USS Scholarship Committee Meeting
January 6, 2012
6:00 PM
Present: Jeffrey Aikens (JA), Muhammad Arshad (MA), Samantha Campbell (SC), Anne Donlon (AD),
Sandra-May Flowers (SMF), Tricia Klarren (TK), Kafui Kouakou (guest, KK), Fernando Araujo
(guest, FA)
1. USS Chairperson Remarks
 KK made remarks; no one was taking minutes.
At this point AD was asked to take minutes.
2. Scholarship Committee Co Chairs Remarks
o None
3. Goals for the Year
o New Scholarships if any
 Discussion for new projects. JA suggests there be a scholarship for graduate
students, perhaps with a 3.2 GPA, one per campus, similar to merit
scholarship, $500-1000
 SC suggests that having separate scholarships for graduate and
undergraduate might be fairer to undergraduates
 JA will draft something and circulate it to the committee by email.
 SMF brought a handout with some ideas.
 SC asks whether graduating students would be eligible. KK
responded that it had been a question previously, and it would be up
to the committee to decide going forward.
 AD raises some questions about the logistics of a graduate student
scholarship, since some campuses don’t have any graduate programs.
She also raises the question of whether student fees, collected from
all students, should be used to fund scholarships for a few students,
and reports that at the Graduate Center student fee money no longer
funds the travel and research awards.
 New scholarships will be voted on at plenary, then it will be sent to
COSA.
 MA asks about undocumented students' eligibility. KK responds that
the committee would have to decide how to navigate concerns about
the information required and payment.
o Current Scholarship Package
 AD asks about selection procedure. KK explains that in the past
Student Development at each school selected qualified applicants,
and then the USS body validated the choices.
 AD suggests that student fees should be controlled by students, and
students should have more control over the selection process. KK
points out that time could be an issue, and asks whether this
committee would want to go through all of the applications. He
suggests one option would be to ask Student Development for
multiple nominations per campus. AD asks if student government on
each campus could be involved. There is some discussion of the
variety of scholarship committees and scholarship offices on different













campuses. SMF says students should control the selection.
FA arrives. FA explains that student life directors selected students in
the past, to avoid favoritism from within the USS Scholarship
Committee. He says the question is how to implement an objective,
transparent process. FA suggests the committee talk to Sharmaine. He
reports that in the past there were concerns about student life
directors selecting the scholarship recipients, but recommends that
there be someone that's not a student involved in the selection
process. SC points out that the application states that the selection
committees should include students on each campus. FA suggests that
the committee try to get student government involved on each
campus. When the committee meets, they can submit the minutes to
the committee.
KK suggests that the student development selection committee can
send more than three candidates. FA encourages the committee
outline a timeline with Sharmaine, since she is the contact person
with the student development on the campuses. FA clarifies that any
changes to the packet will have to be approved by Vice Chancellor
Sanchez.
There is some discussion of the timeline. The committee will select
the recipients for the spring. The timeline of distributing the packet
by the first week of February, applications are due to Student
Development-led committee by April, they review in April, and then
their recommendations are submitted to the Scholarship Committee.
JA suggests that we come to some consensus on how the scholarship
is advertised. There is some discussion of a flier, and what logos it
might need.
KK suggests that the timeline is moved back one week for each
deadline, so that there's some flexibility.
JA proposes February 1st; March 15th for the application deadline;
Student Development submits four applicants per campus by April
16; May 16 is the Scholarship Committee's deadline for selecting
candidates.
TK arrives.
There is a question of how the review process would work within this
committee.
AD suggests the committee do some fact finding to see how other
institutions operate.
SMF expresses some concern about bias, and there is a consensus that
students on the scholarship committee should not evaluate students
from their own campus.
JA suggests a point system based on each set of criteria, each
evaluator's points would be averaged for each candidate, and then
ranked.
TK suggests the committee do some homework to see how other
scholarships selection process.
JA suggests that before the next plenary we should meet to be ready
to advertise the scholarship and have an idea of how the selection
process will work.
 MA says that he will be promoting the scholarships at tabling at City
College.
 KK says once the flier is ready, he will ask the Vice Chancellor to
send it on to Student Development on the campuses.
 The committee decides to meet January 18 at 4pm. For the next
meeting, the committee will read the packet to prepare and will bring
suggestions for guidelines for reviewing the applications. The flier
will be ready. The cochairs (MA and SC) will meet with Sharmaine in
the interim. The committee will discuss the website further. New
business: the timeline.
o USS/CUNY Scholarship Website
 JA asks what work it would entail. KK reports that the committee can
give suggestions on the design.
4. Announcements
 None
5. Adjournment
 MA motions to adjourn. TK seconds. Meeting is adjourned at 8:23 pm.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Anne Donlon.