Student Activity Fee Board Meeting
Friday, October 10, 2014
3:30 pm 111 HUB
Minutes
Attendance
Present
Mary Edgington, Senior Director, Union and Student Activities
Justin Molitoris, UPAC Chair
John Wortman, UPUA Representative
Danielle Rhubart, GPSA President (via phone)
Andrea Dowhower, Asst. VP for Student Affairs
John Shaffer, CCSG President
Devin Heckman, CCSG Representative, SGA President, Penn State Berks
Stacy Wanerman, CCSG Representative, SGA President, Penn State Abington
Anand Ganjam, UPUA President
Patrick Tanner, Student Services Manager, York (via Polycom)
Theresa Bonk, Director of Student Affairs, New Kensington
Absent
Austin Fink, CCSG Representative
Rosemary Owoc, Faculty Senate Committee on Student Life
Welcome/Roll Call
Roll call was taken.
Adoption of the agenda
A motion to accept the agenda was made by Mary Edgington and seconded by John Wortman.
All were in favor.
Adoption of the minutes (April 25, 2014)
A motion to approve the minutes was made by John Shaffer and seconded by John Wortman.
All were in favor.
Announcements by the Chair
Andrea thanked everyone who participated in the subcommittee meetings. There were two of
those meetings with good discussion. Special thanks to John W. for keeping things moving.
Public comment
None at this time.
Items to be discussed/voted on
Proposed manual change for the tier process –
1
Andrea stated that at the subcommittee meetings it was agreed that this new proposal would be
implemented on a trial basis. After the trial, it would be decided whether to make the
appropriate change to the manual or not. John shared the background to the proposal. As stated,
the board is bound to a 2-tier process at this time. At the end of this year, the board will make an
amendment to be added to the manual if it works well.
John Wortman summarized the proposal. UPUA, UPAC and GPSA will meet and agree upon a
tier to be set for University Park. This will be voted on separately by the entire board for UP
only. CCSG will also discuss a tier(s) that will work for the campuses and then each campus will
choose which tier they would adopt for their respective campus for the following year. There
would be two separate discussions and two separate votes.
UPUA has agreed to this idea and created and passed a resolution in support of this proposal at
the last UPUA General Assembly meeting. The Vice President of Student Affairs has initially
conveyed his support of this idea.
Discussion ensued.
Danielle Rhubart asked how the Finance Office has responded to this discussion. Andrea stated
that they are reluctant to have a third tier but are supportive of the board. Andrea stated that the
board spends a lot of time discussing $3 - $5 changes. Andrea stated that she has not heard of
discomfort with the proposal from the campuses. The campuses like to have choices. This is
important to them.
John Wortman made a motion for the SAF Board for the 14/15 year to pilot the following
proposal.
Section III. SAF Tiers and Summer Fees
Part A. Tiers
The University will hold a maximum of two tiers, or fee levels. When voting on one of the two
tiers, the SAFB will solely consider the needs of the University Park campus. With regards to
the other tier, the SAFB will solely consider the needs of the Commonwealth campuses. Each
year, every Commonwealth campus will select either tier that is most appropriate to their
campus. If a summer fee is collected, the amount of the fee is prorated.
In the case of a discrepancy between the SAFB Student Representatives from the University
Park campus, each University Park Representative may come forth to the full board with a fee
level proposal and the full board will vote on the proposal they feel is best fitting for the needs
of the University Park campus.
This SAFB shall abide by this policy in practice for the 2014-2015 academic year, pending a
motion of consent by the full board during the October 2014 SAFB meeting. This proposal
shall be submitted to the Vice President of Student Affairs and the University Budget office for
consideration to amend the SAFB Handbook, pending a vote by the SAFB in the January
2015 meeting.
2
A second was made by Anand Ganjam.
Additional discussion ensued. The three UP organizations need to meet and come to a consensus
before the Commonwealth campuses can make a decision.
All were in favor.
Items to be introduced
Fee Levels –
Andrea stated that the board needs to get some answers prior to moving forward on a decision
for the fee levels for next year. Questions to ask:
1. What are the needs?
2. What is the CPI?
3. Legal Services? They will present a report for the past year. That office received an
increase this past year and do not intend to ask for another increase this year.
