Members Present: Richard Rudnicki – Co-Chair, Shannon Willoughby – Co-Chair, Bill Freese, Wendy Guido, Brad Haderlie, Rob Maher, Jennisse Waters, Jacqueline Frank

Proxies: Pamela Harvey (for Tony Campeau)

Members Absent:Sadie Jenkins – ASMSU Representative, Paul Edlund, Mac Burgess

Staff & Guests: Robert Stockdale, Carter Dorsett

ITEM No. 1 – Approval of April 8, 2026, Meeting Minutes

The minutes from the April 8, 2026, Classroom Committee meeting were unanimously approved.

ITEM No. 2 – INFORMATIONAL – Classroom Design Standards Committee Comment Responses

Robert Stockdale walked the Committee through the changes made to the Classroom Design Standards draft in response to comments provided by committee members prior to the meeting.

Jennisse Waters explained that post-occupancy surveys for renovated classrooms were developed with University Data and Analytics. Jennisse stated that she was processing the data and would share it with the Committee. Jennisse added that conducting general classroom condition surveys is restricted in order to avoid inducing “survey fatigue.” Jacqueline Frank recommended that a piece of paper with a QR code linking to a short survey could be placed on classroom podiums to receive feedback from students.

Rob Maher stated that the Classroom Design Guidelines should emphasize faculty consultation and feedback. Rob noted that many rooms do not have lighting or shade controls that can be easily operated by the instructor from the podium, which is an issue that could be remedied with closer collaboration between the classroom users and designers. Jacqueline Frank added that the Classroom Committee should also be aware of such issues so that they can be addressed when the Committee reviews classroom designs.

ITEM No. 3 – DISCUSSION – Podium Accessibility and Branding

Carter Dorsett stated that the Classroom Design Standards advise that classroom podiums are to be accessible to meet ADA needs, but that the available floor space for podiums in some classrooms may require a reduction in capacity. Carter explained that the non-accessible podiums have a footprint of roughly 2 feet by 2 feet, while accessible podiums are larger and require ample space to allow for an accessible approach. Carter added that the accessible podiums are significantly more expensive than non-accessible podiums, so the funding for replacing podiums will need to be considered. Carter asked the Committee for further guidance as to how to proceed with podium upgrades.

Richard Rudnicki explained that the Classroom Design Standards are required for classrooms that are being fully renovated and that go through the design process, so smaller classroom improvements, such as replacing a podium, do not need to adhere to them, although they should be consulted. Richard then stated that MSU’s policy is to pursue universal accessibility whenever possible. Jacqueline Frank noted that both instructors and students may need the use of an accessible podium, so it would be best to maintain a standard for universal design. Richard explained that it is not a reasonable expectation to have all podiums immediately upgraded, but rather the transition will be gradual as funding becomes available and as capacity changes can be managed. Wendy Guido replied that upgrading to accessible podiums in rooms that cannot be accessed by an elevator would be a misalignment of needs and not a good use of funding, but that universal access should be incorporated into the classroom design standards. Richard added that increased costs for the accessible podiums can be addressed by communicating across departments the need to pursue universal access.

Brad Haderlie stated that additional considerations for new podiums are whether they should all be the same model and if they need to feature MSU branding. Brad presented a series of photos showing the various types of podiums used in classrooms throughout the campus. Richard Rudnicki replied that it would be more efficient from a maintenance perspective if there was more consistency in models across campus. Richard added that ATO is the most qualified to determine what exact models should be used. Wendy Guido stated that adding MSU branding to the podiums may increase the cost, so her preference would be to focus funding on acquiring accessible podiums. Richard noted that it would also be possible to brand the podium with a vinyl wrap at a later date.

Carter Dorsett asked what the best approach would be for upgrading podiums in Roberts Hall and Gaines Hall. Richard Rudnicki answered that ATO should provide a list of possible podiums for PDC to review to determine whether they would impact classroom capacities. Richard noted that if any podium necessitated a change in capacity, then it would need to be discussed by the Classroom Committee.

ITEM No. 4 – OPEN DISCUSSION

The Committee discussed the movable screen panels in Roberts Hall 101 and their impact on whiteboard visibility. Rob Maher noted that panels obscured the whiteboards on the wall. Rob asked if attaching whiteboards to the panels had been considered in the design process. Jennisse Waters replied that the idea of adding whiteboards to the panels had been brought to the Committee during the design phase and was not approved because not every seat in the room would have a clear view of the writing surface. Richard Rudnicki added that the classroom features a document camera, allowing the instructor to display notes on the two projection screens. Brad Haderlie mentioned that he sees many instructors refrain from adjusting aspects of classrooms, so rearranging the screen panels may not be intuitive. Pamela Harvey explained that a common request from instructors is to have whiteboards for students to use during class, and not just for instructor use.

Rob Maher asked if it was possible to attach a whiteboard or to replace a panel with a whiteboard. Richard replied that Planning, Design, and Construction would look to see what would be needed to do so.