LLI at American University Washington DC

16 May 2011

Commissioner Matthew Frumin 4 709 Albemarle St. NW Washington DC 20016

Dear Commissioner:

You have asked me to spell out in detail the relationship between the Osher Lifelong Learning Institute (OLLI) and American University in order to supplement information I provided a year ago in connection with your request for an opinion from the Office of Campaign Finance as to whether you had a conflict ofinterest in expressing views about American University's ten year campus plan, now being submitted to the Zoning Commission, in light of the status of your wife Lena as OLLI's program manager.

I assume you are turning to me because I am a member of the OLLI Board, a former Board Chairman, and currently Chainnan ofOLLrs Facilities and Development Committee, I am also, as you know, a retired attorney who negotiated OLLI's agreement with AU concerhirtg implementation of the Osher Foundation,s $1 million endowment grant to AU for the benefit of OLLI.

I have reviewed your letter of May 18, 2010 to the Office of Campaign Finance and it correctly states the relationship between OLLI and AU. OLLI is an independent 50l(c)(3) D.C. Corporation. OLLI's contractual relationships with.AU consists of the leas~, at market rates, of two offices in Capital Hall on the Tenley Campus and an agreement with AU concerning its administt·ation of the $I million endowment grant from the Osher Foundation to AU under terms which direct that all income be used for the benefit of OLLI (except for a proportionate share of the expenses of endowment management). The endowment was granted to AU to manage because it is the policy of the Foundation, applicable to all of the hundred­ plus OLLis in the U.S., to have a University assure that its grants are spent for the benefit of the OLLL Of course that is exactly what we intend to do with the income ftom the Osher grant so AU's oversight role is nominaL

OLLJ • 4400 Massachusetts Ave. NW • Washington DC 20016 Pho11e 202.895.4860 • Fax 202.895.4865 • Email [email protected] • Web olli·dc.org Apart from these contractual connections, all interaction between OLLI and AU is voluntary. There have been periods in our 30 year relationship when the amount of interaction has been minimal. In recent years, with the impetus of the Osher grant and the selection of Neil Kerwin as AU president, greater efforts have been made to take advantage of that relationship because both parties see closer cooperation as fostering their separate missions.

AU appears to regard its relationship with OLLI as important. For many years it has allowed our members access to its library and bookstore and offered discounted rates at its fitness facility. This appears to benefit at least a few of our members. Its website also offers a link to OLLI's website. More recently AU has touted its relationship with OLLI on its website and in connection with its Campus Plan. What OLLI needs most, however, is the ability to rent classroom and lecture series space from AU ~-.as we believe was contemplated by the Osher endowment grant. However, AU has told us from the outset that virtually all such space was committed to its own academic programs and indicated that its growing demands from within the University would always have priority. Meanwhile OLLI's space needs grow with its steadily increasing enrollments. We are now renting space in Bethesda because we cannot get enough adequate space at our main location, the Temple Baptist Church on Nebraska Avenue.

I mention these details because they bear on AU's I 0 year plan. That plan contains no provision for space for OLLI. However, it clearly would alleviate AUs space constraints. Without the prospect of obtaining space from AU, OLLI has no reason to support the 10 year plan. On the other hand if we can nail down a commitment by AU to provide access to the space we need at a reasonable cost, which we are now attempting to do, it will benefit OLLI and the hundreds of seniors served by it That is where things stand at the moment. Whether we get more space or not will not affect our underlying relationship as two independent parties who continue to cooperate to the extent each sees cooperation as in its best interests.

I hope this answers any remaining questions. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any other questions.

Sincerely, ~~y Raymr::;J. Rasenberger Voices for AU I American University Washington DC Page 1 of2

Voices for AU

J This editorial was published in the Norlhwest Current newspaper on May 4th, 2011. I American University is neighborhood I 1 asset

I Viewpoint l Matthew Frumin

'i'. 1 My wife works for an organization- the Osher Lifelong Learning Institute- that provides classes to

1 more than 600 area seniors hosted by American University. Our kids learned to swim in American 1 University's pool, and our son worked as a lifeguard there. We run on the university's track. We love to 1 visit the Katzen Arts Center. Our younger daughter's dance recitals took place at the Greenberg

I.! Theatre. Our two older children's high school graduations were at Bender Arena. We listen to its public radio station, WAMU. I' ! The idea, inherent in much of the discussion around American University's campus plan, that the university is a net negative presence in our community strikes me as fundamentally inaccurate. Indeed, the university arrived in 1893 before all but a handful of the current homes in the area were built. Our community and the university have evolved together for a century, and that has been good for both.

Today, American is an institution on the rise. Its ranking as an undergraduate university is on a path of steady improvement. In the meantime, it is making its mark in numerous areas, including such things as the hours devoted by students to community service, political engagement of its students and number of graduates who go on to the Peace Corps.

As an interested member of the community and an advisory neighborhood commissioner, I have attended dozens of meetings on the campus plan over the last 18 months. The plan is far from perfect, and there are important issues that still have to be resolved (including maintaining enforceable enrollment caps), but fundamentally, the plan promises to deliver significant benefits to the community and to the university.

The two biggest areas of controversy relate to the proposals to move the law school to the Tenley Campus and to put dorms on the parking lot on the southeast side of Ward Circle.

The Tenley Campus neighbors are legitimately concerned about traffic and parking in the wake of the proposed much heavier use of that site. They have been at odds with the university for a generation about the use of the site and seek stability and a respite. These concerns can and should be addressed. If they are, then moving the law school to the Ten ley Campus, a block from the Metro, could

http://www.american.edu/finance/fas/voicesforAU.cfin 6/9/2011 Voices for AU I American University Washington DC Page 2 of2

deliver benefits for the city and community, p~omoting transit-oriented development and contributing to enlivening the Wisconsin Avenue corridor.

Neighbors of the Nebraska lot, the giant asphalt parking area on the southeast side of Ward Circle, have fought the idea of dorms on that site since they were first proposed. The university's most acute need, however, is to provide new dorm space, and its largest area available for such dorms is the parking lot.

Opponents polnt to other places on the main campus where dorms could go. In one case, the university now proposes to put a dorm on the opponents' recommended site. Other suggested sites, however, are either not viable alternatives or would result in opposition from different neighbors.

In the meantime, opponents accuse the university of recalcitrance for refusing to abandon the idea of placing dorms on the parking lot, even as university officials have come forward with multiple iterations to address the last round of professed concerns (steadily reducing the number of beds proposed for the site). The neighbors have held fast to their insistence that no dorms be put there. For the vast majority of the extended discussion, neither side has moved off of its fundamental position, though American has made modifications to the details of its proposal.

Still, that leaves decision makers to grapple with the basic question: Can dorms reasonably be accommodated on the Nebraska lot? While I understand the fears of the nearby neighbors, it certainly does seem that a site of that size, right next to the main campus and currently wasted, from a land-use perspective, on surface parking, could accommodate dorms.

In its latest report, Advisory Neighborhood Commission 3D showed some willingness to consider inclusion of dorms on the parking lot. Perhaps that will mark a change of approach, and the discussion will move from whether to include dorms on that site to how they can be placed and buffered to avoid an undue adverse impact on the neighbors.

We are not far from a campus plan that could be good for the community and the university. Hopefully, going forward, the stakeholders will work together constructively so that we can get there.

Matthew Frumin is a member of Advisory Neighborhood Commission 3E.

http://www.american.edu/finance/fas/voicesforAU.cfm 6/9/2011