Reading today’s article in the Daily titled “Future uncertain for displaced Barton residents after debate” left me wondering if Daily reporter Tom Barton left the meeting before it was over. The article states “The residents couldn’t agree on which would be the best option of keeping the houses together.”

In fact, by the meeting’s end, all houses agreed on a course of action, pending further exploration by Freeman Hall students. Freemen men supported the option, but wanted to touch base with hall-mates to insure everyone returning next year fit on third floor. If space is sufficient, this plan is a go. All other houses endorsed the plan that evening.

The article also stated that I “told residents not to disclose the department’s plan for renovation, because it still has to bring it before the Board of Regents for approval.” That statement is not accurate.

I told students I wanted to share with them our intention to develop plans to renovate Barton while closed and that renovation plans go through an approval process.

I specifically said to any press in attendance I would prefer they not report a Barton renovation because the work in not defined and the approval process is not completed.

I stated the appropriate approval process depended upon total renovation costs. Projects above a $1 million threshold require Board of Regents approval; below that only campus approval is required. We do not yet know the total cost, although we anticipate costs below the $1 million threshold.

Finally, I commend the students who attended this meeting. Six houses began the discussion with different, strongly held perspectives regarding the best course of action. Through honest, respectful debate students identified a compromise all parties felt was workable, a solution different than any idea originally presented. The mature and articulate manner these students exhibited was impressive and helped create a win-win solution to a complicated situation.

Randy Alexander

Director of Residence