Student Activity Fee Board Meeting
Friday, January 25, 2013
3:30 pm 111 HUB
Minutes
Attendance
Board Members
Andrea Dowhower, Asst. VP for Student Affairs
Rebecca Pennington, Director of Student Affairs, Penn State DuBois by phone
Ron McCarty, Faculty Senate Committee on Student Life, Penn State Erie via by phone
Mary Edgington, Senior Director, Union and Student Activities
Tracy Garnick, Director of Student Services and Engagement, Penn State Hazelton by phone
Ben Clark, CCSG President
Ryan Steele, CCSG Representative, Penn State Abington by phone
John Shaffer, CCSG Representative, Penn State Mont Alto by phone
Jesse Scott, UPAC Chair
Courtney Lennartz, UPUA President
Spencer Malloy, UPUA Representative
Wanika Fisher, GSA President
Chandra Ulinfun, CCSG Representative
Welcome/Roll Call
Roll call was taken.
Adoption of the agenda
A motion to accept the agenda was made by Jesse Scott and seconded by Wanika Fisher. All
were in favor.
Adoption of the minutes
A motion to approve the minutes was made by Mary Edgington and seconded by Jesse Scott.
All were in favor.
Announcements by the Chair
Andrea asked that all cell phones be put away during the meeting or place them in the middle of
the table. Andrea stated that there is a full agenda, and the board needs to stay on task to keep the
meeting moving forward and on schedule.
Public comment
Paul Ferrera, from University Park, , addressed the SAF board on the proposed funding for
CCSG. He believes that the CCSG budget needs to be addressed; however, he does not think the
answer is to fund it through the UP student activity fee. As a former commonwealth leader, he
asked that the board not take the easy way out. This is a difficult budget to fund and a difficult
decision to make. The right thing is not always the easy way, and he asked that all the board
members hold up the integrity of the organization and vote against the proposed amendment.
1
Items to be discussed/voted on
CCSG funding proposal
Ben presented the CCSG funding proposal that included a three-pronged model using general
administrative funds, University Park SAF funds, and Commonwealth Campus funds (to be
determined by the campus but SAF could be used). He explained that there have been three
subcommittee meetings to discuss this proposal, and the proposal changed after each meeting.
The total request in the present proposal from University Park SAF is $14,800.00. Each year the
funds could be used for different things depending on the current leadership’s goals. CCSG
would be audited as UPUA and GSA are currently to prevent any misuse of these funds.
A motion was made to approve the proposal by Ryan Steele and seconded by John Shaffer.
Discussion ensued. Jesse asked where the $2,000 went from the original proposal. Ben stated
that they reduced the amount from the retreat section to abide by UPAC restrictions. Any
additional money would be returned to the University Park SAF and the Commonwealth
Campuses SAF. CCSG would be audited annually. Andrea stated that a Show Cause budget for
CCSG would be required as is presently required for UPUA and GSA. Money coming from
University Park will be used for Central Staff at UP. he money coming from the campuses
would be used for items that would directly benefit the campuses. Rebecca stated that this has
been an issue that has caused some angst with students at the campuses, and this group has been
as fair as can be. This proposal will give flexibly within the budget as long as the intentions are
put forth in the right way. Campus money is used on campus programs. UP money spent to
benefit the students who paid that fee would stay at UP and then the contribution from Damon
and Madlyn would be used for other projects. She believes that this committee is upholding the
integrity of the fee.
Wanika stated that she agrees with Rebecca and appreciates the time and effort put forth into this
proposal, but she is against the third prong of financing coming from the administration. There
hasn’t been a precedent for all three organizations of asking and receiving money from Student
Affairs. She believes a conversation needs to happen to discuss the administrative funds being
used for student governments as well. She doesn’t believe it should happen on this board. She is
also against the proportion being proposed for use by CCSG of the SAF funds.
