At this point I'm not going to enter the debate over the relative salaries of the SIM Center staff, but I do have some other concerns in conjunction with the cost of the SIM Center.  Before I begin outlining my concerns, I want to point out that I don't have all the facts and figures, and I know that.  It is remarkably hard to get all those budgetary facts and figures even when we ask for them and even though they are supposed to be open for public scrutiny.  As far as I am aware, the only real and complete disclosure of financial information to date has been provided by the Provost showing the Academic Affairs budget.

In any case, Chuck Cantrell announced on the UTCSTAFF list last week that the "UTC administration" has requested approval to buy the building now housing the SIM Center.  I don't understand this statement--I thought the building was already owned by the UC Foundation.  A news release from University Relations dated 12/19/03 stated "The City of Chattanooga gave the UC Foundation the building to house the SimCenter, and the Foundation is funding renovations there at a cost of $2.2 million."  (See http://www.utc.edu/homenews/ribbon.html). That statement sounds to me like it wasn't supposed to cost UTC any money.  Now Chuck's email tells us that we want to buy it from the Campus Development Foundation.  Is that a branch of the UC Foundation?  What's up with this?
  
A purchase price was not disclosed, but whatever that price is, it was definitely stated that we will have to tack on the $2.2 million for renovations that already took place.  I assume the purchase price would be at least as much as the renovation cost. Where is this money going to come from?  This $4.4 million-plus expenditure seems foolish and reckless to me, given our funding crisis.  Apart from the initial purchase price, we will have to maintain that building.  Richard Brown told us during the last budget hearings that there is not enough money to pay adequate cleaning staff for the buildings we already have (although there is, apparently, enough money to install motion-activated hand towel dispensers across campus).  Many older buildings are in desperate need of renovation.  (For example, there is such a persistent mold problem in areas of Lockmiller that some students have moved off campus.  Some parents are threatening to call the Health Department.  But apparently we don't care about that because new housing is being built at UTC Place.)

As I understand it, when the EMCS building was built, the plans were altered to accommodate the SIM Center, but the SIM Center staff did not occupy that space, which now sits vacant.  I don't know the reason for the SIM Center needing to be housed in a different building instead of the space designed for it, but it certainly does not give me the impression that the SIM Center is an integral part of the College of Engineering and that "we're all in this together."

The last time I was in Grote and Metro, there was still a substantial amount of vacant space in both - maybe two-thirds of each building. Pfeiffer Hall is vacant on the second and third floors.  Stagmaier Hall is completely vacant.  There is vacant space in Guerry.  The argument I have heard against using these spaces is that they need costly renovation, which we don't have the money for.  We do have many departments needing more space, though. Now I may be just a lowly secretary instead of a Vice Chancellor, but it seems to me that our money could be better spent on renovating, using and maintaining the space we already own on campus than on buying another building, which supposedly already belongs to the UC Foundation anyway.  If we're really all in this together, why can't the SIM Center be located in some of the empty space we already have (maybe even in the EMCS Building with the rest of the College of Engineering) instead of buying another building?  Then some of the money that apparently would be used to buy the SIM building could instead be used to renovate other vacant spaces for other departments with space needs.  Or is this situation yet another case of "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"?

It's easy for us to blame THEC or the legislature for all our woes, but I don't believe things would be quite as bad as they are if some of our campus administrators managed our limited assets better and more equitably.  Apart from the problems with the THEC Master Plan, I question the wisdom of our campus "Master Plan" and of some of our Chattanooga-based master planners.  We are contracting with outside companies to build housing that we can't fill to the agreed level unless we close some of our existing dorms.  Our gym needs repairs, so we're planning to build a new one, maybe two.  (Wasn't there some mention earlier of building another basketball gym in addition to and separate from the Student Recreation Center, complete with gym?  And I read something about a Strength Training Center for Athletics too in a past press release, didn't I?)  THEC or the legislature did not mandate these things; our local administrators came up with them.  The only campus administrator who is willing to disclose exactly what is being spent in his area is John Friedl, and I doubt that anyone believes that Academic Affairs is the source of our financial problems.  In fact, that area (which is, by the way, UTC's reason for existing and our core mission) seems more and more to be made to bear the cost of high-ticket items in other areas.  It doesn't look to me like we're doing the best we can with what we've got.  In fact, it looks to me like there is gross mismanagement of our funds and physical plant.  I welcome any hard facts and figures that can refute my beliefs.  I don't expect it to be forthcoming, since many of us, including the Faculty Senate, have asked for such information repeatedly and have never received it or been told where it can be accessed.  It is not available in the library archives or on the UTC website - I've looked.  Do we need to ask the Chattanooga Times Free Press? They seem to have a lot more access to that kind of information than do the faculty and staff.

Melissa Burchfield