STUDENT ACTIVITY FEE BOARD MEETING
Friday, December 2, 2011
3:30 p.m. 111 HUB
Minutes
Attendance:
Board Members:
Andrea Dowhower, Asst. VP for Student Affairs
Pete Khoury, CCSG President
Jon Lozano, GSA President
Kelly Terefenko, UPUA Representative
Rebecca Pennington, Director of Student Affairs, Penn State DuBois
Ryan Kocse, UPAC Chair
TJ Bard, UPUA President via phone
Brian Martinowich, CCSG Representative, Penn State Abington
Marika Merritt, CCSG Representative, Penn State Wilkes Barre
Mary Edgington, Senior Director, Union and Student Activities
Substitutes:
Justin Cortes, CCSG Representative for Catarina Moriera
Absent:
Ron McCarty, Faculty Senate Committee on Student Life, Penn State Erie
Matthew J. Swatchick, Director of Student Affairs, Penn State Schuylkill
Catarina Moriera, CCSG Representative, Penn State Abington
Welcome/Roll Call
Roll call was taken.
Adoption of the Agenda
A motion to accept the agenda was made by Jon Lozano and a second by Mary Edgington. All
were in favor.
Adoption of the Minutes
A motion to approve the minutes from September 16, 2011 was made by Mary Edgington and a
second was made by Jon Lozano. All were in favor.
Announcements by the Chair
Andrea stated that she is working on the grammatical changes in the manual but with the recent
events this has been temporarily put aside. She has a document with tracked changes that she
will share. She is working on just grammatical issues now but there will be some substantive
changes that will need to be addressed in the future.
The January meeting will be very busy with many items that will need to be voted on.
Public Comment (10 – 15 minutes)
There were no comments.
Items to be discussed and voted on
There were no items to be voted on.
Items for introduction and initial discussion only
Student Legal Services – Philip Burlingame and Carolyn Larrabee (see packet sent with agenda)
Andrea shared that three years ago the fee board approved a $2 fee increase at University Park
designated to fund student legal services for a three-year time frame. This is the final year of that
trial period and therefore the need to review and discuss.
Philip Burlingame, the Associate VP for Student Affairs, oversees the Student Legal Services
office. Carolyn Larrabee is the director of Student Legal Services. This office is funded
exclusively by the SAF. Philip stated that additional resources are necessary for increase
services, meet student demand, and keep pace with increasing costs such as salary increases.
This office, with very little advertising, has really taken off, and the office is overwhelmed with
demand. Student Legal Services has added a part-time attorney. The office cannot continue to
operate at this pace and be successful with the current staffing level. Philip and Carolyn are
proposing an increase in their allocation (several options were provided) to add an additional
attorney and for additional office expenses.
Carolyn shared that last year they submitted a similar report to the board. She added that since
the office opened, there have been 1,049 cases. The office has been as full service as they are
able with the current resources. The most frequent issues they assist students with are in order:
summary offenses, landlord/tenant cases, and criminal cases. They currently are not able to go to
Bellefonte to the District Magistrate’s office with the students because of the volume of cases
they are seeing. Carolyn shared additional statistics from her office that appear in the report.
Philip interjected that Carolyn has created an advisory board with various representatives. The
board consists of student representatives from student government, members of the law school
faculty, a local attorney, and Carolyn and Philip. Carolyn has shared with this board that the case
load is incredible. For law students to serve as interns, the experience would have to be certified
and supervised by a faculty member. Because the focus becomes more on the education of the
law students than fulfilling the needs of Penn State students, this model is not viable.
Peter shared that he was around when Student Legal Services was originally proposed. There are
some other fees that students pay when involved with a program, such as BASICS when students
have alcohol-related offenses. Andrea confirmed this. Peter asked if there is a way to increase
those types of fees charged to students to cover these additional costs. Carolyn shared that the
fees being referenced for “Basics” is through the Office of Student Conduct and that additional
fees could pose some ethical challenges.
Philip shared that they are doing some benchmarking with other schools, and there are some fees
for services at other universities. At this time, it would be better not to invoke additional fees for
students. Rebecca asked what other schools charge as a general fee such as the SAF. Carolyn
shared that she attended a session at a conference on legal services at other universities, and most
of those schools are receiving $5 to $7 per student. We are one of the lowest.
Marika stated that it was her understanding that we are only able to increase the fee in dollar
increments. Andrea stated that yes, that is true, but we can recommend a portion of a dollar go to
this office.
