Transportation & Parking

Customer Service Office, Bldg. 112,

North South Drive

Re: Citation Appeal

 On August 20^th I received a letter from Budget Rent-a-Car that I had received a parking violation while I was in possession of a car I had rented from them.  See enclosed: copy of “Customer Parking Citations Notice.”

As project manager for the Closure Clinics at the neurology department, I regularly, over the summer months in 2004, utilized a service drive pass (see enclosure copy) to unload/load a vehicle for out-of-town data collection sessions.   My maximum time in the service drive is 30 minutes; the more typical average is 15 minutes.  Considering I have utilized the service drive since 1999 for this purpose, I am well-adept at time management, i.e., not going over the hour time limit.  Do, however, feel free to check my parking record here on campus.   

My reason for appeal is two-fold:

1.      I never received a parking violation on my car.  Hence, the Budget letter two months after the alleged violation. 

2.      Second, I never go over the allotted time in the service drive.  My sole purpose in using the service drive permit is to pack or unpack my vehicle and get to my destination as quickly as possible—frequently I drive 2+ hours to my destination.   

My assumption is the parking attendant was unfamiliar with the rental car, as my usual vehicle was broken—hence the rental car—or the attendant did not see the parking permit.  I am only guessing, since I did not receive a parking violation and I can only imagine the reason.

Please do contact me should you have any questions as Budget, see copy of enclose letter, is demanding an additional fee. 

University Parking Ticket

Re: reason for citation #W10341 appeal:

On April 4, 2003 at approximately 8:00pm, I parked my motorcycle (parking decal # MC20984386517) by the eastern-most bicycle rack at Bloompie Hall Plaza. 

The motorcycle was not on a sidewalk, nor was it impeding: pedestrian, bicycle or vehicle traffic. 

During the day, many scooters (not go-peds)—at times approaching a dozen—are parked at various locations on Bloompie Plaza.  These locations include: bicycle racks, next to buildings, on sidewalks, and in breeze-ways.  In order for these scooters to park in these locations, the drivers must first drive around the fence barricade that the university has erected to keep non-official traffic out of the university roadways.  Driving a non-official vehicle during business hours around these barricades is prohibited.  And Bloompie Plaza is not alone is its occupancy of scooters; many other locations in the inner university are littered with these scooters—all driven illegally around the barricades. 

I fail to see the logic in this double standard.  Why do I receive a ticket for parking, well after hours, my motorcycle in a non-obtrusive location and the scooters not? 

If the university Police Department is going to enforce no-motorcycle parking, then the same needs to apply to scooter parking.  I am basing my appeal on this glaring inconsistency.  

Academic incompetence

Dr. Kricos,

It is with much regret that I write this to you.

As I mentioned on Friday, Friday’s meeting did not go as I had expected.  Many of the items or “conclusions” that were discussed in our meeting on Thursday in your Dauer Hall office were contradicted in Friday’s group meeting at the Center.  In fact, I found most of your responses to be the exact opposite of what we had discussed less than 24 hours earlier.

Thursday, you seemed entirely supportive of me having a key to the Center; in fact, you asked for “justifications” that you could give Betty in order to facilitate this.  I gave you several suggestions, e.g., during the times Betty is absent from the office, I will be able to run errands without leaving the Center door unlocked. 

Second, I explained why “so many” copies were made this past month, offering several concrete examples, e.g., course flyer forms. I believed this explanation was satisfactory to you.  In addition, I explained that, in fact, the number of copies for this month was not out of the ordinary for any given month, and I further explained that I had not received any notification from Betty, either written or verbal, that restrictions were placed on using the copier. 

After so many years of service, I am deeply saddened that Betty was unwilling to discuss the copies with me; instead, she chose to consult with the OIR staff and then change the locks. 

At some point after this Betty informed you of problems she was having with me.  You can imagine the amount of distrust this has instilled in me.  Further, coupling this with the complete turn around of our recent meetings together, I have lost trust and faith in you.  I can not and will not work in an environment where I am not trusted and where the meeting outcomes, no matter how tentative, change so dramatically within such a short period of time.  In addition, I had suggested you contact Dr. West regarding, not only my past performance, but to obtain an impartial perspective on these issues.  I suggested this because Dr. West has worked extensively with Betty both as Director and previously as Associate Director, but you chose not to do this. 

I can appreciate the difficulty of the situation.  Sorting out who said what and who did what and to whom is no easy task. This is not a case of who you might or might not have “sided” with in today’s meeting, but rather an issue of you trusting what I have told you, accepting or not accepting of the concrete evidence that I presented to you, and lastly and really the crux here, trusting that what we talk about in one meeting will carry over to other meetings without being completely contradicted. 

I am having a hard time reconciling last semester’s glowing graduate assistant evaluation you wrote for me, and the fact that you have “had no problems with my performance” to date with the end result of Friday’s meeting.

Because of these many issues discussed above, I will be unable to continue my employment at the Center, effective immediately.