The policy originator is working with other areas of the college to address many of the comments received. This policy will be further revised based on those conversations and will then be posted for a second 15-day public comment period.

Thank you for the comment. This will be added to the policy.

Generally, when an employee is requesting temporary access they fill out the form, and in communication with the Key Office they back the request with a follow-up email with the details of their temporary request. The policy will be revised to state, “For temporary access needs, please contact the Key Office for assistance completing the appropriate request form.”

Thank you for the comment. The Key Office sends emails as a courtesy to confirm that access to restricted areas has been approved. Problems like the one you described can arise if the person in question, like the VP in this example, is unavailable and no other person is designated to approve requests in the VP’s absence.

Thank you for your comment. These sections have been revised to address redundancies.

Thank you for the comment. These issues often stem from a lack of communication between the department and the Key Office. Please reach out to the Key Office to discuss how we can work together to improve communication.

Great suggestion. Language will be added to the policy to address this concern.

Thank you for the comment. We agree that Faculty Support should not be opening doors for students.

Thank you for the comments and the great suggestions. This is an ongoing issue, and the Key Office shares the frustration. The Key Office cannot know every key or access each employee’s needs; this is based on individual needs, supervisors, responsibilities, etc.

The only way the Key Office knows whether someone is adjunct faculty is by looking it up in Outlook. This puts the responsibility back on the Key Office to determine whose access needs to be removed each semester. If departments do not do a PAF, then HR and the Key Office do not know that an employee is gone. Even if we can automate the classroom/lab part, faculty will still need to request their offices, desk keys, and exterior doors where applicable

Additionally, the Key Office no longer tracks cabinet keys by room. This was a nightmare because cabinets got moved, replaced, and changed frequently, and there was no method to track them for the Key Office.

Updating our software is a complicated matter, and we are working with OIT to find a solution. Unfortunately, it’s not an overnight solution, and the current form cannot be revised by OIT because the code language is no longer used. Once a new solution is identified with OIT, we will engage in conversations with other areas of the college. This policy will then be further revised and reposted for a second 15-day public comment period.

Thank you for the comment. This issue will be addressed in the new key request program.

The Key Office has pick-up locations at most campuses. However, this information changes. Because policies are typically reviewed every 5 years, the policy may not be the appropriate place to include this information. The Key Office will add this information to their semester information sheet.

Thank you for your comments. The Key Office is required to maintain current and accurate records, and auditing is part of the process to ensure that employees who are no longer here have returned access (college property), and employees and supervisors have not given their access to someone else to use. The Key Office will revisit our audit emails to see if they can be clarified.

This is a great point, but faculty get moved from one class to the next, and the key office doesn’t always know. We would like to streamline the process, especially for adjunct faculty, but at this time, we cannot automatically revoke their access at the end of the semester. If this system can be automated, a solution may be possible. This is an ongoing issue, and the Key Office shares the frustration. It is a complicated matter, and IT is working to help find a solution. Unfortunately, it’s not an overnight solution. Once a new solution is identified with OIT, this policy will be further revised and then re-posted for a second 15-day public comment period.

This section was added because employees on FMLA, sabbatical, administrative leave, and other long-term leave do not return, which puts the responsibility back on the Key Office to try to retrieve access. There have been cases where the college puts someone on administrative leave and does not want them to have access to the college. Some individuals left their keys in offices or in desks, and their supervisors and other employees used the access and/or gave them to someone taking their place. We have had major issues with employees’ unauthorized access to areas for which they are not approved to have access. There are countless instances of this happening. After a conversation with HR, it was determined that the Key Office should hold the keys for employees on leave.

During our collaboration with PWC, this provision was added to address cases in which individuals on FMLA leave did not return, leaving the Key Officer (KO) unable to retrieve their access credentials. It was therefore determined that the KO should retain access in situations involving administrative leave, FMLA, or sabbatical. In certain circumstances, individuals on administrative leave may need to formally request access if their keys were previously returned.

An individual or change key means it only opens one door. Unlike a master or submaster key, which opens several doors. We will adjust the policy language to clarify this information. Small keys, such as cabinet keys, are $5.00 each. Our costs determine the key prices. Without going into a lot of detail, key blanks have gone up to 250%. They are not like standard house keys. If a master key is lost, the cost of rekeying areas and/or buildings could be astronomical. For example, rekeying the SCM would cost approximately $200,000.00 plus labor.

We will revise the policy language. There is no charge to replace a broken or worn key/fob/card, but the broken access device needs to be brought to the Key Office, and a new one will be issued.