Andrea clarified that the administrative portion of this money is not just from Student Affairs but
it is split with Madlyn Hanes’s office and Student Affairs. Madlyn has been contributing ½ of
the CCSG funds. As for the SAF, there are a lot of students who get more from the SAF than
they contribute to it. If you take one trip, a club or organization can receive up to $7500. That is
more than what they will pay into the SAF the entire time they are here on campus.
Jesse stated that as an individual student one can receive $500 for travel per academic year.
Ben clarified that campuses are paying .441% and Jesse calculated this at .24 with 17,000
students. So it will be less with this new proposal.
2
Courtney stated that the proportions don’t add up for her. When you have $20,000 coming from
the campuses and you are representing 35,000 – 40,000 students and then ask for $14,000 from
University Park and you are only representing 25 students. These proportions don’t add up for
her. Spencer stated that this raises the question that a large percentage of the CCSG budget is
based off SAF funding at UP and CCSG doesn’t work on behalf of UP students as they do for
the students at the campuses. It makes UP students uncomfortable with this proposal.
John stated that although CCSG isn’t designed to represent UP students some of their legislation
that is passed does benefit all students whether they go to UP or a Commonwealth Campus. By
having this money, it will make the student leaders more effective leaders in creating and passing
legislation that will benefit everyone.
Rebecca asked if someone had a proposal that would make sense to the University Park students.
Courtney would propose a larger amount to come from the campuses instead from the UP SAF.
It is a lot of money for a small number of students from UP that makes other UP students
uncomfortable. Spencer doesn’t agree with UP funds being a prong of the funding model at all.
Jesse stated that he has a unique view and that equal access is an essential part of the student
activity fee. The current structure of CCSG is that it is handled as a registered student
organization at University Park. This puts them in a questionable position; these are students
who are at UP and they pay the fee and have no way to directly access the fee as part of their
organization. Currently those students pay into the UP SA fee and are precluded from having any
access to the funds. He read the PURPOSE of the fee from the SAF handbook. The first bullet
discusses campuses and lump sum funding for CCSG. The premise is “to enhance the cocurricular environment for students at the university.” This broad overarching idea has been lost
in the discussion.
Andrea stated that this statement was added when lump sum funding guidelines were added to
the manual. The manual does not specify where the money for CCSG is supposed to come from.
Spencer stated that he and Courtney are uncomfortable voting either way on this proposal
because there are still questions about the previous incarnation of the CCSG funding model.
They are concerned with the shift in dynamic that was approved by the board and not put into
place and questions the validity of what is being done. What will the next thing be that is placed
in the handbook that isn’t enforced? He stated that he wants the objections made to be noted.
Andrea stated that, in hindsight, the original lump sum funding proposal for CCSG should not
have been placed in the manual until it was approved by Damon. That proposal that went to
Damon is different because we are talking about a different resource base for CCSG than what is
used for UPUA and GSA’s lump sum funding and the proposal was not fully vetted with all the
stakeholders.
Ben stated that when the language comes out, this proposal for funding will be for a two-year
pilot and will be reviewed again as was the UPUA and GSA budgets. Any money not used will
be placed back into the appropriate SAF funds.
3
Andrea stated that there was more dialog in this meeting than at the previous subcommittee
meetings. At this meeting, there should have been a little discussion, and a vote because these
conversations should have happened at the subcommittee meetings. That is what the
subcommittee meetings were created for, and future subcommittee meetings need to be used in
that fashion.
Andrea asked for someone to call the question. Ben Clark called the question, and a second was
made by Jesse Scott.
A roll call vote was taken.
Ben – Y
Ron – Y
Chandra – Y
Mary – N
Rebecca – Y
Ryan – Y
Jesse – Y
Wanika – Abstention
John – Y
Spencer – N
Tracy – Y
Courtney – N
Voting on CCSG proposal
8 yes’s
3 no’s
1 abstention
Fee levels/tiers
Most of the legwork for this topic was done at the last meeting. As of the last meeting, the board
discussed a $2 increase for levels 1 and 2 and the elimination of tier 3. This was laid out for you
to discuss with your constituencies, and you were all to come back with another proposal or to
vote on this proposal.
