UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN–LA CROSSE
SEGREGATED UNIVERSITY FEE
ALLOCATION COMMITTEE
1725 STATE STREET
LA CROSSE, WI 54601
SUFAC Agenda
Date: November 21, 2011
Time and Location: 5:30 PM; Senate Chambers; Cartwright Center
I. Call to Order
a. 5:33 PM
II. Budget Hearings for Fiscal Year 2012-2013
a. Cultural Affairs Committee – Emily Scheife (5:35 – 6:00 PM)
i. Art Exhibitions – John Ready
1. I’m chair of the art department and director of the university gallery.
We have six shows per academic year. Three outside shows and three
shows that are internal student exhibitions. Students can submit up to
three pieces of artwork then of about 150 pieces, 30 are chosen.
Awards are given in endowments. We also do a fair amount of
employment. We’re always happy to be supported by student
government. I am please with that, thank you. Because we only do
six shows a year, we would like to add a summer show to the
sequence. We would then like to be able to showcase UW-L student
artwork throughout the summer which is a great selling point for tours.
I wanted to see how you felt about supporting that. I also would like
to note that we are anticipating a schedule that hasn’t evolved yet. An
example would be that the show that ended this week cost more than
projected due to some building issues.
2. Dr. Ringgenberg: This proposal would be in addition to this?
a. Yes, it would be in addition. The fantasy would be to have one
gallery that shows student art and then one that shows outside
art. We need to support our artists in a much better way.
3. Kristin: Would you want me to do this for this summer?
SUFAC 2011-2012
a. No, it would be a whole year out. But I am interested in your
input and thoughts.
4. Vo: It would be for when again?
a. It would be in this budget, but a year out.
ii. Organizational Grants – Kaye Schendel
1. The student org grants budget supports the student org grant process.
It is hard to prepare and this would be the only support provided to
non-SUFAC org entities. It the only opportunity for the majority of
these orgs to seek funding. The class codes are hard to use and it
really changes from year to year. We are asking for an increase this
year and it is proportionate to how many student organizations have
been given org status and those that have gone inactive. We typically
spend every single dollar that you give us. Again this is a weird
account because you can allocate the money, but we’ve already
received two emails from orgs that said the process took too long and
decided to give the money back.
2. Vo: You were looking at having two allocation periods?
a. One thing that the committee decided on was to do a minigrant round in the first part of spring semester. There are a lot
of clubs that hit the ground running and others that take some
time to get up and running again. For example, the money that
is being returned to us will be going into the mini-grant round.
3. Dr. Ringgenberg: Would you help sponsor some film rights?
a. Yes, we try to avoid any issues with copyright infringement.
That is why we are very hard about this at the all student org
meeting.
4. Vo: So if the poster is just put on campus, would we be liable?
a. Not technically, we never approve posters. We register them.
5. Nelson: Is there a way that student orgs can receive training?
a. It’s on the UC site and there are resources for all of this.
iii. Student Leadership Program – Kaye Schendel
SUFAC 2011-2012
1. No increase, same as before. This budget assists with the Eagle
Roundtable, the all student org meeting, and theoretically we should be
doing some additional leadership opportunities. Leadership speakers
tend to be more than what we are given to budget with. This budget is
pretty self explanatory.
iv. Concerns of the Committee:
1. I forwarded through Dr. Ringgenberg all of the Cultural Affairs
budgets. We indicated all of our concerns on those budgets. I would
suggest taking a look at all of this. The student orgs committee
believed that all that were submitted were appropriate. There were
some on the Cultural Affairs that people felt very strongly about not
being completely funded.
2. The increase with choir what was the rational?
a. They talked about the trip and how they believe it was rational.
We did not receive the attached document about the date of the
trip. We looked at that differently than how it was explained to
our committee.
3. Thoughts on Theatre?
a. The committee felt that the deal you have with Theatre is
inappropriate and does not believe that they should receive an
increase. There were very strong feelings about how it was not
a fair thing.
4. Rykal: The deal includes that they cannot ask for contingency fund
requests, they keep their carryover, cannot apply for capital fund
requests, and only get a cost of living increase. I would be happy to
come to the committee meeting and go over this.