Certain rooms have been designated and approved for unsupervised student use; they have been specifically set up to support this purpose. (Study Rooms, SFAX 108, SCM 2-094, SI 067, Edit Bays. Open labs have a designated person “lab aids,” etc.)

In 2019, Cabinet approved access to the buildings for faculty and staff from 5 a.m. to 11 p.m. Monday – Sunday. This section was added to the policy because students were staying in classrooms or buildings after the 11:00 p.m. closure without supervision. The custodial staff cannot do their job and feel unsafe having people in the buildings when the college is closed. Faculty Support has also raised concerns about students in classrooms without supervision. To lock a classroom or lab, a valid credential is required, and students do not have the credentials.

We have never had anyone ask if they had permission to go to the bathroom. Hopefully, we can find a safe and sustainable solution. The policy is not intended to apply when a faculty member steps out briefly, such as to use the restroom. Its purpose is to guide procedures once the class session has concluded and the instructor has officially finished teaching.

Some science programs allow students to have access to the classroom for research purposes. However, we acknowledge that this is an ongoing issue, and the Key Office shares the frustration. It is a complicated matter, and OIT is working to help find a solution. Unfortunately, it’s not an overnight solution. Once a new software solution is identified with OIT, this policy will be further revised and then re-posted for a second 15-day public comment period.

Thank you for the comment. We will revise this section of the policy for clarity.

Thank you for the comment. Magnetic and Friction Door Openers: These locking mechanisms are primarily installed on hallway doors. Magnetic hold-open devices are integrated with the fire alarm system and automatically release when the alarm is triggered, allowing the doors to close for safety. Due to the high cost of wiring and ongoing maintenance associated with magnetic holders, friction-based openers are now being installed as an alternative. Unlike magnetic systems, friction doors do not release automatically and must be closed manually.

Hold opens are tied to the fire alarms only, not door lockdowns. In the event of an emergency, the doors will not shut. It is the shared responsibility of all college employees to work together to help protect the campus community in the event of an emergency or threat.

Thank you for the comment. This provision is included in the policy because it is the responsibility of all college employees to work together to protect the campus community in the event of a threat.

I do not see a fee for lost vehicle keys; most vehicle keys now range from $100 to $500 per key, depending on the vehicle make and model

regarding paragraph K.2

I respectfully object to the language in Section K.2 of the Key and Access Control Policy, which states:

“Students can only be in classrooms when faculty or their authorized designees are present.”

This provision is overly restrictive and does not reflect the operational realities or pedagogical goals of many academic programs. In our division, undergraduate students frequently engage in research projects, collaborative learning, and independent inquiry in spaces such as labs and classrooms. These activities are often faculty-approved, low-risk, and designed to foster autonomy and deeper learning.

For example, in our geoscience program, students conduct research involving microscopic fossil analysis. Once trained, these students work independently for extended periods using microscopes and other equipment. Requiring a faculty member to be physically present in the room at all times is not only unnecessary—it undermines the faculty’s ability to manage their time effectively and detracts from the student’s opportunity to engage in authentic research experiences.

Instead, I propose the following revision to the policy:

K…
2. Students may be present in classrooms, labs, or other instructional spaces without direct in-room supervision, provided that:

• The activity has been formally authorized by a faculty or staff member.
• Students have received appropriate safety training and orientation.
• A designated faculty or staff member is present in the building and aware of the student activity.
• The designated custodian of the space ensures the room is properly secured after use.

This approach maintains institutional accountability and safety while supporting the college’s mission to provide high-impact, student-centered learning experiences. It also reflects a reasonable expectation of flexibility from the Key Office in supporting academic programs which is after all, the purpose of our work here.

I urge the policy originator and trustees to consider this revision seriously. A blanket requirement for constant supervision is not aligned with the educational practices of a modern college and risks stifling innovation and student engagement. I think a slightly modified version of the language here can achieve your goals without hurting students in their unique academic pursuits.

I want to make some comments about the current process outlined in Section B, which requires instructors, particularly adjunct faculty, to submit separate key or access-credential request forms, even after they have already been authorized through multiple institutional systems.

Academic scheduling and payroll systems already accomplish everything being asked for in this section. Associate Deans go through an extensive process to assign instructors to courses, including entering instructor data, assigning campus, time, and location, and finalizing the schedule. This alone constitutes clear authorization. After that, the same information must be manually re-entered by Associate Deans into the FLAC system to authorize payment. There you go…two formal, institutionally validated authorizations that are perfectly adequate to establish that the person has the institutions permission to be in those rooms at this institution at that time. I mean, if we are willing to pay them to be there, isn’t that a pretty good stamp of approval?

