The AAUP chapter of
1. The proposed Parking
and Transportation Infrastructure fee amounts to an employment tax on KSU
employees. While portrayed as an increase of the former $20 fee, this new
mandatory infrastructure fee is not comparable, as it affords employees no
parking privileges. The proposed fee is modest and would yield little revenue,
but the precedent it would establish is a bad one: that the institution may
impose a mandatory general fee on all employees as a means to pay for
facilities and services that many of those employees do not use.
2. The proposed
infrastructure fee muddles the incentive structure for employees who are doing
the most to alleviate parking concerns--those engaging in alternative commuting
methods. The funds raised through the infrastructure fee on the backs of these
employees are trivial, while the glaring contradiction they pose is
overwhelming. To address KSU's parking pressure most
directly and environmentally, the infrastructure fee should be scrapped and the
needed revenues should be raised otherwise.
II. In
opposition to a cap on parking fees, if such fees are calculated on the basis
of a percentage of employee salary.
1. The proposal to tie
parking permit fees to salary level requires further consideration; the
information presented on KSU's parking website shows
this to be a highly unusual practice. Should KSU seek to implement a
percentage-scale fee, there should be no cap on the salary basis for
calculation.