5. Schendel: I think that they feel that if one group can negotiate, why
can’t all the groups?
a. We would definitely take this into consideration. We like to
encourage good budgeting and to reinvest those funds.
b. 10 Minute Recess (if time allows)
SUFAC 2011-2012
c. Athletics – Josh Whitman, Kim Blum, and Spencer Niebur (6:10-6:55)
i. Whitman: We are an NCAA Division 3 program and we have 19 sports. We
really are one of the primer Division 3 teams. A few highlights would be our
men’s track team and women’s gymnastics team. Our football program is one
of the more successful in the country. Cross country has had great success as
well. Academically, our students continue to succeed in the classroom. Our
student athletes do embody the philosophy and understand their
responsibilities. They really have whole heartedly embraced that. Our budget
is just about two million dollars. Last year, a good amount came from
allocations. In general, the student fee is meant to help us maintain our
operations. We have always been very grateful for that support. Our fee is
near the bottom of being 8th out of the 9 schools. We have made some steps
to work towards an increase and with those steps we have been making moves
to be at the level we strive for. Any questions about our program?
ii. Kim Blum: We have one handout. We have asked for the 2.5% increase.
The handout is about one particular account. This will all be directed towards
our administrative account. These expenses are both allocated and nonallocated. You can see that this past year our allocated budget was about
$22,000. Some of these things are very straightforward. Travel includes two
main things like administrative travel and seminars. The other expenses have
to do with recruitment of job applicants. Last year we had three searches for a
football coach. Rental of space has to do mostly with the La Crosse Center.
We obviously have some repairs and maintenance as well. There are also
some conference fees. On the backside you will see some general fees that
have to do with running our maintenance. It is more the basic costs that any
unit would have. Our total expenses last year were $91,620. Our request is to
really eat away at that chunk. For the 2013 budget, that is was we are looking
at for next year. When you see something written in the comments section
those are all new fees that we will be assessed this year. Those will be things
that are new to us this year.
iii. Vo: What is the expected increase in the total seg fee?
SUFAC 2011-2012
1. Blum: We do not know that yet, but we are trying to show what our
base budget really looks like.
iv. Whitman: We do appreciate the students support with our program. We do
need everyone’s help to achieve our goals and we hope that when our teams
our successful you feel that success along with us.
v. Rykal: Were there any thoughts that the committee had?
1. Niebur: The committee agreed and came to consensus.
III. Review/Discussion of Hearings
a. Why don’t we look at the 0% increases first (6 entities).
i. Motion to approve all zero and negative balances.
1. Holt/Nelson
2. Call to question.
3. Vote:
a. Passed. (Yes – 7, No – 0, Abstentions – 0)
b. Honors Reception
i. Discussion:
1. Rykal: Why don’t we look at the largest budgets now? I would really
like to hear what you guys have to share about this, especially the
Honors Reception budget.
2. Holt: When I talked to a fellow student she did not feel comfortable
funding something that they already though they would be allowed.
3. Nelson: My only thought is that the overhead might go up with
scholarships. I don’t like being in this position and I wish that they
would have asked first.
4. Vo: I think that is a good point that students would be paying one way
or another. I think that since they didn’t ask they are almost forcing us
to accept. I would like to not fund this.
5. Rykal: I felt that this fund was set to pay for the Honors Reception
and if they would like to go through this new scholarship process they
could create a new account for this. Instead of just leaving that name
SUFAC 2011-2012
and funding something that is not very closely related. This would be
an awesome thing for them to ask for a new account.
6. Breunig: I have a hard time with it and I feel like the name does not fit
with what they want to do with it. I am really not sure what to do with
it.
7. Murray: How long does the process take to get a new account?
a. Dr. Ringgenberg: About two years. But I think you have to
think about if this fits with our mission.
8. Rykal: This is a good point of thinking about what seg fees fund and
does this fit into that category. I think it does benefit students.
9. Palmer: I think that they didn’t ask our opinion because they don’t
really need our money. $4,000 in their budget probably doesn’t hinder
them much.