Spencer asked if the two items could be separated, and Andrea stated yes.
A motion was made to eliminate tier 3 by Spencer Malloy and seconded by Mary Edgington.
A roll call vote was taken.
Tracy – Y
Ron – Y
Jesse – abstention
Chandra – abstention
4
Mary – Y
Courtney – Y
Rebecca – Y
Ben – N
John – Y
Ryan – N
Spencer – Y
Wanika – Y
8–Y
2–N
2 - abstentions
Discussion ensued about the fee levels for tiers 1 and 2. Ryan stated that he is comfortable with
the $2 increase. Jesse stated that he spoke with the leadership of UPAC, and they felt that a $2 or
$3 increase will be sufficient to continue funding at the current capacity and should not impact
immediate future requests.
A motion was made to increase tier 1 by $2 and tier 2 by $2 by Spencer Malloy and seconded by
Wanika Fisher.
A roll call vote was taken.
Ben – Y
Ryan – Y
Mary – Y
Chandra – Y
Courtney – Y
Spencer – Y
Ron – Y
John – Y
Tracy – Y
Wanika – Y
Rebecca – Y
Jesse – Y
12 Yes’s
The proposal will be submitted to Damon to eliminate the third tier and to increase tier 1 to $87
and tier 2 to $84.
Student Legal Services
Everyone should have received a 70 page report by Student Legal Services. This is the annual
report provided by Carolyn Larrabee. Please let Andrea know if you would like Carolyn to attend
the March meeting to discuss this report.
5
Wanika asked if a shorter version of this was available. She would like to share a shorter version
with her executive board. Andrea will ask Carolyn if an executive summary is available.
COMMITTEE UPDATES Appeals process – There is no update at this time.
Contribution to SAF to use funds –
The committee met and is still working on finalizing a process that would allow students to
travel in the summer and ensure that they are utilizing the fee that they pay into. This process
will make it consistent with how the Commonwealth Campuses are handling similar situations
already on their respective campuses.
GSA and UPUA mid-year audit report –
Jill stated that GSA did a phenomenal job on how the report was organized. This made it easier
to review the transaction report. Their audit is complete. Jill received UPUA’s documents this
week and will complete the audit in the next week or so.
Wanika asked to add the following to the record. Thanks to Brad Sottile, GSA Treasurer, for his
hard work on this report.
Andrea asked if there were any improvements needed for this report. Jill stated that the timing
isn’t the best for her area.
Andrea stated that a midyear review process was in response to University audit. The timeframe
for the mid-year review was to find potential problems and correct them prior to the end of the
semester. For these organizations, there are officer changes and graduation which make students
unavailable for questioning if something arises. Andrea asked if there were any suggestions for a
potential change of date for the process. Wanika discussed that GSA would like to see this
process happen sooner in the year. Jay suggested December 1st and Melanie suggested before
Thanksgiving break. GSA and UPUA will talk to their members to see if this would be more
beneficial for them. We will add this to the March agenda to discuss further. Mary stated that
most of UPUA’s activity is later in the semester, not during the July-September time frame so
moving the audit to Thanksgiving will only show 3 months of activity. This will be kept in mind
as the date of this mid-year audit is reviewed.
SAFB membership –
This sub-committee was created to discuss SAFB membership. Spencer or Courtney will contact
Heide to set up a doodle schedule for the board to schedule the first meeting of this
subcommittee.
Jesse asked about Andrea’s position on the board. She stated that she is Damon’s designee for
the board. He asked if there were any other issues that impact the board other than what is stated
in the manual. Andrea wasn’t aware of any and if there are, please feel free to review the
historical data found on the web page.
6
Additional topics for discussion
Wanika asked if Damon Sims receives the board’s comments with the proposals. Wanika will
memo him her specific information. Andrea stated that he is aware of the background of these
proposals and the minutes are available to him if he wants them.
A motion was made by Jesse Scott to adjourn the meeting and seconded by Wanika Fisher.
Meeting ended at 4:26 pm.
7