MINUTES
Student Activity Fee Board Meeting
Friday, January 29, 2010
404 Old Main
Attendance:
Board Members:
Jack Rayman, Senior Director, Career Services; Chair, Student Activity Fee Board
Jay Arcuri, Assistant Director, Central Office for Commonwealth Student Activities
Nick Borsuk, CCSG President
Mark Calore, CCSG Representative
Mark Donovan, UPAC Chair
Mary Edgington, Senior Director, Union & Student Activities
Roger Egolf, Faculty Senate Committee on Student Life, Penn State Lehigh Valley
Kathie Flanagan-Hertsek, Director of Student & Enrollment, Penn State Wilkes-Barre
MaeAnna Hassell, CCSG Representative, Abington
Gavin Keirans, UPUA President
Michael Kenney, CCSG Representative, Altoona
Alfonso Mendoza. GSA Representative
Ken Miller, Sr. Director of Student & Enrollment Services Rep, Behrend Campus via
conference call
Matt Sheroff, UPUA Representative
Absent:
Heide Port, Administrative Support Assistant, Union & Student Activities
Welcome and Roll Call
Roll call was taken.
Adoption of the Agenda
A motion to accept the agenda was made by Kathie Flanagan-Hertsek and a 2nd by Nick
Borsuk. All were in favor.
Adoption of the Minutes
A motion to accept the minutes was made by Mary Edgington and a 2nd by Gavin
Keirans. All were in favor.
Announcements by the Chair
1
Jack Rayman handed out some documents to help with fee clarification during the
meeting. The blue sheet listed some benchmarking information for the fee increase and
Jack wanted to emphasize that it did not mention that faculty and staff did not receive
salary increases last year.
An updated board list was passed around and corrections were made to that document.
Public Comments (10 – 15 minutes)
No comments from the Gallery
Discussion Items
Item 1 - Fee increase discussion and recommendations for 2010/2011
Jack began the discussion by stating that this is the most important topic to date and
opened the discussion on the fee increase for next year. It was his hope that each of the
representatives from their respective constituencies had polled their electorate and have a
good sense of how those groups feel about this. He also provided the group with
consumer price index information as a point of reference
Gavin Keirans began the discussion by asking Mark Donovan what his thoughts were on
UPAC’s current allocations. Mark Donovan stated that for the year 08/09 student
organizations requested $1,435,288.66 as of January and this year is almost identical $1,434,319, which is a difference of about $1000. UPAC is almost at the same spending
pace as last year. There are two differences for this year. One is that there is less money
to allocate and they are projected to use all the available funds earlier than they had in the
previous year. Second, these figures do not include things that typically increase, such as
the insurance cost that is paid for by UPAC for the student organizations. That is about
$100,000 a year right now. This has remained constant the past couple of years and
telephone costs and a few other things have remained the same as well.
Kathie Flanagan-Hertsek stated that the chief student affairs officers were quite split on
the increase of the fee. The two lowest campuses wanted no increase and the rest wanted
some increase. Five wanted a $5 per semester increase, 4 wanted a $10 per semester
increase, 2 wanted a small increase and 2 wanted it based on the CPI. To summarize, it
would be best to reflect and provide an option to allow the campuses to choose either no
increase or a $5 increase each semester.
Jack clarified what a $5 increase should mean rather than a percentage increase.
Nick Borsuk stated that this was discussed at the last student affairs committee breakout
session at last CCSG council meeting. Discussion surrounded dropping the bottom tier,
moving the $54 to $64, and keeping the $74, now becoming the 2nd tier, and then having
a $5 increase to $79. It would be advised that they go back and review which tier they
are on and those that want to continue at the $74 can stay at the $74 tier which many
2
want to do, and then those that don’t, can increase the fee and can move up to $79. There
was a discussion to increase the fee by $10 and they felt it was not economically mindful
to increase the fee that much. This group would like to see how the board will decide
next year, will the board add another $5 increase and go back to $10 between each tier.
The majority of the campuses are supportive of the $64, $74 and $79 fee structure with
the advice that the SAF Allocation committee go back and review the tier level next year.
Jack stated that it was his understanding that the campuses can elect the tier they want.
Nick stated that yes that was correct.
