Victoria Billings
victoriabillings.md@gmail.com
Faculty and staff are facing off against the Cal Poly athletic department in a dispute over who has the right to use Mott Gym’s lockers and shower facilities.
In the past, Cal Poly employees have made use of the gym’s lockers and showers after runs or bike rides on campus, but as of Sept. 10, Mott Gym’s facilities are now reserved for athletics, athletic director Don Oberhelman said.
The decision was made to provide student-athletes, some of whom had to share lockers, with more privacy and access to better resources, Oberhelman said.
“I just didn’t think that was appropriate that we had an athletic room that essentially was open access,” Oberhelman said.
Faculty and staff would often enter the locker rooms while student-athletes were there, and one employee even entered the locker rooms while they were being used by a visiting sports team during a game, Oberhelman said.
Cal Poly employees were informed at the beginning of September via locker room notices that the facilities would be off-limits to anyone not involved with the athletic department starting Sept. 10. They had the option to remove their belongings, or their locker contents would be held for them by athletics until they came to retrieve them, according to the note.
The decision was made to give student-athletes a better experience, Oberhelman said. Regardless of faculty or staff concerns, the priority of Cal Poly departments is to serve the needs of students, Oberhelman said.
“I hate that that’s what they had to come up with, but our student-athletes are going to be treated first and foremost better than our staff and faculty,” Oberhelman said.
In the meantime, faculty and staff were told they could get a membership at the newly opened Recreation Center as an alternative.
But a Recreation Center membership, at $48 a month for faculty and staff, is too expensive to be an alternative, political science department chair Craig Arceneaux said.
In the past, Arceneaux used Mott Gym’s showers after riding his bike to campus instead of driving once a week. If Arceneaux went to the Recreation Center once a week, though, that same shower would cost him $12, he said.
By limiting Mott Gym’s accessibility, athletics is hurting Cal Poly employees, Arceneaux said.
“My feeling is that this is just another example of the university not addressing the health and well-being concerns of the staff,” Arceneaux said.
Arceneaux said he sees his options limited by the decision to close off Mott Gym: he can either drive to campus — which costs gas money — or come to school one less day, he said.
The issue isn’t just about locker space, but about having access to affordable showers, said journalism department administrative systems coordinator Tess Serna Ramirez, who has used the showers for the past five years after going running.
“We were willing to give up our lockers,” Ramirez said. “We just really wanted the showers.”
The decision further separates different factions of the Cal Poly community, Ramirez said.
In response to staff and faculty concerns, Cal Poly President Jeffrey Armstrong held an open forum on the locker room and shower issue on Sept. 14. Employees appreciated Armstrong’s willingness to hear their concerns, but didn’t feel any action had been taken to solve the problem of where to shower and store belongings, Ramirez said.
“He basically shut us down,” Ramirez said.
The president listened to concerns, but in the end, Mott Gym remained reserved for athletes, and Armstrong pointed Cal Poly employees toward the Recreation Center as an alternative.
The president did agree to look into finding an affordable shower and locker room alternative, but at the moment, no such alternative has been located.
Armstrong hasn’t forgotten staff and faculty concerns, though, and is continuing to look for a solution that both athletics and Cal Poly employees will be happy with, public affairs team leader Stacia Momburg said.
“The president’s office is looking into any alternatives that there might be on campus,” Momburg said.
For right now, though, the only option for staff and faculty is the Recreation Center.
Sean McMinn contributed to this article.
Why not give the faculty free rec center access? It’s not too costly of an incentive, and we need to look into new means of attracting the best and brightest teachers in light of state budget cuts and the like.
Correction needed to Timeline of Events, under January 2012: Monthly staff membership to the Rec Center rose from $15 per MONTH to $48 per MONTH…a significant increase that compelled many to give up their memberships.
Thank you so much for that correction Cindy! We apologize for any confusion our error may have caused. A correction will be in tomorrow’s paper.
$48 per month?? That’s ridiculous! I can understand if the Cal Poly needs to charge the staff a small fee many around $15 or $20 per month, but $45? You have to remember that with the rec membership everyone has access to all the exercise classes so they need to offset that cost, but still that’s insane.
The high membership charge has effectively shut out so many faculty and staff from the Rec Center — an extraordinary campus resource, but one that is closed to many.
The closure of Mott Gym locker room and shower facilities means is that faculty and staff who cycle to campus or work out on campus grounds have no accessible storage and showering facilities.
Small businesses with as few as 10 employees commonly offer showering facilities to their employees. Cal Poly, especially with its certification as a “green campus” and an administrative unit devoted to commuter access surely should be able to do the same. Apparently, neither the ASI nor the Athletic Department feel any obligation to support the remainder of the university, and yet ALL of us, faculty, staff and administration, do all we can to support students and mission of this university.
Campus facilities should be open to the entire on-campus community. It’s an issue of health, environment, sharing and fairness.
Came here to post that it went from $15 to $48, but see Cindy beat me too it.
CSU Baskersfield has a program for faculty and staff where they can buy a morning, lunchtime, or evening membership for $20. That would allow many faculty and staff to go on their lunch hour, or before/after work, whatever their preference. We normally can’t go at 10am or 2pm.
Ms. Hewes… You make over $64K/year and pay lower parking fees than students or ASI employees. The athletic facilities are for the student athletes (have you paid attention to what occurred at Penn State), the Rec Center is for all of the Cal Poly Community. The Rec Center cost $ to operate and maintain, therefore a monthly membership fee must be collected. Or do you feel that the students should subsidize for you and the rest of the staff/faculty?
Please tell me what small business of 10 employees is able to provide full showers for their employees?
If you want to talk about “fairness” and “sharing” campus facilities, I would like to start practicing my trumpet in your office. I’m sure you’ll understand.