Despite this, instructors, most often part-time adjuncts who have to do this every semester, are then asked to extract the same information from their own schedules and submit it via a confusing form to someone they may not even know, especially if they are new ( In practice the forms often route to the wrong person). That person, usually the Associate Dean, must then approve the request again, often during the busiest time of the semester. Would my friends in the key office consider something? Consider that in just Science, Math, and Engineering alone I have about 230 adjunct instructors. Also, adjuncts frequently confuse the proximity card request with the physical key request, leading to incorrect submissions that must be corrected, often in the first days of class when administrative staff are already overwhelmed helping students and faculty. What I want to convey is that the system is fragile. The number of mistakes that occur during this process is high, and these errors do not contribute meaningfully to the mission of the Key Office. It is unnecessarily labor intensive on academic divisions where large number of employees have to have access that changes each semester.

I strongly urge the Key Office to invest in a system that integrates directly with the college’s scheduling data. This would allow access assignments to be automatically generated and updated as schedules change, which they often do right before the semester begins due to enrollment shifts. Such a system would reduce administrative burden, improve accuracy, and better support the Key Office’s mandate to secure facilities. Seriously, modern systems can and should be leveraged to streamline this process, benefiting both academic divisions and helping the Key Office meet its mission and mandate.

In short, the current process reflects a lack of trust in systems that already provide verified, multi-layered authorization. It creates unnecessary work for Associate Deans, confusion for adjuncts, and operational inefficiencies at a time when responsiveness is critical.

As written, it seems to me that K2 would prevent me from taking a break to go use the restroom in the middle of a class session, or temporarily leaving the room for any other reason. Is that the case?

Recently had an issue with 4b4 which defines “24 hour” access, but not “after-hour” access. Staff in key office referred to a “policy” of 5 am - 11 pm being “standard hours” and all else being 24 hours. None of this appears in the policy.

Policy discusses permanent access but not temporary or one time access (consider events, meetings, etc.) Is this the same form? Do those forms have appropriate elements to accommodate this different kind of request?

When a member of a different department has requested access to a space I oversee (ex. facilities member needs access to the Pantry), I regularly receive an email about this to give additional approval. This seemed to work fine and consistently. However, when VP approval was needed for late-night or 24/7 access, this wasn’t via email. These processes could be made consistent or more clear in the policy.

I wholeheartedly agree with [a previous commenter] that the process would be so much better of it was automated. The current requirement in Section 4.B for faculty to manually request access every semester for new classroom assignments is tedious and time consuming and creates unnecessary delays. I feel like faculty and associate deans and administrative assistants are weighed down by a thousand little tasks all pulling mental bandwidth and time away when we could automate things and remove the burden. Here are some of the issues I see:

• Faculty frequently forget to submit requests, causing anxiety and classroom access delays at the start of the semester
• New faculty find this particularly overwhelming during an already complex onboarding process as they are rushing to prepare for the start of the semester.
• The current forms request specific time access windows, yet key holders receive standard 6 AM to 11 PM access regardless of what they specify. These fields serve no functional purpose while adding unnecessary complexity to the form completion process.
• Faculty requesting keys frequently make errors when filling out the form which generally leads to multiple rejection/resubmission cycles. The current process only allows associate deans/ administrative assistants to reject requests without giving us a way to correct minor errors directly rather than requiring complete resubmission. It would also be great to have the ability in the form to communicate specific rejection reasons to applicants. I currently have to send an email separately informing people why they were rejected.
• When coming on as a new associate dean, I needed to individually request every room that I might need access to rather than having my administrative position dictate the baseline access I should have in order to help my faculty and staff. I am the go to person for faculty and staff who forget their keys or are locked out of their offices on the third floor of SI building and much of the second floor in the JHS building, but I was asked to put in every single room separately into the form. In this process, some rooms were accidentally missed, and I still do not have access to them because it has now slipped lower in my priority list and I haven’t gotten around to figuring out which rooms I missed and asking again. I also am missing cabinet key access for cabinets that house equipment that I am responsible for maintaining and inventorying. Again, at some point, I will walk around to every cabinet and look at the key numbers and request those keys, but when I have 1000 other pressing tasks to do, that job never seems to get done.

