MINUTES
Student Activity Fee Board Meeting
Friday, December 3, 2010
111 HUB-Robeson Center
Attendance:
Board Members:
Jack Rayman, Senior Director, Career Services; Chair, Student Activity Fee Board
Mary Edgington, Senior Director, Union and Student Activities
Andrea Dowhower, Asst. VP for Student Affairs
Careen Yarnal, Faculty Senate Committee on Student Life, Penn State University Park
Marika Merritt, CCSG Representative, Wilkes Barre
Mohamed Raouda, CCSG President
Jimmy Baker, CCSG Representative, New Kensington via Polycom
Paul Ferrera, CCSG Representative, Altoona
Jon Lozano, GSA Representative
Substitute:
Kelly Terefenko for Colleen Smith, UPUA Representative
Malcolm Pascotti for Mark Donovan, UPAC Chair
Absent:
Matthew J. Swatchick, Director of Student Affairs, Penn State Schuylkill via Polycom
Ken Miller, Sr. Director of Student & Enrollment Services Rep, Behrend Campus
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 Christian Ragland.
All were in favor.
Adoption of the Minutes
A motion to accept the minutes was made by Jon Lozano and a 2nd by Paul Ferrera. All were in
favor.
Announcements by the Chair
Andrea Dowhower was introduced as the new Chair of the SAF Board. She will begin her
tenure at the January meeting. The group went around the room and introduced themselves and
the groups they are representing.
This will be Jack’s last SAF Board meeting. He will begin his retirement very soon. Thanks to
Jack for all he has done while serving the board.
All documents are available on the web. We are going GREEN so please read the documents
prior to the meeting and bring whatever you might need for the meetings.
Jack handed out a sheet on the CIC Student Fee Survey from Academic Year 2010-2011 for
everyone to review.
Philip Burlingame will be joining the meeting at 4 p.m.
Public Comments (10 – 15 minutes)
No comments from the gallery.
Discussion Items
Item 1 - Use of Student Activity Fees for fundraising at the campuses (Mohamed)
Mo asked everyone to turn to page 13 of the handout; Section D subsection 5. “No person or
sponsoring organization may make a profit from a SAF sponsored event. With the approval
from the sponsoring organization a group may sell a commodity or fund raise at a SAF
sponsored event.” Referring to use of “a profit”, Mo asked does this apply to orgs and,
newspapers and magazines that they may advertise in – does that count as fundraising?
Jay stated that no SAF funds can be used towards a fundraising event. The example given was
Thon.
Mo would like to explore this further to see about holding events specifically for fundraising.
Jack asked if this was brought up because of a specific event and Mo stated it was and someone
asked if this could be discussed at the board. Mo would like to provide some clarity on this topic
and some openness for the organizations.
Jay shared that, for example, if an event is SAF funded and a group charges an admission to the
event and make a profit, that funds raised above the cost of the event are returned to the UPAC
funds. Once the UPAC funds are reimbursed, THEN anything leftover would be their profit.
Galen Chelko shared that at UP if the primary purpose of the event was to fundraise - then no
UPAC money could be used. Galen shared an example. Galen suggested looking at the total
expenses and then anything over and above the initial expenses must be paid back to UPAC and
then anything left over after reimbursement can be used as profit for the organization.
Mo asked about advertising in different magazines that are funded by UPAC funds. They should
not be used to make a profit. Mo said if you get $10,000 and you need more can you then sell
advertising to recoup the extra costs.
Andrea reminded the group that there is a difference between fund raising and making a profit.
Discussion took place on whether to move this to a subcommittee meeting and a motion was
made by Mo to move to a subcommittee for review and a second by Christian. The vote was
unanimous to send this issue to subcommittee. Mo will chair this committee. Jack suggested
that this should be scheduled after the New Year with Heide. Jack recommended that people talk
to their constituencies so that their views can be shared at the subcommittee meeting.
Item 2 - Ongoing discussion of the fee increase for next year -(Reports for constituents)
Christian talked with UPUA and they felt that if there is no need to increase the fee then don’t.
Christian did provide two arguments to UPUA and they still felt that if it wasn’t necessary then
don’t increase it.
Mo will talk to the DSA’s at the President’s meeting that is upcoming to see if they feel that the
UPAC funding at the campuses is adequate. He felt that we should wait until the Governor’s
report is released before making a decision. Mo made a motion to table the fee level discussion
until March. The group felt that this would be too late. Jon offered a friendly amendment to
table the fee level decision just until the next meeting.
Mo moved that this topic be tabled until the next meeting and his motion was seconded by Jon.
The board voted unanimously to table the fee increase decision until the next meeting.
Item 3 - Dr. Burlingame joined the meeting to answer questions about Student Legal Services.
Philip made some introductory comments. The Office of Student Legal Services is an office that
is administered by Student Affairs with SAF Funds. Carolyn isn’t here today because she has an
ill child. One of the questions that he has been hearing is “what is the relationship between the
Office of Legal Services and the Law School?” We are beginning the second year of a three
year project supported by a $2 SAF fee increase specifically earmarked for this project. The
board was provided with a proposal from Carolyn for a minimal increase of $0.25 per semester.
The request was made that if the SAF fee is increased by $1 that .25 of that increase would go
towards Legal Services. This office has currently utilized all its funds. There is a part-time
professional working in the office and increasing the resources would increase the hours for that
person could work and also it would allow them to update a computer program that has been
provided by the Library.