Mark Donovan stated that it is easier for a student to digest a lower increase than it would
be to delay increasing it for 3, 4 or 5 years and then increasing by a larger amount. There
would be more concern with that than doing smaller increases each year.
Jack stated that this is the administration’s position on this topic as well. Incremental
increases are better than holding off and then charging enormous increases which can be
a shock to the system.
Mary asked Mark if he felt that UPAC would be running out of funds for this year or will
it be close.
Mark stated that they don’t have the finalized numbers because they are still waiting on
the total registrations to come in. But it will be closer than it has been in the past year.
We should not run out of funds though.
Gavin asked what the basis for the $5 increase was rather than another amount.
Nick stated that this decision was based on those that are applying pressure on the ceiling.
They want to keep a $10 difference but they are willing to give way that they aren’t
willing to do it all at once, so that is why they are looking at doing it in 2 years.
At this point, Ken Miller was trying to connect by phone since there was difficulty with
the Polycom system.
Gavin asked why last year CCSG voted on a freeze, and this year they want the increase.
Nick said that there is a need for additional money this year for most campuses, but not
for all the campuses. He stated that the recommendation would be 3 tiers at $64, $74, and
$79.
Kathie added that the two campuses that are at the lowest tier were the ones that wanted
absolutely no increase. They were Worthington-Scranton and York.
Nick stated that definitely York did not want an increase and Scranton wasn’t completely
against moving the tiers.
3
MaeAnna Hassell asked if the two campuses at the bottom tier. Were they running out of
money or have a surplus?
This was referred to Jay Arcuri who clarified that the Worthington-Scranton campus is
fine with their funds. He spoke with them yesterday and they opted to not increase
because they have no major projects planned for the future and they are fine at this level.
DuBois is the other campus that is at that lowest level and he is unclear whether they
want to stay the same or not.
Nick stated that they do want to move up to the second tier. So if the Board got rid of the
bottom tier, they would be moving to the current second tier which would mean an
increase of $10.
Jack asked for the exact amounts of the current tiers and then the proposed new tiers.
Nick clarified that the current tiers are $54, $64, and $74 and University Park is $76
(which includes the $2 for legal services). The recommendation would be $64, $74, $79
for the Commonwealth Campuses
Roger asked what about the campus that doesn’t want any increase. That would be a big
jump.
Kathie suggested that they look at it as $54, $64 and $79. She felt that that this would
satisfy the smaller campuses.
Nick stated that there are many campuses that don’t want to move from $74.
Kathy said then we should create four tiers - $54, $64, $74 and $79, but we don’t want to
add more tiers.
Jack stated that this is not a desirable option.
Kathy asked Ken about what Behrend would like. Ken stated that their campus is asking
for a $10 increase. He said that realistically they do not want to create another tier and
they will go with what the recommendation is for the highest tier.
Jack stated that the only issue here is the lowest tier.
Gavin asked Alfonso what his feeling was for the University Park graduate students.
Alfonso stated that at the last GSA council meeting, with the current economical situation
at main campus, that it would be unreasonable to keep the fee the same. They
recommended something close to the projected tuition increase. They are looking at
potentially from 2.9% - 4.5% and not having it kept at the same level.
4
Nick asked Alfonso about linking the top tier of Commonwealth and University Park
fees. Alfonso didn’t think that would be enough.
Gavin felt that $3 would be sufficient. Mark Donovan also felt that $3 would be enough
for University Park and would meet the increases that will be needed.
Nick stated that there is a new SGA President at York and she was unprepared to make a
decision and she said that they will probably be having a surplus of money this year.
Gavin asked what they wanted to do at the campuses.
Nick said the consensus is $64, $74 and $79.
Kathie would like to see $54, $64, $74, $79.
The $3 increase would only be at University Park.
Roger asked if University Park students would mind having less student activity fee taken
out than most of the campuses, outside of legal services, and it doesn’t make sense for the
other campuses to have their fees higher than those at the University Park campus.
Gavin stated that they really don’t want to move it past the CPI. He felt that the $3
increase would be sufficient.
Mark Donovan stated that the legal services fee is a trial 3 year fee and that it can be
reviewed next year.
Jack asked for a motion.
