Student Activity Fee Board Meeting
Friday, December 6, 2013
3:30 pm 111 HUB
Minutes
Attendance
Present
Mary Edgington, Senior Director, Union and Student Activities
Jesse Scott, UPAC Chair
Brian Aynardi, Faculty Senate Committee on Student Life
Rich Byers for Katelyn Mullen, UPUA President
Anthony Panichelli, UPUA Representative
Scott Rager, GSA President
Andrea Dowhower, Asst. VP for Student Affairs
Jalon Alexander, CCSG President
Stephen Dzambo, CCSG Representative, Campus Chair, Penn State Fayette
Devin Heckman, CCSG Representative, SGA President, Penn State Berks
Stacy Wanerman, CCSG Representative, SGA President, Penn State Abington
Tracy Garnick, Director of Student Services and Engagement, Penn State Hazleton
Katelyn Mullen, UPUA President
Absent
Theresa Bonk, Director of Student Affairs, Penn State New Kensington
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 Katelyn Mullen. All
were in favor.
Adoption of the minutes
A motion to approve the minutes was made by Katelyn Mullen and seconded by Jess Scott. All
were in favor.
A correction to the minutes will be made on page 4, 3rd section, “UPUA” should be “UPAC.”
Announcements by the Chair
Andrea welcomed the board to the third meeting of 2013/2014.
Public comment
None at this time.
1
Items to be discussed/voted on
Viewpoint Neutrality
Andrea asked for additional discussion regarding the viewpoint neutrality. Jesse stated that this
would be nice to have in the manual.
Recommended addition – Section D, item 5
Viewpoint Neutrality – Based on court decisions, allocating boards must make decisions that are
viewpoint neutral that is decisions that are not based on religious, political, or personal views.
Furthermore, all viewpoints, including those that are controversial, must have an equal chance
of receiving funding. However, it is not required that all groups be funded equally or that
opposite views have to be funded. The same criteria used for other events, such as student
interest and involvement, can be used to determine funding amounts for potentially controversial
programs.
A motion was made by Jesse Scott to approve the language change for the viewpoint neutrality
statement for the SAF Manual. A second was made by Anthony Panicelli. All were in favor.
The above statement will be added to the SAF Manual.
Items to be introduced
UPUA and GSA audit process timeline –
Anthony submitted proposed changes supported by Melanie and Jill who attended subcommittee
meetings with the SAFB members. They have provided some suggestions to adjust the UPUA
and GSA audit process. This is a yearlong audit that will discuss all financial activities. A
suggestion was made to do a “practice/preliminary” audit when the leadership changes. This
will help with understanding the process. A mid-year audit will be administered. Anthony
stated that he did not see the need for any radical changes to be made. Jalon supported the
addition of a calendar to reflect the reporting schedule in a simplified manner. Jesse added that
the previous year’s audit should be provided prior to the first SAFB meeting of the fall semester.
Melanie provided a new template to be used by both UPUA and GSA.
See attached revised proposal. This proposal will be voted on at the next meeting.
Fee levels and tiers –
Jesse walked the group through the chart attached. The chart represented the projection of the
fee level based on the CPI (consumer price index) for the past several years. The SAF Manual
recommends that the fee level should be based on the current CPI and the table shows that the
fee should be increased by $3 to maintain buying power based on the CPI. Jesse shared that this
does not include the increased demand at University Park or the Student Legal Services
requested increase. This is just the CPI projection for all campuses at tier 1. Because the tiers
are so close, the projections would essentially be the same for both tiers.
Scott asked what percentage of the UP SAF goes to UPAC. Jesse stated that approximately 1/3
of the fee is paid to UP student governments, debt repayment, and Student Legal Services, for
example, prior to it being deposited in the UPAC account.
2
Andrea, with the assistance of Tracy and Theresa, sent out an email to the DSAs at the
Commonwealth Campuses requesting information about their thoughts on increasing the SAF on
their campus as well as what future needs might be; 13 of the 19 have responded. Eight
campuses support the increase; 2 were split; and 3 would not support an increase. Two of the
campuses at the lower tier indicated they are considering moving up to the higher tier, and these
campuses would support an increase. The third campus is looking to move to the higher tier in
the next 2 years, and there has been no response from the fourth. More information will be
available for the January meeting.
Stacy from Abington is comfortable with their fee level for allocation, and they still have funds
available, but they would like to see an increase from $87 to $100. Jalon would like to see larger
differences in the tiers. Stacy would like a $10 increase but during Abington’s discussion on the
tiers, they discussed moving to $100. Based on Jesse’s thoughts, if there is an increase in Legal
Services, a $4 increase would be good based on the current CPI. Currently at UP, the number of
requests has been increasing. The requests have increased about 5% based on this time last year,
and standing allocations have increased approximately 5% with UPAC. Of the overall increase,
programming requests have increased by 11%. Programming is increasing at a faster pace than
the past.
Anthony asked if this will protect the “little guy.” Jesse affirmed that there will be funds
available for the smaller groups requesting funds.
Further discussion ensued. As a result of this discussion, Jalon stated that he will speak with the
SGA Presidents to better understand each campuses need for an increase and how they will
substantiate the additional funds.
Andrea stated that we need to leave today with 2 or 3 options to begin the discussions with
constituencies. A discussion ensued on various options including the following (although these
are just examples):
Option 1
Tier 1 = $92
Tier 2 = $87
Option 2
Tier 1 = $93
Tier 2 = $87
Option 3
Tier 1 = $95
Tier 2 = $89
Option 4
Tier 1 = $97
Tier 2 = $90
At this point, Andrea asked for the group to move to discussion on the Student Legal Services
fee separate from the general student activity fee discussion.
Student Legal Services –
Brian began the discussion by stating that he felt that the first two options presented by Philip,
.25 and .50 would not meet the needs of the SLS department. He felt that the .75 option would
meet the needs of the department but that $1 would have a larger impact on students. The
proposal of furthering discussion on lease collaboration with a common lease amongst landlords
in State College would prove to be highly beneficial to our students.
A motion was made by Brian Aynardi to increase the SAF allocation at University Park for
Student Legal Services by $1. A second was made by Anthony Panichelli.
3
A roll call vote was made.
Tracy Garnick –
Theresa Bonk –
Mary Edgington –
Brian Aynardi –
Jalon Alexander –
Steven Dzambo –
Devin Heckman –
Stacy Wanerman –
Katelyn Mullen –
Jesse Scott –
Scott Rager –
Abstain
Absent
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes – 9 No – 0 Abstention – 1
After the vote, the group indicated that they would entertain further discussions with Student
Legal Services on the future funding at this level and how long this increase will suffice.
Fee levels and tiers (cont.) –
With the approval of an increase for Student Legal Services, the committee resumed
conversation about the fee levels. Discussion included some debate over the top tier amount,
interest in learning more about the campuses’ needs, and how to balance the gap between the two
tiers. The group did not land on specific options for consideration but felt that they had enough
information to talk with their various stakeholders and return in January prepared to vote on
recommended tier levels for next year.
Recommendations to the Vice President
No recommendations to the Vice President at this time.
A motion was made by Katelyn Mullen to adjourn the meeting and seconded by Anthony
Panichelli.
4