In reference to the Law School issue – it was hoped that the Dean of the Law School would
provide interns to assist in this office. To do this the Legal Interns would need to be certified to
assist in this office. Under Pennsylvania law, only the Dean can make a decision to do this. For
this to happen, the Legal Services Office would have to be run as a clinic managed by faculty of
the Law School, and the law students would be able to choose which cases they would want to
take. So, the work of the office would be driven not by student need but by the educational
interests and needs of the law students. There currently are two legal students working in the
office but they are not certified to process cases but are gaining valuable experience learning the
legal documentation and other goings on in the office. Legal Services is not run by faculty of the
Law School and so there is now no formalized connection with the Law School.
Jon asked if other avenues for funding have been explored. Philip said that there are some fees
in place for things that go over and above normal legal dealings and in the future this could be
one area that could generate profit. Litigation fees could be used to recoup legal services fees.
Student Affairs is definitely providing a lot of support to this office. They are providing space
and infrastructure and beginning in March they will be providing University benefits to the
employees. This has been a very successful service to students and the feedback has been good.
Jon asked if they could get a list of what types of cases have been processed through the office.
This is an appendix to the proposal given by Carolyn Larrabee. Jack will forward it
electronically to the board. It was initially provided before the last meeting.
Mo stated that originally when this was proposed it was stated that it was on a trial basis for three
years, and it would be reviewed after the three years to determine its viability. Philip stated that
the office will not cease to operate if this increase in fees isn’t approved. But, this is a very good
time to come to the board because the office is being used. He agreed that after three years a
formal review should and will be done. He also stated that the office hasn’t been marketed yet to
the student body, and it is already functioning at full capacity. Increasing the fee will help to
provide additional legal service for students. There is value in doing this incrementally instead
of jumping the fee all at once especially after three years. Increasing the Student Activity fee by
an additional $0.25 will provide more resources to support additional part-time staffing and that
would be very beneficial to students.
Jon asked if there will be a marketing push. Philip stated that to do that would not be beneficial
to the Office of Legal Services because they are stretched to their limit at this point.
Mark Cannon asked where the $19,000 figure came from based on an increase of only $0.25.
Philip said that this also includes money collected during the summer sessions.
Mo asked if UPUA is looking ahead to after three years. Christian stated that yes, he and
Colleen are planning to set up a committee to begin looking at this prior to the end of the three
years. Colleen will also talk with other schools about how they monitor their legal services
offices as well.
Philip is looking to create an advisory board to look at the Office of Legal Services and to dig in
and provide feedback to the advisory board, SAF Board and the Office of Legal Services.
Mo felt that if the board approves this increase for these extra hours and the need keeps
increasing that the SAF cannot continue to keep increasing the to accommodate increased need
for Legal Services. What would the next step be for additional funding? Christian asked that if
there isn’t going to be a relationship with the Law School because it isn’t going to be handled as
a clinic where would additional funds come from? Mo felt that creating an advisory board would
help to look ahead at future funding and alternative ways to fund this office. Philip stated that
they are currently benchmarking with other schools to identify ways they have created
alternative funding for their Legal Services Offices. Carolyn went to a conference recently and
brought back some very good information from other colleagues.
Jack stated that this discussion needs to be handled by UPUA since that is the group that pushed
for this initiative to get started. Philip handed out cards and asked students who want to join his
Student Legal Services advisory board to contact him.
Jack brought the conversation back to his handout on the CIC Student Fee Survey and made a
point to show that we have the highest tuition of any public Big-Ten Institution.
Item 4 - Presentation of survey results: Use of SAF at the Campuses
Andrea discussed the survey that was sent out with questions from various areas including our
question about the use of SAF for the support of athletics. She has heard from 17 campuses.
Andrea reviewed the information from the campuses with the board. There are two campuses
that should be reviewed due to some costs being incurred.
Mo asked if they could receive these reports yearly, and Jack stated that it really isn’t up to this
board to enforce this. He feels that is up to the Vice President’s office to monitor this. Andrea
asked if this should be monitored by the DSA’s. Mo asked for a copy of this and Jack stated that
he already had been sent the document. Andrea stated that in the case of some campuses they
probably don’t have $15,000 to hire an athletic Trainer but they can’t have the events without it
and that could be the reason that they are still using the funds.
Paul asked who was enforcing the policy. Jack said the board at the campuses should be doing
this. He feels that they do a good job at this currently, and we really don’t have any issues with
this. Jack stated that the DSA’s will ask questions if they aren’t sure of something and they
discuss these issues with Jay to interpret the policy.
Jack asked if this should be looked into further. Mo asked if a subcommittee should be set up to
review this and enforce these policies. Jack felt that it should come from the Vice President’s
office or from Jay’s office to review these and not this board.
Mo also wanted to know about if setting up a subcommittee to enforce the violators should be
done. Jay reminded the board that all campuses follow the same policy. Jon asked how
violations are handled currently at UP. Jay stated that UPAC reviews the organizations and
Galen, Jay, Melanie and Mary review UPAC policy. The Presidents and DSA’s do this same
thing at the campuses with input from Jay on the interpretation of policy if needed. Mary stated
that it is not the boards purpose to enforce this. Andrea stated that the charge to this group is to
create policy not to enforce it.
Andrea also added that it would not be good to have UP monitoring the Commonwealth
Campuses. It creates an atmosphere that is not amicable between the campuses. Marika felt the
same. Jay suggested that may be this needs to be added into the policy and that he and Andrea
can discuss this with Damon Sims on how they would like to handle this for the future. Jack
stated that issues don’t come up often but it can be reviewed.
Marika stated that it can be difficult at the campuses because there is different interpretation
from the DSA’s and the presidents on their boards. Clarification might need to be provided.
There was no other business to be discussed.
A motion to adjourn was made at 4:50 p.m.by Mary Edgington and a second by Jon Lozano. All
were in favor.
Minutes respectfully provided by Heide Port.