Nick Borsuk moved for a recommendation for 2010/2011 that the University Park SAF
Level be $79 and the three tiers at the Commonwealth Campuses be $64, $74, $79. Ken
Miller seconded the motion.
Roger asked if we really wanted to bump up the lowest tier.
Nick said that there is more resistance surrounding the creation of a 4th tier.
Jack stated that there is an issue of providing too many options on these fees. We are one
University and we need to try to keep these fees from diverging too much. Having too
many fee levels becomes a nightmare for those in the finance office who have to carry
out the actual collection of the fees.
Mark agreed that we shouldn’t diverge too much. He stated that if we are reluctant to
raise the University Park fee by $10 then how can we do this for our Commonwealth
Campuses.
5
Roger asked about doing a range beginning with $54 up to $79. Discussion ensued that
this would give the potential for 19 different fee levels.
Mary asked to make a friendly amendment. Mary asked about just making 4 total tiers
keeping the $54 and having $54, $64, $74 and $79.
Nick and Jack both felt that this would require a handbook change as the handbook
specifies that there will only be three tiers.
Discussion ensued and the Board looked for the handbook definition.
On page 7 Jack read the section that stated that the University has created three tiers.
Nick asked who was at the middle tier. Kathy stated that DuBois is the only one at the
middle and there are 15 at the top and 2 at the very bottom.
MaeAnna stated that if there is a surplus at these schools of the SAF, then those funds
should be used in the same year so that students can benefit from their funds. At
Abington, they had a surplus of funds and they gave those funds to the athletic
department and they purchased new gym equipment for all the students to use. They
improved the school with these funds. She wants them to utilize this fee and to catch up
with the other campuses and improve student life.
Mark Calore stated that he can’t understand how other campuses can spend $74 per
person and these other two campuses can’t. He has spoken with people at
Worthington/Scranton and they have had trouble funding their proposals to send their
students to the APCA conference and other things. Maybe they need to be seeking out
better proposals and putting that money to better use.
Kathie asked Jay how much carry over these campuses have.
Jay did not know the answer to that but shared that he had spoken with them and they all
do not need additional funds.
Kathie stated that they may have very extensive student affairs budgets and that they
don’t need the SAF funds.
Gavin stated that whatever the campuses decide, UPUA will support the decision and
then reminded the board that there was a motion on the floor.
Nick stated that there are 17 out of 19 campuses that are for the increase and that this will
only affect 2 campuses. Not everyone will be happy with everything that we decide.
Jack stated that the way he reads the handbook; we would have to change the handbook if
we decide to add an additional tier.
6
The motion is $64, $74 and $79, and at UP at $79 with $2 going towards Legal Services.
Roll call vote.
_____ Jack Rayman
(__________)
__Y__Nick Borsuk
(____________)
__Y__ Mark Calore
(______________)
_Y__ Mark Donovan
(____________)
___Y_ Mary Edgington __Y__ Roger Egolf
(__________)
(___________)
___A_ Kathie Flanagan-Herstek ___Y_ Maeanna Hassell
(____________)
( ____________)
__Y__ Gavin Keirans
(___________)
__Y__ Alfonso Mendoza
(_____________)
___Y_ Michael Kenney
(____________)
__Y___ Ken Miller
(____________)
___Y__ Matt Sheroff
(__________)
11 Yes 1 Abstain
Item 2 - Proposed Amendment to the Handbook (Ken & Kathie)  Green Handout
Ken reviewed the current version and stated that the idea was that the 4% mentioned was
to cover a salary increase for a staff position, and currently this doesn’t make sense as the
salary increase comes from the tuition increase. He is suggesting that we strike that 4%
increase and leave the pool as is.
Nick stated that this increase was not for a salary increase. This was created to make up
for 15 years where SGA received no increase. So they created a fixed percent to play
catch up for the years of not receiving any increases when inflation continued to increase.
It had nothing to do with salaries or wages.
Ken asked Stan Latta for clarification and Stan said it was for the wage increase.
Nick stated that many people discussed this and that was not the perception of those
people. He clarified that those salary positions aren’t being paid for by the SAF but are
being paid for by the 13524 fund. At the October meeting for the council, the SGA’s
stated that they are not getting a 4% increase.