10. Stanley: Wouldn’t this mean they also aren’t having any more funding
for the reception? They would have to fund this reception through
different means.
11. Vo: What entity is the reception?
a. Dr. Ringgenberg: They are more of a program. We could say
that we wanted to just fund the reception. You can suggest
what they spend it on.
12. Palmer: Do people think it is a good thing to have this program or
not?
a. Holt: I think it is a benefit to have the program.
b. Vo: They are requesting this amount of money for the
application. So how do they pay for the reception and are they
planning to keep it?
c. Nelson: It doesn’t really sound like they need the money from
us. I don’t like being in this gray area and I don’t feel
comfortable giving them this money.
ii. Motion to keep the Honors Reception account at the amount that they were
allocated last year.
SUFAC 2011-2012
1. Nelson/Vo
2. Call to question.
3. Vote:
a. Passed. (Yes – 6, No – 0, Abstentions – 1)
c. Theatre:
i. Discussion:
1. Rykal: Cultural Affairs recommends that we fund this at zero because
of the deal and ADA costs.
2. Holt: The only thing that I have a problem with is storage space. I
don’t want to grant them the total amount, but perhaps just the cost of
living.
3. Rykal: They also mentioned that they travel with a university vehicle
to go to a house that they used for storage.
4. Stanley: Do you know how they balance their budget?
a. They get money from corporate sponsors.
5. Dr. Ringgenberg: Does their carryover help balance it?
a. Stanley: Kind of, but it doesn’t even out.
6. Palmer: I know that they have this new thing that if you buy
something through a certain website they get a percentage of the sales.
7. Rykal: We are really looking at if we want to give them a 2.51% or
the zero. I almost wish they would have given us a second budget that
was not a joke. Hoang had to go back to fix their budget to see what it
would look like at 2.51%. I think the committee was correct in their
assessment.
8. Nelson: I feel the same way. I wasn’t impressed by their presentation
and with the same token there were other options that they were not
showing us.
9. Doering: I think the other group didn’t understand the deal. I think
that they missed that.
10. Dr. Ringgenberg: You have to answer this question; because they
disregarded the deal, do we want to punish them by not giving them
SUFAC 2011-2012
the 2.51%? How should their actions affect your actions? The deal
was really about a situation in which the Theatre department had a
carryover and SUFAC took the money. They said that it was not fair
and they asked if we would be able to hold their increases to cost of
living. Student Senate thought that this deal was the right way to go.
It was based on their revenue.
11. Rykal: Can we request to see where the money is being spent?
12. Palmer: I think that it may go into a Foundation account.
13. Dr. Ringgenberg: At some point you have to ask how important this is
because music does the same thing.
14. Vo: It seems like they always have a huge carryover because they
keep accumulating this money and they seem to spend less and less. I
would like to see them spend the carryover money instead of asking
for an increase.
15. Nelson: I still think 0%, but I would be willing to compromise the
cost of living.
16. Holt: They get more than us funding them right? How many different
sources are there?
a. Stanley: Allocable and ticket sales.
17. Dr. Ringgenberg: I think we can talk about where the sponsorship
money is going.
18. Rykal: I think it might be better to have them come in and explain it
more at a later date.
ii. Motion to fund them at 2.51% and recommend them to investigate the rental
storage costs.
1. Nelson/Doering
2. Call to question.
3. Vote:
a. Passed. (Yes – 7, No – 0, Abstentions – 0)
d. Organizational Grants
i. Discussion:
SUFAC 2011-2012
1. Murray: Personally, if you think of all these different entities I think
org grants affect the widest amount of students. Since these are
student fees I think it is valid to take that into account.
2. Nelson: I was going to echo the same thing. I think this account really
reflects student dollars at work. I don’t think we should stop them
from doing what they want to do. I do feel comfortable with giving
them a larger increase.
3. Vo: I think that with a number of allocation, I don’t know if the
amount of student orgs that request for grants changes a lot. We are
funding the actual need for an increase.
4. Stanley: I think I would have felt better if the amount was more
strategic.
5. Nelson: How many orgs request grants on an annual basis and how
many orgs are on campus?
a. I think there are about 32 this year and 187 groups on campus.
ii. Motion to fund them at 2.51%.
