A Sea Of Red

Liberty employees now have multiple options for parking on campus or off campus (this survey is for polling purposes only, NOT complaining).

Probably Zone 2 since its closest to my department

Cider Jim wrote:Liberty employees now have multiple options for parking on campus or off campus (this survey is for polling purposes only, NOT complaining).

The first time I ever visited Liberty was the WBB Championship game where they won it for the first time. I parked in the spot marked "Chancellor Parking Only" I figured I wouldn't get a ticket because who would park there unless The Doctor said it was ok. I was right! Never got a ticket!

Ok off topic but still a good story

.

Just curious, what are the different rates for those options?

ALUmnus wrote:Just curious, what are the different rates for those options?

$600 for gated parking
$400 for DeMoss area

$30 to fight it out with the students for parking

I don't have an issue with it, but this is a reason you never say we can't spend the money fast enough. People read that then see stuff like this and it makes it harder to swallow...

thepostman wrote:I don't have an issue with it, but this is a reason you never say we can't spend the money fast enough. People read that then see stuff like this and it makes it harder to swallow...

Yep.

Yeah...profits of 200+ million a year, approaching a billion something in assets, cash, whatever, AAAAAAA++++ credit ratings from moody/SP, we cant spend the money fast enough, THEN after all that we'll charge our underpaid faculty/staff an arm and a leg to park. If they have to pay SEC parking rates they should be paid SEC salaries, right?

Cider Jim wrote:Liberty employees now have multiple options for parking on campus or off campus (this survey is for polling purposes only, NOT complaining).

LU employees can still pay the same $50 as last year; we just have to walk a little farther or ride the bus. And the extra walk would be good exercise, which most of us need.

logic wrote:Yeah...profits of 200+ million a year, approaching a billion something in assets, cash, whatever, AAAAAAA++++ credit ratings from moody/SP, we cant spend the money fast enough, THEN after all that we'll charge our underpaid faculty/staff an arm and a leg to park. If they have to pay SEC parking rates they should be paid SEC salaries, right?

logic, these fees are not to raise revenue but to encourage more faculty/staff to park away from the academic center of campus. Once faculty and staff come to campus, they tend to stay in the same parking space longer. Most of them stay all day while commuters come in for their classes and then leave. Higher turnover is good because it means more people are able to park closer to the academic buildings in any given day. And, adam, the News Advance reporter made it clear that I was referring to Liberty not being able to build enough buildings or establish or improve programs fast enough to spend down the surplus, therefore the funds are being put in reserve for the school's future use. You can continue to quote me out of context if your goal is to be misleading.

Other incentives being given to faculty/staff to park away from Main include shelters to wait for the bus out of the weather and bus intervals of eight minutes at satellite lots. Fees are being kept low ($30 per semester) at satellite lots as CJ noted. We also are building new parking lots with over 1000 spaces and easy access to Wards Road this summer.

Again I don't think the majority of the board has any issue with charging faculity for parking. There are colleges in even better financial standing doing the same thing. It is a great way to upkeep and improve parking facilities and transit opportunities on campus. It makes complete sense to me.

I just think the whole "can't spend it fast enough statement" was not the smartest choice of words. Simple mistake. Acknowledge and move on. There will always be people who disagree with one thing or another. People complained about parking my freshmen year back in '03 when the on campus population was half of what it is now. So complaining about parking and paying for it is not something new and won't ever change. It is what it is.

JLFJR wrote:And, adam, the News Advance reporter made it clear that I was referring to Liberty not being able to build enough buildings or establish or improve programs fast enough to spend down the surplus, therefore the funds are being put in reserve for the school's future use. You can continue to quote me out of context if your goal is to be misleading.

Where did I quote you? All I said was "Yep."

adam42381 wrote:

JLFJR wrote:And, adam, the News Advance reporter made it clear that I was referring to Liberty not being able to build enough buildings or establish or improve programs fast enough to spend down the surplus, therefore the funds are being put in reserve for the school's future use. You can continue to quote me out of context if your goal is to be misleading.

Where did I quote you? All I said was "Yep."

Yeah, it was me who said it. I honestly don't see LU doing anything wrong here, but when certain things are said it can not be surprising that people will use those things against LU when upset about paying for parking. Out of context or not it simply is not something that should be said because it is very easy to use something like that against you in an argument.

Again I don't think there is anything wrong with what LU is doing. In fact, I think its smart. I just can understand how one would find it frustrating after reading that in the paper.