Andrea stated that there are four options for increasing the funding to the SLS, starting at 25
cents. Phillip stated that he would recommend a $1 increase to allow for increased staffing to
meet the student demand.
Jon stated that he did some research, and we are woefully small in our legal services for students
in regards to an institution of our size. Carolyn had statistics to support Jon’s statement.
Contact her for additional information if interested.
Rebecca asked if this increase would be for one year or three years. Philip stated that he feels
that this pilot phase should end, and the office should become a permanent entity. He doesn’t
see the need for ending these services or there being a reduction in the case load. With the
increasing international population, adding someone with an immigration background would be
very helpful for the international students.
Marika stated that the Commonwealth Campuses are asking about starting these types of services
at the campuses. They have mainly landlord/tenant issues.
Philip shared that having Carolyn as a staff member has been a helpful addition because she is
able to provide information to the staff from the student point of view and the issues concerning
students. Carolyn’s office has created educational resources such as the landlord tenant module
and brochures. These resources are available to students at the campuses, and we need to do a
better job of getting the materials to the campuses. We need to do a better outreach for the future.
Philip thanked the group for reading the proposal. Andrea stated that we will discuss the proposal
in more depth today and vote in January.
TJ shared that Carolyn came to a UPUA meeting to share information on the Student Legal
Services office, and he is concerned that students are being turned away from the office because
of the case load and the office not having enough staff resources to support student need.
Jon stated that he serves on the advisory board for the office. Someone on the board brought
forth the idea of charging fees, and they are checking on the legality of this because there are
some rules on collecting fees that must be followed. Peter stated that he doesn’t support a new
fee being created, but he wants to look and evaluate other fees and other sources. Andrea stated
that when you add fees, you increase administrative costs to manage that process, and TJ agreed.
Jon stated that with the SA lump sum fee there should still be some sort of mechanism in place
for regular annual review.
Adult Learner subcommittee
Jon mentioned that there is some new language that has been shared with the board to review and
possibly add to the SAF handbook. [When funding events, campuses should consider the balance of
accommodating fee-paying students and possibly accommodating guests. In determining whether to
make an event open to guests, campuses will be mindful of risk management issues, being welcoming to
adult learners and their family members, and other students with varying needs.] There is a line that
talks about UP specific events being opened first to University Park students before any nonSAF paying member being allowed into the event, and they recommend removing this language.
This is a suggestion, and we will vote on this in January. This will give the individual allocating
boards some flexibility on their individual campuses.
Peter felt this was good by allowing the various allocation committees to make their own
decisions.
UPUA and GSA lump sum funding - discussion extended
TJ thanked the board for the extension. Andrea would like to have a meeting before the end of
the semester if possible to discuss.
Post –comp doctoral students
Jon stated that this is a complicated discussion. Earlier in the semester there was a concern
brought to GSA in reference to post-comp doctoral students. Currently post-comp doctoral
students do not pay the SAF. The SAF, however, pays for the childcare subsidy. Because postdoc students do not pay this fee, they are not eligible to receive the childcare subsidies. Andrea
and Jon have looked into the possibility of these students choosing to pay the fees so they are
eligible for the benefits. This is a public service announcement (per Jon) for additional
information for the board.
Post-comp students are registered in a 600 level “class” at a reduced tuition amount. It is a fixed
tuition amount that is much lower than full-time, classroom study but gives them the
classification of full-time status. The university has done this because there is a change in their
status. Some are still on campus while others are off-site doing research etc.
The budget office is not excited about reviewing this process with the potential of adding the
SAF. There will be much work to be done should this move forward. The Bursar is going to
look into this to see the geographical areas of the students registered in this status.
Fee Level Discussion
It is time to start a conversation on the fee level for next year. Andrea looked up the consumer
price index summary and shared two different rates.
Ryan was asked to share the UPAC conversation concerning the international travel policy. This
board had a policy that students could not receive funding for international travel, but in 1998
that was lifted by the SAFB, but UPAC has kept this policy in place. They do not fund travel
outside of the continental United States.
There are many groups that do request this type of funding but are turned away. This year a
group who usually has a conference in the US is having their conference in Puerto Rico, and they
have been denied funding based on the policy. This has sparked many complaints. They have
tried to find the rationale regarding why this was put into place and did not follow the university
change. They found that it was discussed that they could not find the value in traveling out of the
country for enhancing the out-of-class experience on campus. They held a discussion with many
groups recently, and it was a good learning experience and UPAC learned quite a bit. Some
students did speak about other avenues for possible funding for international travel.
