March 1 st
I. Approval of Last Week’s Minutes (03/01/10) -Approved
II. Green Fund guidelines discussion a.
The Green Fund proposal that was resent to Senate, sparked a heated b.
discussion. SUFAC may want to consider having a member of JCS present for the vote. SUFAC and Senate both agree on having the recycling bins.
Perhaps we should find the original Green Fund proposal and put it up for review, as far as what it should be used for. According to the info sheet, the concert didn’t really fit, however it did fit their criteria. We should start to generate a set of guidelines for Green Fund proposals. There is $142,000 in the Green Fund, what have we really used this for so far? Perhaps we should reassess this. c. The original referendum that passes stated: do you support purchasing
renewable energy or energy efficiency systems for UW-L campus by
contributing $5 a semester to a Green Fund that would support these types of
projects? d. What if we did a reconciliation meeting? e. Perhaps we could have a SUFAC member who is not part of Senate come to
Wednesday’s meeting to discuss SUFAC’s decision.
Stevens Point pays extra to their electric company for “green” energy.
SUFAC should set up a meeting to resolve these issues, and to develop criteria
together for future Green Fund requests. f. Sometimes we as a committee need filters, to continue keeping an open opinion
on some issues. g. Is it better for the committee to just let this go, and not bring this up in Senate?
h. What are people doing for evaluations to determine what impact these
submissions are actually having on campus?
SUFAC will try to set up a meeting with JCS for April, 5 th
. We should put together the three versions of the referendums, so that we have a focal point for our future meeting.
III. Account review presentations a. How will these be used? –by doing this, we will be forcing these committees to
take a closer look at what their budget. This will make them more conscious of
spending, knowing that we will be assessing their accounts. b. Music department –missed the memo, and this will be addressed at the on
location meeting. c. Multicultural events –the advisor is currently out of the state. However, they
did have an explanation for the travel. This will be addressed more in the
future. d. LGBTIAQQ –the cost of speakers was $3000 under budget, however they had
co-sponsors from the pride center to share some of the cost. Travel was $2000
over budget ($1450 at one hotel!). It was for a conference trip that was not
planned for. SUFAC needs to look into the spending on perdium. It doesn’t
appear that the students paid their part. e. International Students Program –No response f. Women’s History –their film budget wasn’t spent, because they decided to
bring in more speakers. g. Ability Awareness –because budgets are predicted a year in advance, it is hard
to have an exact estimate of what it will cost to bring in a speaker.
On the 22 nd
we will be convening here, and then going over to Mitchell to hear first hand from Kim about what she will be requesting. (First of two on location SUFAC meetings)
Motion: to adjourn meeting (Lauderdale /Cappozzo /Bennett)
IV. Meeting Adjourned at 6:35pm.