“It is truly not something I want to spend money on if I can help it,” Penn State president Eric Barron said.
Addressing the board of trustees’ Committee on Finance, Business, and Capital Planning, Barron expressed concerns over the proposed $7.5 million project to upgrade security at campus recreational facilities.
In following with a Freeh Report recommendation to “increase the physical security and access procedures in areas frequented by children or used in camps and programs for children,” the proposed project will install turnstiles in Rec Hall, White Building, and McCoy Natatorium.
The project also includes renovations to the buildings to promote the sense of a main entrance, and an annually recurring $420,000 cost to staff desk attendants who will swipe identification cards at building access points.
“It’s an expenditure that is there for some good reasons, but is different because of the way those buildings look,” Barron said. “These are not traditional buildings.”
Barron explained that most universities comparable to Penn State do have similar security features at recreational facilities, but added that their buildings typically have one access point, with one desk staffed by one person who checks ID cards. Because of the outdated design of the three recreational facilities being considered on Penn State’s campus, there would be multiple access points and multiple staff members required for each building.
“In part, we’re debating whether or not this is the best policy for Penn State,” Barron said. “If we implement the policy, this is the best we can do. Ford [Stryker] knows that every time he walks in the room with this one, I ask him why we’re spending this much money on staff.”
Stryker, the associate vice president for the Office of Physical Plant, noted that there have been 166 reported instances of “bad behavior” at these facilities since 2013, one year after a policy was implemented that restricted access to those without ID cards.
Speaking on behalf of the three Penn State student government organization, Graduate & Professional Student Association president Kevin Horne voiced his criticisms of the proposed project. He pointed out that Rec Hall has 72 doors, adding that White Building “has quite a few as well.”
Horne said that he often sees students hold doors open for people, and that circumventing the security system is that simple and unavoidable with buildings this intricate.
“I know this project would make it look like we’re implementing security, but I’m not bullish it can actually work on buildings this complex and old,” Horne said.
He noted that this project would make the recreational facilities more secure than residence halls that students live in, and also questioned whether this was a smart allocation of university funds.
“We’re at a place where we can’t find a $100,000 in the budget to hire a CAPS counselor so students’ mental health needs are met, and we’re about to spend $420,000 a year just to say we’re keeping townies out of the gym,” Horne quipped.
He added that the student governments are concerned that the costs of this project will be passed on to students in gym membership fees and increased tuition. Trustee Bill Oldsey, for one, agreed with that concern.
“I think we should listen to our customers, who are our students,” Oldsey said. “Kevin was not only telling us he was worried about this expense being passed onto our students, but that the students don’t see this as a safety issue. … We all know where a lot of these policies came from and I won’t belabor that point, but I think we have look at whether or not they’re good policies.”
Trustee Barbara Doran appreciated the arguments against the project, but voiced her concern that this type of security would be important if there were ever to be a campus shooter or a threat of that nature at Penn State.
With plenty of objections to the proposed project on the record, the committee agreed to revisit the issue at the February board meetings, preventing the project from reaching the full board tomorrow.