JLFJR wrote: logic, these fees are not to raise revenue but to encourage more faculty/staff to park away from the academic center of campus. Once faculty and staff come to campus, they tend to stay in the same parking space longer. Most of them stay all day while commuters come in for their classes and then leave. Higher turnover is good because it means more people are able to park closer to the academic buildings in any given day.

Interesting. Not sure how charging for parking spots is going to create a higher turnover. If it were me and I was dishing out several hundred dollars just to park in order to go to work then I'd likely spend even more time in that spot to try and get my money's worth.

Fees are being kept low ($30 per semester) at satellite lots as CJ noted. We also are building new parking lots with over 1000 spaces and easy access to Wards Road this summer.

Since you mentioned revenue isn't trying to be raised and the reason for charging $$$$ near main campus is to encourage more faculty/staff to park farther away, then what is the reason for charging to park these distant satellite lots?

Just doing some quick research of nearby schools -

Tech charges a maximum of 235 a year for faculty
UVA charges 624 a year for academic (non med-school) faculty
Liberty will charge 600 maximum


What are the average professor salaries at the three schools? The low "cost of living" in Lynchburg (the always given reason for our low professor salaries) seems to be rising quite fast!

Liberty is 400 max, not 600, right? Regardless, Liberty's average fee will be far below both VT and UVA plus Liberty's parking is much closer and more convenient, I'd be willing to bet. Also, you need a much larger comparative sample including private colleges like Liberty, not just publics like UVA and VT. I'll get Richard Martin to post here and give you all the data. He did an excellent job of checking dozens of comparable schools. In the end, Liberty had much less expensive and much more convenient parking than its peers. And, for the record, please give us a specific example of Liberty using the cost of living in Lynchburg as a reason for why Liberty faculty are paid what they are paid. Liberty faculty pay has increased every year for the last decade ($3.7M in the last few months alone) and has already surpassed many of our peer institutions. While the low cost of living in Lynchburg undoubtedly helps LU recruit quality faculty, it has never been a factor in setting faculty pay.

adam42381 wrote:

JLFJR wrote:And, adam, the News Advance reporter made it clear that I was referring to Liberty not being able to build enough buildings or establish or improve programs fast enough to spend down the surplus, therefore the funds are being put in reserve for the school's future use. You can continue to quote me out of context if your goal is to be misleading.

Where did I quote you? All I said was "Yep."

I stand corrected. It was postman. Sorry about that.

thepostman wrote:

adam42381 wrote:

JLFJR wrote:And, adam, the News Advance reporter made it clear that I was referring to Liberty not being able to build enough buildings or establish or improve programs fast enough to spend down the surplus, therefore the funds are being put in reserve for the school's future use. You can continue to quote me out of context if your goal is to be misleading.

Where did I quote you? All I said was "Yep."

Yeah, it was me who said it. I honestly don't see LU doing anything wrong here, but when certain things are said it can not be surprising that people will use those things against LU when upset about paying for parking. Out of context or not it simply is not something that should be said because it is very easy to use something like that against you in an argument.

Again I don't think there is anything wrong with what LU is doing. In fact, I think its smart. I just can understand how one would find it frustrating after reading that in the paper.Again I don't think the majority of the board has any issue with charging faculity for parking. There are colleges in even better financial standing doing the same thing. It is a great way to upkeep and improve parking facilities and transit opportunities on campus. It makes complete sense to me.

I just think the whole "can't spend it fast enough statement" was not the smartest choice of words. Simple mistake. Acknowledge and move on. There will always be people who disagree with one thing or another. People complained about parking my freshmen year back in '03 when the on campus population was half of what it is now. So complaining about parking and paying for it is not something new and won't ever change. It is what it is.

You're right. Statements will always be taken out of context. However, given our past, I think people need to understand exactly what is happening at LU financially even if that means certain people will use that information as justification to complain and ask for handouts. For that reason, some think I should try to downplay LU's recent financial prosperity but I am not willing to do that. God has blessed LU. I don't think we should hide it but I also think folks need to understand that, in spite of the blessings, we still have a responsibility to be good stewards for the future of the school. We've seen how fast things can change and I think we would be foolish to assume that hard times can never return. We have the world's best faculty and staff and we will continue to compare what we pay for each and every position to comparable institutions and will continue to make adjustments when we find disparities but we also plan to continue to operate in a fiscally responsible manner as we were forced to do in the past.