1. Stanley/Breunig
2. Call to question.
3. Vote:
a. Passed. (Yes – 7, No – 0, Abstentions – 0)
e. Choir:
i. Discussion:
1. Rykal: Kaye voiced that she believes the committee misunderstood
what they were asking for.
2. Breunig: I understood when it was going to be next year’s trip. I
don’t see why it should be given for next year. I would urge them
towards a contingency fund request.
ii. Motion to fund them at 2.51% and suggest a contingency fund request to fund
this trip.
1. Stanley/Nelson
2. Call to question.
SUFAC 2011-2012
3. Vote:
a. Passed. (Yes – 7, No – 0, Abstentions – 0)
f. International Student Programs:
i. Discussion:
1. Holt: Didn’t she say something about a book club and are they trying
to buy books or fund to have them together?
a. I think we qualified books as a personal item and we would
fund the tea and such to come along with this.
ii. Motion to look into where these funds would be used.
1. Breunig/Nelson
2. Call to question.
3. Vote:
a. Passed. (Yes – 7, No – 0, Abstentions – 0)
g. Grad Student Organization:
i. Discussion:
1. Doering: It is less than $400 dollars and I am surprised they didn’t ask
for more.
2. Vo: Since we have more grad students every year I think it would
make sense to increase.
3. Rykal: There is a good point that the actual dollar amount isn’t that
much. We have been seeing a trend of the approval in 2.51%.
4. Nelson: I believe that maybe we should give them the same 2.51% for
everyone else.
ii. Motion to increase their budget by 2.51%.
1. Vo/Holt
2. Call to question.
3. Vote:
a. Fails. (Yes – 4, No – 1, Abstentions – 2)
iii. Motion to fund it at the full increase asked for.
1. Holt/Palmer
2. Discussion:
SUFAC 2011-2012
a. Palmer: I do see the rationale with these students because they
do bring in a lot of fees.
b. Vo: I am not sure that we are being viewpoint neutral here.
c. Stanley: There are different views that many grad students
aren’t paying for seg fees.
d. Doering: I think funding this is completely appropriate.
e. Nelson: After hearing things about tuition, I would like to keep
this low and for consistency sake.
3. Call to question.
4. Vote:
a. Fails. (Yes – 2, No – 3, Abstentions – 2)
iv. Motion to table this until next week.
1. Nelson/Breunig
2. Call to question.
3. Vote:
a. Passed.
h. Motion to approve all entities with a 2.51% increase or less at their requested amount
except U-Pass and the Racquet.
i. Palmer/Stanley
ii. Call to question.
iii. Vote:
1. Passed. (Yes – 7, No – 0, Abstentions – 0)
i. Motion to fund CAB at 2.51%.
i. Palmer/Holt
ii. Call to question.
iii. Vote:
1. Passed. (Yes – 7, No – 0, Abstentions – 0)
j. Student Association
i. Palmer: It seems like they never want to reallocate their budget.
ii. Holt: If we are going to fund other people at 2.51% we should do the same.
iii. Motion to fund Student Association at 2.51%.
SUFAC 2011-2012
1. Holt/Breunig
2. Discussion:
a. Vo: We have the Off-Campus Resource Center and a Get Out
the Vote director.
b. Palmer: I think it would be fair to set it at the same amount.
c. Rykal: There is something to keep in mind that their cost is
going to fluctuate.
d. Nelson: Can a contingency request fund this position?
i. Yes.
3. Call to question.
4. Vote:
a. Passed. (Yes – 6, No – 1, Abstentions – 0)
k. Dr. Ringgenberg: Do we want to talk about if we want to use anything from the
reserve? Kristin could create different scenarios with what you project. Would you
like to see that?
i. Yes.
l. Motion to zero out anything less than ten dollars as far as a carryover.
i. Palmer/Holt
ii. Call to question.
iii. Vote:
1. Passed. (Yes – 7, No – 0, Abstentions – 0)
IV. Announcements
V. Adjournment
a. Nelson/Holt
b. 8:01 PM
SUFAC 2011-2012