a couple of caveats put on the proposal. My speaking notes were as follows:
"I�d like to support the proposal, but with a couple of caveats.
Parking fees tend to, like it or not, create controversy. Although they are not a condition of employment in the industrial sense, many staff see parking as part of the employment relationship and judge the University accordingly. Similarly, parking fees are not part of the tuition contract between a student and the University, but they influence the student experience.
Lots of staff, especially many of my professional staff colleagues, feel the cost of parking fees, as do students, most of whom are on lower incomes.
Thus, the more consultation there is about fees, the better for everyone, including the University and its reputation, in my view.
We have a Transport and Parking Advisory Committee (TAPAC), which has student and staff representation on it.
We also have stated Principles of Car Parking which were approved by Senate in 2006 and amended by Senate in 2007.
My suggestion is that any fee change proposal should go to TAPAC for input and that there should be enough notice of changes such that TAPAC can consider and debate them with reference to the Principles of Car Parking, without feeling unduly rushed.
And so, I would like to propose a motion. From my reading of the standing orders, formal notice is not required, but I would be open to deferring the motion and giving formal notice if it would benefit Senate�s consideration of the matter.
The motion reads:
That Senate delegate to the Vice-Chancellor its authority to set parking fees, on condition that any proposal for changes to fees is taken to the Transport & Parking Advisory Committee for genuine consultation, and that the Principles of Car Parking remain subject to Senate approval."
A couple of external Senators with legal backgrounds were not comfortable with putting caveats on a delegated authority, so I withdrew the motion when it seemed there was not adequate support for it.
However, it was acknowledged that the V-C would be wise to consult appropriately over parking fees, which it was agreed is a contentious topic. I went further, suggesting that he take a look at the Principles of Car Parking and that the TAPAC, if it is to be the consultative forum, do the same.
Well no surprises here. Some massive increases. Small notice in the UQ Update staff bulletin with no detail of the exact size of the increases. Disingenuous statement linking the rises to a loan for a new casual carparking structure - loans for existing structures were paid off years ago, so parking fees collected since can pay for the new loan. Final details of the scale of the increases emailed to permit holders in the depths of December (having been decided some time ago). No evidence of consultation. Same old UQ workplace culture.