John W. would like the following information so he can make an informed decision. He would
like the CPI, the UPAC projected budget, information about the discussions last year, and how
did last year’s increase fall within the CPI. Justin stated that the breakdown of the fee makes a
difference at UP because a part of the fee goes to different sources.
For the Commonwealth Campuses, questions to ask your constituencies:
1. Are you running out of funds?
2. Do you favor an increase?
3. Will you move up a level?
John S. stated that they have not heard of an overage of money for this year. He is hearing more
that they are running out of money.
Danielle asked if projections of enrollments would be available for the discussions. Andrea
stated that it is too early for that information. That information is usually available at the end of
the spring semester. Patrick stated that enrollment is an issue at most campuses.
What is the process now? Go back and talk to your groups and constituents. Gather information
and come back to the November meeting ready to discuss. The final decision will be made in
January.
Handbook changes
There are several things that need to be reviewed in the handbook, some are housekeeping
changes, some need to go to the campuses for discussion, and some need to be discussed in
subcommittee. The board can look at things separately or all together. There is time to discuss
these as most changes in the handbook occur over the summer.
John W. stated that he will bring a proposal to the board to move the board to an all-student
board with the exception of the chair (who only votes in the case of a tie); others would serve as
3
ex officio members. Anand stated that this board would work in the same fashion as the current
Facilities Fee Board. John W. added that the Facilities Fee Board is a good example where only
the students vote on the recommendations but the administration has important information to
offer prior to any voted recommendations. Andrea suggested moving this to a subcommittee for
further discussion.
A motion was made by John Wortman to create a subcommittee to discuss the SAF Board
membership and composition. Anand Ganjam seconded the motion. Devin Heckman and John
Shaffer abstained.
Andrea stated that careful consideration should be made in regards to the Faculty Senate position
on the board. The last two appointees have been students but have also been faculty members in
previous years .
John Shaffer opened discussion on subsection C on page 13, Areas Eligible for Funding Only at
Commonwealth Campuses – wages of professional staff. He feels we need to define this further
and feels this should be a nonfundable option.
John W. stated that it would be hypocritical not to allow it at the campuses but allow it at UP.
John W. referenced the Legal Services office for UP. Andrea stated that governance at the
campuses is different than at UP but may be fundamentally necessary. John W. stated that he did
not want to have double standards for the campuses.
Theresa suggested some clarification, and some good questions should be asked at the campuses.
Data should be gathered to identify who is paying staff, for what positions and for how long.
Andrea stated that this should be new, up to date data and not data used in the past. John S.
stated that he has contention with folks who are paid with SAF money year after year. Danielle
suggested talking with administration on this issue because these positions may be to enrich the
student experience. Theresa added that some services are necessary for the student experience
and there are no other funding sources available for these services. Some of these positions were
created because of student driven efforts and were approved through SAF.
A motion was made by John Shaffer to create a subcommittee to discuss wage based positions at
the campuses. A second was made by John Wortman. Devon Heckman abstained.
Anand began discussion on creating a rolling budget for the groups with student government
standing allocations. He would like to see some rollover from fiscal year to fiscal year of the
leftover funds instead of returning them to UPAC. Melanie Bernier will have to look into this
from the auditing and University perspective. John W. gave the example of a vote made in May
for a project for the upcoming year and that it couldn’t be funded due to the timing of the event.
Danielle stated that the money is paid in the current year by the current students for events they
would be participatory in and this would not occur if a rollover was placed into effect. Andrea
suggested discussing institutionally before moving to a subcommittee.
Andrea brought a few other manual changes to the board:
4





Page 8, Summer Fees – This section needs some better articulation for the campuses.
Currently, the summer fee is 75% of the tier level chosen.
CCSG Funding section.
Dates should be added to the section discussing the 3 year rotation for standing
allocations for the governments and change the language that states that CCSG cannot go
to the fee board for funding (Lump-Sum Allocations, page 8-9.)
Page 10 – Facilities – Student Activity Fee section regarding facilities needs to be
cleaned up.
The language needs to be cleaned up in the statement that funding cannot be used for
academic purposes. There are different interpretations on this language and clarification
is needed to avoid ambiguity.
Other discussion
None at this time.
A motion was made by John Shaffer to adjourn the meeting and seconded by Patrick Tanner. All
were in favor.
5