Jack read a section from an email from Dr. Latta who clearly stated that this money is to
be used for salary increases and this is clearly a contradiction of what is being discussed
here.
Nick has some back up documentation stating his understanding of the text. It is not for
salaries. It is to be used for the campuses that make the switch to the SGA.
Roger had a question on the wording. Does a campus allocation committee really
approve the use of general funds as this states? He thought that the chancellor makes
those decisions.
Ken stated that there is an allocation of general funds to the SGA.
7
Jay stated that these pots of general funds are the funds coming from Jay’s budget that he
transfers to the campuses. This is not the campus general funds.
Roger does not think this verbiage clearly states this information. For someone who
wouldn’t know the background on this, most would not understand this information.
This needs to be submitted to a subcommittee meeting for more discussion and
clarification.
There was a motion to refer this to subcommittee by Mary and seconded by Mark.
All in favor.
Item 2 – Kathie brought up the fact that Chris Rizzo had brought up the issue at the last
board meeting in the spring ‘09 that to appropriately vet an issue, items coming in on a
Monday or so prior to a meeting was not enough time to review. The committee needs to
be given adequate time to review, share with the constituencies, and prepare to discuss
these topics at the meetings.
Gavin did think three weeks was excessive.
Nick asked for a compromise of two weeks with the exception of when something comes
up that needs immediate attention.
Gavin stated that maybe 10 days would be better.
Jack stated that most deadlines in this group are not met and part of this could be the
enforcement of those deadlines. If he didn’t bend them at times, there may be nothing on
the agenda. He did state that people need to have adequate time to review issues
carefully.
Gavin suggested 10 calendar days and Ken asked whether it should be academic or
business days.
Mark Donovan made a motion to have a friendly amendment on item 2 to change from 3
weeks to 10 academic days. It was seconded by Nick Borsuk.
The motion passed unanimously. The following amendment will be made to the SAF
Handbook:
“Any proposal that alters, replaces, or changes existing guidelines and/or policies
as written in the SAF handbook must be submitted to the SAFB Chair in it final form and
distributed to SAFB members at least 10 academic days (as opposed to calendar days)
prior to voting on the adoption of said proposal at a scheduled SAFB meeting. This
8
ensures enough time to assess impact and seek discussion and input from all affected
University constituencies prior to formal voting.”
Open Discussion
Item 1 - UPUA budget – see attachment.
Gavin provided a summary of the 4 documents. Ken Miller did not have these
documents as they were brought to the meeting. Ken asked if action would be taken on
these and the answer was no since these are just discussion topics.
Gavin gave a summary of these documents.
Roger asked about the legal services initiative. Gavin stated that it has been slower than
expected. They are in the last stages of the search for the Director. They are looking for
this to be up and running by March or April. The funding seems to be in line with what
was projected.
Mark Donovan asked what the special events and programming committee does? Gavin
stated that they look at policy and resolutions for programming so they can authorize the
executives to carry out the program.
Item 2 – GSA Budget Review
Alfonso Mendoza distributed handouts and reviewed them with the board.
There were no questions.
Item 3 – Discussion of the SAF Handbook definition of UPAC composition
Gavin met with Vice President Sims and they discussed the overall charges of last year
and whether this board lived up to those charges. There was much time spent on the
GSA, UPUA and CCSG budgets.
He felt that at this point we have time to look at the SAF processes beyond the budgets.
He wants to look at the language in the handbook and affirm the role of UPAC. He felt
that the definition is very vague. He felt that it should be reviewed as well as the member
make up of the board with GSA and UPUA. He stated that VP Sims stated that this
subject was brought up at a President’s breakfast to review and to see if there are issues.
Gavin would like this to go to subcommittee to discuss this further. This is not a
conversation to dissolve UPAC because they are essential to the campus but he would
like to have it affirmed in the handbook.
Mark Donovan asked what he meant by “affirm their role”?
9
Gavin said that right now there are only two paragraphs in the handbook that discuss
UPAC and that he would like to work to make the two organizations (UPAC and UPUA)
transparent. He felt that a definition needs to be added to this handbook. He also wants
to have UPUA’s role defined. He did not have any direct recommendations at this time.