EagleOne wrote:

JLFJR wrote: logic, these fees are not to raise revenue but to encourage more faculty/staff to park away from the academic center of campus. Once faculty and staff come to campus, they tend to stay in the same parking space longer. Most of them stay all day while commuters come in for their classes and then leave. Higher turnover is good because it means more people are able to park closer to the academic buildings in any given day.

Interesting. Not sure how charging for parking spots is going to create a higher turnover. If it were me and I was dishing out several hundred dollars just to park in order to go to work then I'd likely spend even more time in that spot to try and get my money's worth.

Fees are being kept low ($30 per semester) at satellite lots as CJ noted. We also are building new parking lots with over 1000 spaces and easy access to Wards Road this summer.

Since you mentioned revenue isn't trying to be raised and the reason for charging $$$$ near main campus is to encourage more faculty/staff to park farther away, then what is the reason for charging to park these distant satellite lots?

OK, I'll try again slower this time. Charging more for parking spots close to DeMoss is likely to encourage more faculty and staff to park in the cheap lots at Green and East and ride the free bus. If that happens, there will be more spaces for commuters near DeMoss. Commuters generally do not come to campus and stay from 9 to 5 like employees do. They generally leave when their classes scheduled for the day are done. That means they park in a premium space for an average of 3 hours compared to 8 hours average for most staff. If a space is only occupied for 3 hours instead of 8, that means it is available for someone else to park in it for the other 5 hours. That means more turnover and more people being able to park near the academic core.

The reason there is a minimal charge for the satellite lots is to help cover the school's cost for free bus rides, shelters and new parking lot construction. The fee doesn't come close to covering the actual cost to the school but there are other free options available to employees so it is only fair to ask those taking advantage of the free busses, shelters and parking lots to pay something.

Hey Chancellor, since we have you here on the boards, could you go over to the “NCAA Realignment Megathread” and comment on such things as FBS, WAC-East and what-not? Whatever information you divulge will be kept a secret. Promise.

AZjonz wrote:Hey Chancellor, since we have you here on the boards at 1 in the morning

FTFY

I'm sure Mrs Chancellor is THRILLED
we're all gonna be in so much trouble.
give her MrsPA's phone number

JLFJR wrote: OK, I'll try again slower this time. Charging more for parking spots close to DeMoss is likely to encourage more faculty and staff to park in the cheap lots at Green and East and ride the free bus. If that happens, there will be more spaces for commuters near DeMoss. Commuters generally do not come to campus and stay from 9 to 5 like employees do. They generally leave when their classes scheduled for the day are done. That means they park in a premium space for an average of 3 hours compared to 8 hours average for most staff.

Thanks for responding and verifying what I suspected. I was a student here many years ago and like most places the faculty/staff parked in the premium spaces while us students got what was left, many times being relegated to "Egypt", and there was really nothing wrong with that.

Now days though, it's interesting to see the shift in the hierarchy. I suppose this is just another area where I've been told the students have gone from being viewed as students to being viewed as customers. I guess for a business that is focused soley on the monetary bottomline, that is the way to operate. As a private institute of higher learning, it's a rather interesting concept. No doubt if LU still had dress codes and kept freshmen from having cars on campus and required students to park in the outer lots that they couldn't have grown from 5000 to 12,000 and eventually 25k. Best of luck, but I'll just say I'm glad I've been on the outside the last few years looking in and watching this interesting shift.

JLFJR wrote:I'll get Richard Martin to post here and give you all the data..

That's funny you said that, I was going through and reading some of the posts about data and thought...it's a real shame Richard Martin isnt on here. I imagine going through some of these threads and reading some of the numbers given as though they were facts make someone like him want to pull out his hair though


My favorite RM moment was when someone questioned his numbers on spaces and said "Richard, how do you know that?" and his response "because I walked the entire campus last night and counted them one by one" hard to argue with that!

JLFJR wrote:Liberty faculty pay has increased every year for the last decade ($3.7M in the last few months alone) and has already surpassed many of our peer institutions.

A few honest questions for you, Mr. Chancellor:

1. What % of the University's employment is faculty? It would seem most if not all of the compensation issues raised here have been raised by or on behalf of staff.

2. What are the University's comparison schools, public and private, regional and national? Are they different for different purposes (i.e., salaries, IT, enrollment, LUO, etc.)?

3. Comparatively, how much compensation benchmarking is done internally versus externally?

Thank you.