The allocation disbursement for travel requests could increase significantly if they lift this ban.
Rebecca stated that they do provide this service at DuBois, but the maximum fee that they will
give to a student is $100 to $150 per student. They are required to fundraise and find other
means of raising money. This has been well received at their campus.
Ryan stated that the rational in 1998 was that international travel does not benefit the better
University community. Someone needs to come up with a better rationale.
Jon wants to clarify - did UPAC vote to keep the policy in place? Ryan stated that it was just a
discussion, not a voting opportunity. Jon said that UPAC usually uses all their funds and making
this change will definitely impact those funds. What does UPAC think about this?
Marika asked why not just open it up to all the US territories.
Ryan thinks a new proposal may be that if it is a conference that they have funded in the past in
the U.S., and now it happens outside of the U.S., they would fund it.
Current levels are: $82, $78, $68. The budget office would prefer to move to two levels in time,
not necessarily this year.
Andrea asked for some conversation from the group.
Jon stated that he did send something to GSA to see what they would like to see for the future
and doesn’t have anything to share at this time. Jon thinks that the board should look at a modest
increase, especially because we need to increase the legal services allotment. A couple of years
ago this fee was increased only for the legal services, nothing more.
TJ asked if we could get a list of how much is allocated to student groups and how much is
denied. Ryan stated that he does have a list in the UPAC office he could share with the board.
Galen stated that the last few years UPAC has been very close to zero funds by the end of the
year. Because the budget office holds fees until the last quarter, they do the last transfer of funds
in May, and since ‘02 or ‘03 there have been no requests turned away because of lack of funds.
From the SAF audit this past year, the controller will be adjusting the permanent allocation of
that transfer of funds late in the year is reduced. Galen stated that they have been asking for
higher projections so that they can obtain their funding earlier. They have had to hold 4% due to
enrollment numbers. The auditor recommended this change. There are some campuses that
historically have to return thousands of dollars because their enrollment numbers change and/or
because of the number of waivers given. UPAC recently found out that their summer money was
short because of lower enrollment.
Pete stated that the 3rd tier was only used for two campuses and having that third tier gave
campuses the option to move up or down as needed. Pete hasn’t heard from anyone with the
campuses on how they feel about an increase for next year.
Marika said that her campus is good. Brian said their campus is good as well. Rebecca stated
that DuBios moved to the higher tier, but they took an enrollment hit by about 100 students so
this change was good for them.
Andrea offered a suggestion based on her past experience that we need to come up with options
to take back to your constituencies. This will help with the discussions. Everyone agreed.
The first option will be that the levels stay the same. Jon shared his idea of an increase of $2 on
each tier to $70, $80 and $84.
Rebecca asked if an option with just two tiers should be added. Jon stated that eliminating a tier
is a bigger discussion than what we are doing today. Andrea stated that they should have a
discussion with those campuses at the lower tier first. Peter said that we should look into the
impact of those two campuses at the lower tier.
There was additional discussion.
Jon asked CCSG to ask the students what they would like. Peter already has.
Peter stated that in relation to uniformity - why not take the upper tier to $85 and keep a $5
increment in the top tier?
Mary suggested changing the tiers to be $5 apart: $75, 80 and 85.
Jon withdrew his first idea in support of this idea.
After much discussion, the following three options were agreed upon for initial conversation.
1. The fees would stay the same
2. $85, $80, $70 UP will divide having $2 go to UPAC and $1 to Legal Services
3. $85, $80, $75 This will provide $5 increments between levels.
Peter will keep Andrea apprised of what he hears from the CCSG constituency.
Marika stated that with the thought of the campuses going with the legal services, this might
change the discussion. Justin and Peter will spearhead this legal services conversation with the
campuses. Andrea stated that this additional piece could be very complicated.
Andrea did a recap for the meeting in January for the board.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
You will have a set of grammatical changes for review and vote;
You will have a lump sum funding manual change to be reviewed and voted on;
You will have an adult learner subcommittee change for review and vote;
You will have fee levels for review and vote;
And you will have the student legal services proposal to review and vote on.
A motion was made by Jon Lozano to adjourn the meeting and 2nd was made by Pete Khoury.