Jack asked him to clarify - is he saying that he is satisfied with UPAC and that its role
needs to be codified in the handbook or is he saying that he is not satisfied with the role
and function that UPAC is performing and that its role needs to be redefined?
Gavin stated that this was up for the committee to have discussions about. Also, he felt
these discussions should be held with other student organization presidents as well.
Roger asked if this group of presidents would come forward with a proposal if they felt
something needed to be changed in the way that allocations are done. This needs to be
done before we can discuss it.
Gavin stated that we were given the charge last year to look at processes and we did not
do that. With the 6 week time frame between meetings this spring, we need to work on
this now.
Roger stated that our committee should not be making suggestions in opposition, and if
there are any adjustments that need to be made then those suggestions should be to
improve functionality. Until this group knows what is or is not functioning smoothly,
then there really isn’t a way for this board to have a conversation.
Mark Donovan stated that we need to have some concrete areas to discuss at these
meetings. He was involved in a discussion in reference to the SAF and at that meeting
there wasn’t anything specific that needed to be changed. There are mechanisms in place
to address needs or changes if they are necessary.
Alfonso stated that GSA does not have anything major that needs to be discussed. He also
stated that there are a lot of things not being said here in this discussion.
Mark Calore stated that he wanted to stop beating around the bush and that whatever
needs to be stated, state it so that we quit wasting time. Let’s just get to a candid
conversation, be out with it please.
Gavin asked what?
Mark Calore wanted to know what Alfonso meant when he said there are things not being
said.
Gavin referred to a document that he gave to Jack that had not been shared. It was a
document submitted the day prior to the meeting and did not meet the deadline for an
official proposal. He referred to an issue he brought up at the end of last year that never
was discussed and the issue was the role of UPUA and GSA. His topic was that UPUA
10
and GSA would have greater roles around the SAF. Last year they gave UPUA and GSA
budgets instead of addressing this issue.
Mark Calore asked Gavin if he was saying that he wanted UPUA and GSA to have a
controlling role on this board.
Gavin said no, it has nothing to do with the board but looking at the UP campus. He feels
there were topics that were not handled last year and before he leaves he wants it
addressed.
Jack stated that there needs to be some objectives before moving forward.
Mark Calore asked for an example of things that need to be brought up.
Gavin asked if Jack had a copy of what he had sent to him.
Jack did not have a copy available and stated that he did not understand the essence of
what that document stated. He put on the agenda his best interpretation of what that
document was stating. Jack asked Gavin to articulate what he meant and to bring it to a
future subcommittee meeting.
Gavin stated:
1. To affirm the role of UPAC at the UP campus.
2. To look at the overall role of GSA and UPUA as it stands in the allocation
process and with membership on the board.
Gavin stated that at other Big 10 Universities, the role of student governments is to have
a greater influence on the allocation committee. They have direct policy oversight. Our
SAF board is made up of a decentralized group of people; there are only two government
positions on this board.
Nick stated that he didn’t know what he was trying to say and that this board does a very
good job in terms of checks and balances and there is good representation of all the
campuses and other groups. His opinion is that this board works very well and is much
more efficient than it has been in the past. He isn’t against having a discussion about this
but we need to have something specific or a road map for that discussion.
Jay stated that if you are going to do a cross section of UPAC then there also needs to be
discussion about the SAF allocation committees as well.
Gavin didn’t have a problem with this.
Jack asked for someone to move for this to be moved to subcommittee.
Mark Calore stated that a specific recommendation needs to come to the table before we
can discuss this and it really isn’t our role to decide who sits on this board.
11
Roger and Ken both stated that the various groups could have discussions and bring
things that need to be reviewed and/or improved to the subcommittee.
Nick asked if a starting point could be “the role of student government with SAF
Allocation Committees on policy formulation”.
Gavin said yes.
Mark moved that this discussion be referred to subcommittee
Nick seconded the motion
The motion passed unanimously.
Recommendations
Jack will recommend to the President and Vice President for Student Affairs that the
student activity fee tiers for 2010-2011 be set at $64, $74, & $79 per semester.
Adjournment
Nick Borsuk made a motion to adjourn the meeting and a second was made by Mark
Calore.
The meeting adjourned at 5:22 p.m.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Heide Port.
12