Here are my suggestions for improvements. #1 by far is a request to automate the access process using the schedule each semester. Faculty and staff would then only need to request access to additional spaces (ie work rooms) likely once. If that is not possible in the near future, please allow supervisors to submit a bulk request of key access. This would reduce individual faculty burden while maintaining supervisory approval requirements. If we absolutely must keep the current system, please make changes to the form (maybe make an etrieve form?) that 1) lets associate deans/ administrative assistants correct minor form errors directly, 2) allows rejection notifications to include specific feedback about needed corrections, 3) removes time request fields that don’t affect actual access parameters, 4) have facilities automatically ask for keys for the department head when new cabinets are placed in an area, and 5) allow staff to request access based on access granted to their predecessor.

This policy can be streamlined by removing redundancies. Some redundant sections are: B5 and C2, C5 and G1, and C10 and J5.

Sometimes it makes more sense to keep a door open. When athletics, facilities, or maintenance is hauling equipment through hallways, or we are having a catering group set up for an event, constantly having to stop and open doors is incredibly inefficient. It slows down operations, makes people more likely to encounter ergonomic hazards, and honestly creates more safety issues – e.g., think about when someone’s trying to juggle a heavy box and a door handle at the same time.

Moreover, this policy could really mess things up for people who have trouble with mobility. Some folks rely on doors staying open when there’s a lot of foot traffic. And asking people to remember to close doors during an actual emergency lockdown? Come on—when people are panicking and trying to get to safety, the last thing on their minds is going to be “oh wait, I need to close this door first.”

Who’s going to enforce this? Are we hiring door police now? And this whole thing about making departments pay for door repairs is pretty unfair. Doors and hinges wear out anyway—that’s just normal wear and tear. How are you going to prove that propping a door caused the damage versus just regular use over time? This seems like a recipe for a lot of pointless arguments and territorial disputes.

Not all door propping is created equal. Wedging open a door for 10 minutes while you move some boxes is completely different from leaving the front entrance propped open all night. But this policy treats them the same. That doesn’t make sense—some situations are barely a security risk while others are genuinely problematic.

Instead of just banning everything, why not look at other options? What about those door holders that release automatically? Or maybe allowing door propping during certain hours for scheduled activities? There are probably ways to keep buildings secure without making everyone’s daily work unnecessarily complicated.

Section K.2 would create challenges for my CS classes. Most sessions end with a coding exercise, and it is common for students who are close to finishing to stay a few extra minutes. This brief time lets them leave with a sense of accomplishment and satisfaction—something lost if they are interrupted just before their code runs.

For 4.G.1.A: It seems that removing sabbatical leave should not apply as it doesn’t immediately assume that the person on that type of leave won’t be needing or using their office.

For 4.C.5: It’s not always obvious to a person that they have remnant key access (either physical or electronic) to a door that has been re-keyed. Recent messages, sent to adjunct employees for this example, that they received when an audit happened implies strongly that they have done something wrong by having a key they needed at some point, that they must return it before any new access can be granted, but were likely unaware that the door even changed. Loosening this policy so that there is more time to comply, or are gentler for our part-time staff that don’t check email as quickly, or requiring by policy that audits happen on a time basis that catches problems earlier may be good.

For 4.D.1: The policy should probably spell out that within a certain time after the end of a semester, that key access granted for part-time teaching will be removed, adjuncts often re-request keys anyway. There currently is no form for an adjunct or department to close out key access to maintain the least amount of access needed. The best solution would be to do whatever upgrades it might take to link classroom access to the banner scheduling system so that access is granted and taken away automatically and that the only semi-permanent access is through the specific requests.

I also have concerns on section B. As has been voiced well by others, I have a significant concern regarding the need to re-approve key access every term. This would generally fall to Associate Dean’s and the work required to re-approve adjuncts every semester is excessive. With all of the systems we have in place to assign instructors there should be a way to automate approvals for faculty assigned to courses.

I also would request re-consideration for all key pick-up’s to be at Redwood campus key office. This can cause an undue hardship for those at satellite campuses, specifically adjuncts who work full time and teach “on the side”. For many of our adjuncts we schedule around their work schedule and asking them to come in outside of class time may simply not be possible for them. Add to this coming to a different campus then they are familiar with and this becomes unreasonable. Can we keep the satellite campus pick-up or spell out what “prior arrangements” would be?

As written, paragraph K.2 seems impractical and would limit my ability to teach effectively. In biotechnology, we use a competency-based, open-lab model where students schedule time to complete experiments independently after receiving safety training. There is always a professor assigned during open lab time to oversee students working. However, at any given time, I may be overseeing students performing experiments in four labs spaces (across the hall from each other). These multiple spaces are essential to maintain cleanliness, safety, and prevent cross-contamination. I rotate between these spaces to ensure students have what they need and are working safely. During my scheduled time, I never leave the building and always secure and clear the labs before leaving campus.