“Arceneaux said he sees his options limited by the decision to close off Mott Gym: he can either drive to campus — which costs gas money — or come to school one less day.”
In 2011 Craig Arceneaux earned $95,420. I think he can handle the gym membership, which is very low for such an excellent facility.
If not, he can definitely handle the cost of gas for the Friday commute, or be lucky he has a job where he makes almost $100k going to work FOUR days a week.
Sounds like just another entitled bureaucrat like the majority of Cal Poly faculty.
First off, one major flaw is the fact that Cal Poly students actually pay a membership fee as well. We students are paying about 36 dollars a month to have access to the gym, if we go to the gym or not. This is a part of our tuition fees. On the ASI website it states that “student memberships are part of the quarterly Cal Poly registration fees.” Although there is a substantial amount of difference between the cost of student and non-student fees, none of us are getting in that gym for free. It is a red herring throughout the article. It is misleading the audience into a ‘that’s unfair staff members have to pay when no one else has to pay’ mindset.
Second, when it is written that Arceneaux states that he “can either drive to campus—which costs gas money—or come to school one less day” there are multiple other options for him to choose from, not just these two (making it an either-or fallacy). Gas prices are going up, and can be more reasons to ride a bike. But, biking and driving are not only the options of transportation. What about the bus? According to the SLO bus schedule and fees website located under fees, it states, “Cal Poly Students & Staff Ride Free with valid ID.” If the issue is about saving money for gas, why not just take the bus that one day he doesn’t want to drive? This can save him his gas money if he does not wish to purchase a pass to the gym.
Sources:
http://www.asi.calpoly.edu/membership
http://www.slocity.org/publicworks/download/busmap.pdf
Amazing that kicking out the faculty from the Mott Gym locker room is the biggest story that the Mustang Daily writes about Mott Gym.
How about the fact that Mott Gym is a decrepit old building hardly suitable for a division one athletic program?
I know that at Cal Poly, as at many universities, there is a predisposition against the athletics department. That being said, the facilities in Mott Gym are significantly below that of what is to be expected for a functioning athletics program.
Some highlights:
A wrestling/stretching room featuring mats held together by packing tape.
Coaches offices the size of closets packed to the brim with multiple coaches and their desks.
A meeting room that also doubles as cubicles for the athletics staff. Feel free to hear their conversations in the middle of your meeting while you sit in a chair barely able to hold up.
A locker room with barely enough space for athletes to change.
I know this all sounds like whining, but if this was the condition of facilities in the engineering parts of campus, there would be a strike by half the campus. I’m not sure why the Cal Poly athletes continue to put up with such terrible facilities while schools such as Fresno State and UCSB leave the Mustangs’ facilities in the dust. It’s something that recruits do notice and will take into account when making their decision.
Also, for those who think that athletics does nothing for the academic side of the university, give up the class warfare. The University of Oregon has seen the academic prestige of their university rise with the growth in their athletics department.
It sounds like the solution to our problem is right here in these comments. The Rec Center is “such an excellent facility” and Mott Gym is decrepit with facilities “significantly below that of what is to be expected”. So, why not find space for the athletes in that MONSTER of a Rec Center that faculty and staff can’t afford? Feel free to publish my salary, Taxpayer. My guess would be it’s lower than yours, and you’re probably a student. While any other civil service position would move through pay steps as they master the skills of their job, CSU staff do not. Some of my colleagues have not had a pay increase in 10 years or more. We staff are what can be defined as the working poor. And $48 a month for a shower after running the track or walking through Poly Canyon is prohibitive. This so-called solution to the problem of giving the athletes there own space is simply a “silo” that administration rants on and on about in their public addresses when they claim to be “tearing them down”. I roll my eyes at Katie Morrow’s “Mustang Way” speech- everyone knows that doesn’t apply to staff and faculty here..
In Victoria Billing’s article, WARNING: No Staff/Faculty Allowed, Arceneaux, a professor that Billing interviewed, states many logical fallacies throughout. First, Arceneaux says, “he sees his options limited by the decision to close off Mott Gym: he can either drive to campus — which costs gas money — or come to school one less day.” There are many other alternatives, yet Arceneaux sees only two options, which is an “either-or” fallacy. Arceneaux can still ride his bike to school, yet does not state this in his claim. He also states, “But a Recreation Center membership, at $48 a month for faculty and staff, is too expensive to be an alternative.” This is also a logical fallacy because he can not define “too expensive” for every professor and staff member at Cal Poly. According to glassdoor.com on Jul 15 2012, an average salary of a Professor at Cal Poly is between $65- $103 K (glassdoor 2012). The fee for the whole year would be $576, but there are other options. According to the ASI Cal Poly website, there is an option to pay $488 in advance, which is equal to $40.67 per month. This fee also includes 4 guest passes, towel service. I don’t see this as an inconvenience for Professor Arceneaux. If he truly wants to shower and workout at the Recreation Center, it is a possibility for him, yet no one is forcing this upon him.
“CAL Poly Salaries | Glassdoor.” Glassdoor. N.p., 15 July 2012. Web. 15 Oct. 2012. .
ASI Cal Poly. Cal Poly Recreation Center Membership FAQS. N.p.: ASI Cal Poly, n.d. Cal Poly ASI. California Polytechnic State University. Web. 15 Oct. 2012. .
First of all, the argument being made that Cal Poly Faculty and Staff only have two options at the moment is a big red flag. It is not an either-or-situation. Secondly, you have two accounts of professors saying that they cannot afford to pay the Recreation Center membership fee. Regardless of how much this fee is, not all faculty or staff are going to be in this same position. Each and every person is experiencing different financial situations. Thus you cannot create a generalization about all the faculty and staff.