Page |1
MINUTES
Student Activity Fee Board Meeting
Friday, November 12, 2010
111 HUB-Robeson Center
Attendance:
Board Members:
Jack Rayman, Senior Director, Career Services; Chair, Student Activity Fee Board
Careen Yarnal, Faculty Senate Committee on Student Life, Penn State University Park
Matthew J. Swatchick, Director of Student Affairs, Penn State Schuylkill via Polycom
Marika Marrett, CCSG Representative, Wilkes Barre
Mohamed Raouda, CCSG President
Jimmy Baker, CCSG Representative, New Kensington
Paul Ferrera, CCSG Representative, Altoona
Mark Donovan, UPAC Chair
Colleen Smith, UPUA Representative
Jon Lozano, GSA Representative
Ken Miller, Sr. Director of Student & Enrollment Services Rep, Behrend Campus, CCSG via
Polycom
Substitute:
Jay Arcuri for Mary Edgington
Absent:
Mary Edgington, Senior Director, Union and Student Activities
Welcome and Roll Call
Roll call was taken.
Adoption of the Agenda
A motion to accept the agenda was made by Mohamed Raouda and a 2nd by Jon Lozano. All
were in favor.
Adoption of the Minutes
A motion to accept the minutes was made by Mohamed and a 2nd by Jon Lozano. All were in
favor.
Announcements by the Chair
Page |2
Careen Yarnal will represent the Faculty Senate for the remainder of the year until a full time
replacement can be appointed.
A new chair has been appointed for the Board. Andrea Dowhower, Assistant VP for Student
Affairs will serve in this capacity beginning in December.
A decision was made to hold a survey of the campuses to see how the campuses are using the fee
for varsity sports. This was discussed with Andrea Dowhower who stated that they had other
things they wanted to survey the campuses about and it was added to that survey. The survey
was sent out of Andrea Dowhower’s office today.
Jack announced that the committee will become more “GREEN”. All supporting documents for
the board will be sent electronically and not be available at the meeting in paper form.
Public Comments (10 – 15 minutes)
Arthur Smith asked who the survey was sent to and what the questions were. Jack was unable to
answer his question on the questions.
Discussion Items
Item 1 – Proposed Amendments to the Handbook regarding SAF funds for Varsity Sports at
campuses
Mo began the discussion including information from the subcommittee meeting that was held.
The group wanted to clarify section C on page 11 in the latest SAF Handbook which discusses
the areas eligible for funding only at commonwealth campuses. In order to clarify the use of SAF
monies he proposed the following amendment to subsection 1 of this area.
The proposed change is as follows:
Some areas eligible for enhancement are:
1. Recreational athletics
2. Career Services
3. Childcare Services
The second recommendation was Section 5 on page 9 which discusses the issue of Recreation, in
accordance with the discussion during the subcommittee meeting regarding this matter, it was
agreed upon that a simple clarity of the order of the rules was needed to ensure that the SAF
monies were in accordance with the handbook.
The proposed change is as follows:
…Examples of appropriate listings would be”
Page |3
1. Fees for officials
2. Registration fees for tournaments
3. Vehicle charges for traveling teams should count under this category and not under the
travel category
4. Varsity sport teams which may be given start up funding and then limited support for
up to a maximum of three years
Mo made a formal motion to approve the proposed changes to the handbook
A motion to accept the proposal was made by Mohamed and a 2nd by Paul Ferrera.
Ken asked if anything had changed since the subcommittee. Mo said that they are making a
couple changes and added a charge. The charge is as follows:
I would like to formally charge the committee to request that campuses register with the SAF
board chair two things:
1) Any varsity team that is currently being given funds from its campus SAF
Any varsity team that a campus is intending to start and request SAF funds for its startup
A motion was made to vote on the changes. The vote was unanimous to accept the changes.
Item 2 - Discussion of proposed increase for legal services
A proposal was received from Carolyn Larrabee. She is asking for an increase of 2.5% for next
year. Jack stated that this could be discussed today and then suggested moving the topic to a
subcommittee meeting.
Jon stated that he had researched other universities and they have other funding models. He
would like to know if Carolyn has researched other funding models besides the use of SAF
money.
Mark stated that when Legal Services was passed, that this office was approved on a trial basis of
3 years and that it would be reviewed after three years. He felt that the group needs to be
reminded of the initial proposal and vote and that it was approved on the notion of not increasing
the funding for the 3 year trial period. Mo also stated that this proposal did not pass
unanimously and that if we increase the funding it could meet some resistance.
Christian stated that the law school did not come into this plan as was originally proposed. This
board was transitioned in with the knowledge that Legal Services would be funded for 3 years
from the Student Activity Fee funds and that discussion of additional funds would not be
considered until that initial three years was up. Colleen confirmed her understanding of this as
well.
Mark asked what the purpose of having a subcommittee meeting would be since it is apparent
that an increase was unlikely based on the understanding of the original set up of Legal Services.
Page |4
Mo stated that copies of the minutes from these meetings should be made available to the new
board that will be evaluating Legal Services after the initial 3 year trial period so that they can
have complete information prior to making a new decision.
Jon Lozano made a motion to schedule a subcommittee meeting; invite Carolyn Larrabee and a
representative from the Law School. This meeting will be held to discuss the current proposal to
increase funding, the relationship with the Law School and the lack of collaboration between the
two in this endeavor. Minutes will be taken at this meeting and a report will be given to the
board for review.
The motion was seconded by Colleen Smith. All were in favor.
Heide will try to schedule a subcommittee meeting prior to the December meeting.
Item 3 - Discussion of the Fee Increase.
Jack would like to vote on this at the December Meeting.
Ken brought up the fact that the DSA’s don’t meet until December 2nd. He asked that it be
brought up at CCSG Weekend and to send something out so that they can gather some feedback
prior to that meeting. It will be difficult to get good information for the December 3rd meeting.
Jack stated that the board could wait until January if needed. Mo felt that waiting until the
January meeting would work better since they would have time to gather information from the
constituents and others. Ken stated that they could use the time to look further into the next
year’s budget before making that decision. Jack had shared the cost of living information with
the board previously.
Jon has already talked to the GSA assembly and the consensus was that the graduate students are
not in favor of an increase.
Mark stated that there is usually less impact when there is a small increase each year instead of a
larger increase every couple of years.
Ken stated that for every $1 of funding there are $3 in requests. He feels that a modest increase
would be acceptable. Food costs and other expenses keep increasing. He also stated that tuition
has increased each year as well.
Mo stated that with the state of the government that we should make a very conscious effort to
keep this very modest and he feels that the tuition could increase substantially if we lose more
funding.
Jack stated that we could wait until later to make a decision but it isn’t advantageous to wait too
long. He did allow that we could wait until the budget report is received from the governor in
early February to make our decision about a fee increase.
Page |5
Matthew agreed with everything that had been discussed and that a couple dollar increase each
year is the way to go. Jack recommended that everyone go back to their constituents and discuss
this with them and get their comments on this and further discussion will happen in the new year.
Christian stated that there is going to be a student roundtable and they can discuss this and get
their perspectives.
Ken stated that this is great to see everyone and it is good that we have the Polycom and it will
save on travel expenses for them.
A motion to adjourn was made by Mark Donovan and seconded by Ken Miller.