This setup provides students with authentic research experience, independence, and flexibility in their schedules. On any given day, I can work 2-7 hours in the open lab. This gives students more flexibility with their schedules, but it would be unreasonable to expect me to remain in the lab for the entirety of that time without breaks to use the restroom or eat lunch, especially given that I am six months pregnant.

1. Key access for faculty could be streamlined so that access is granted automatically to a classroom when a course is assigned through the Scheduling Office. And access should be removed once the semester is over if the faculty is adjunct.

2. Section K: It doesn’t explicitly say that classroom doors should be closed for safety purposes once classes have begun, despite this policy/protocol being recommended. Perhaps it should be?

G1A seems overly restrictive, this would mean that someone who goes on FMLA would need to return all keys, that someone who takes a very long vacation would need to return their key, etc. Why would an employee engaging in college-approved activities (sabbatical, PTO, or FMLA) need to return their keys prior to their leave and then pick them up again from the key office upon their return? Would this not result in confusion, extra work for all parties, and a delay in access to appropriate workspaces?

We need some type of manual override for designated individuals for fobbed doors that are only controlled by the key office. For example, this past weekend the rear LAC doors were not open at 9:00 a.m. on Saturday as requested for the two soccer matches, and the key office is closed on the weekends. If the Athletic Director had a manual override, we would not have had to issues of constant monitoring the doors to ensure the teams and officials had access.

H. 1 a. $25.00 each for change and individual keys.

lacks clarity. Does that mean I have to pay to change a key from one office key to a new one even if I return the old office key? What does “change” mean, if not? Also, even cabinet keys are $25?

I don’t generally understand this price of a key. Making a key is very inexpensive. What makes these keys so particularly expensive?

How about broken fobs or fobs that are falling apart? After more than 10 years of using mine, it’s getting pretty ragged. Hopefully we don’t have to pay for a new one...

#4 Procedures for the responsibility of facility and locking the facility doors...should there also be emphasis for SLCC clients hosting events outside of traditional hours, they are responsible for securing the requested space?

And secondly, reading comments about students needing a faculty member present in classrooms. I agree with this 100% if changes were to be made to allow students in w/o a supervisor, I believe they should go through the students should obtain access through the departments and not ask Faculty Support for assistance as we do not want the safety issues or liabilities for this.

G1a seems to have two problems. 1. Often faculty on sabbatical may still be on SLCC campuses. Including sabbatical in this section seems unnecessary.

2. 3 weeks of leave seems like a much too short time to be required to hand in all keys and fobs. The logistics to do this seem overburdensome and unnecessary. Perhaps greater than 12 weeks of leave is more reasonable. This would eliminate this requirement for those taking 12 weeks of FMLA.

I would like 4. K. 2. to be reworded. I teach a 3-hour course and really would appreciate being able to leave the class to run to the restroom once or twice during that lecture/lab period. My professional licensing agency even allows supervisors to leave a work area for up to 10-15 minutes for this reason. One of my students is always in the class monitoring our school and personal belongings when I have to excuse myself. Additionally, the lab next door always has a teacher and/or students in it, listening to what’s happening in our area.

I was surprised to read 4. K. 3a since we are in the midst of decorating our department doors celebrating the theme “Opening Doors”. I like to have an open door when I’m in my lecture room and office and I know students do, too. Especially during the first few weeks of a new semester, I find it very helpful to have our doors open to new students trying to find their way around campus. My office hours are open for all of my students to use, so I want to convey that with an actual open office door. If there is a threat on campus, like there was at the end of Spring 2025 semester, our custodial workers can be counted on to come around and close any open doors. Thank you.

we have spaces that have been designed specifically for students to access them to for studying, class-related projects, video conferencing, business start-up, etc. There needs to be a provision for students to be able to access/use these spaces without requiring other staff/faculty to be present.

“Kickstarter” spaces: GMBB
Maker Space: GMBB
Open art lab: SCM
Editing Bays: SCM
Club Spaces: SI and other spaces
Study Rooms: various
“Zoom” rooms for virtual meetings/attending online courses while students are on campus
Etc.

For some locations, it is appropriate to have doors held open during regular operating hours. Is there a plan/funding in place to install appropriate friction-hold door closers, so they don’t need to be propped open by other means?

As others have pointed out, the “no propping” doors provisions treats all doors as equal, when they are not.