STUDENT ACTIVITY FEE BOARD MEETING
Friday, January 27, 2012
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
TJ Bard, UPUA President
Brian Martinowich, CCSG Representative, Penn State Abington
Marika Merritt, CCSG Representative, Penn State Wilkes Barre
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
Mary Edgington, Senior Director, Union and Student Activities
Substitutes
Jesse Scott for Ryan Kocse, UPAC Chair
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 December 2, 2011 was made by Mary Edgington and a
second was made by Jon Lozano. All were in favor.
Announcements by the Chair
There were no announcements.
Public Comment (10 – 15 minutes)
There were no comments.
Items to be discussed and voted on
Adult Learner subcommittee recommendations
On page 2 of the agenda is a complete update to the adult learner section in the manual. The
floor was opened for discussion. There was none.
“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.”
A motion to approve the change for the manual on Adult Learners was made by Jon Lozano and
a second was made by Rebecca Pennington. A vote was taken.
_____ Andrea Dowhower __Y___ Catarina Moriera
__Y___ Jesse Scott
__Y___ Brian Martinowich __Y___ Jon Lozano
__Y___ Marika Merritt
__Y___ TJ Bard
__Y___ Peter Khoury
__Y___ Kelly Terefenko
__Y___ Ron McCarty
___Y__ Mary Edgington
__Y___ Rebecca Pennington
__Y___ Matthew Swatchick
All in favor.
UPUA and GSA lump sum funding
Kelly Terefenko shared that last year UPUA used their entire budget. Currently the budget is
showing that funds are still available, but an invoice for the Student Handbooks has not yet been
reflected as being paid. That amount is $11,000 and will bring their budget to $0. They are
requesting that their allocation remain the same for the next three years.
TJ shared that they would like to propose a manual change for the three governing bodies that
every three years the lump sum funding would be reviewed for level changes. Andrea shared
that with the adding of the auditing procedures to the manual, the groups would be audited
annually, and this three year review would be for level changes only.
Rebecca asked if this would include the CCSG body since they do not receive UPAC funding.
Andrea shared that there are some issues with the handbook that need to be addressed. It was
originally voted to have lump sum funding for all three governing bodies. CCSG currently is
covered by funding from the VP of Student Affairs. The language needs to be corrected in the
manual. A discussion on making this change to the manual is in process.
A motion to approve the lump sum funding for UPUA and GSA was made by Pete Khoury and a
second was made by TJ Bard. A vote was taken.
“UPUA, CCSG and GSA organizations (as recognized by the Penn State University Board of Trustees)
will be granted “Lump Sum” Funding providing they meet and sustain the criteria outlined below.
“Lump Sum” funding, as of 2012, will be as follows: GSA Budget = $59,542, UPUA Budget (without
legal services) = $139,628.55 and CCSG Budget = $36,528.29. Each standing allocation will be
reviewed every 3 years for adjustment.”
_____ Andrea Dowhower __Y___ Catarina Moriera
__Y___ Jesse Scott
__Y___ Brian Martinowich __Y___ Jon Lozano
__Y___ Marika Merritt
__Y___ TJ Bard
__Y___ Peter Khoury
__Y___ Kelly Terefenko
__Y___ Ron McCarty
___Y__ Mary Edgington
__Y___ Rebecca Pennington
__Y___ Matthew Swatchick
All in favor.
Grammatical Changes to the Handbook
Andrea stated that everyone had been sent changes to the Handbook for review. All of these
changes are grammatical and not content related. It also includes any changes that have been
made this year.
A motion to approve changes to the manual was made by Mary Edgington and a second was
made by Kelly Terefenko. A vote was taken.
_____ Andrea Dowhower __Y___ Catarina Moriera
__Y___ Jesse Scott
__Y___ Brian Martinowich __Y___ Jon Lozano
__Y___ Marika Merritt
__Y___ TJ Bard
__Y___ Peter Khoury
__Y___ Kelly Terefenko
__Y___ Ron McCarty
___Y__ Mary Edgington
__Y___ Rebecca Pennington
__Y___ Matthew Swatchick
All in favor.
Student Legal Services
Andrea stated that there are two different issues here with Legal Services. First is the
continuation of the $2 funding to Legal Services, and then second, increasing the funding for
Legal Services. Andrea suggested separating these two topics.
Jon shared that GSA had a robust conversation about this and Carolyn Larabee attended their last
GSA meeting to answer questions about their service. The general consensus was that this is a
service that serves the University student population very well and GSA would like to see this
continued.
A motion to approve the $2 continuation funding of the Legal Services for three years was made
by Jon Lozano and a second was made by Mary Edgington. A vote was taken.
_____ Andrea Dowhower __Y___ Catarina Moriera
__Y___ Jesse Scott
__Y___ Brian Martinowich __Y___ Jon Lozano
__Y___ Marika Merritt
__Y___ TJ Bard
__Y___ Peter Khoury
__Y___ Kelly Terefenko
__Y___ Ron McCarty
___Y__ Mary Edgington
__Y___ Rebecca Pennington
__Y___ Matthew Swatchick
All in favor.
Student Legal Services fee increase
There are 4 options that are listed on the agenda as proposed by Carolyn Larabee.
TJ Bard stated that it is apparent that there is a definite need for additional staff. SLS came to
the board to share this at the last meeting. TJ wanted to know what the administration’s
perspective is on this funding. Are they looking for this funding to always come from the SA
Fund, or are they hoping to provide some funding from the general budget? Andrea shared that
Student Affairs does provide a great amount of infrastructure to SLS - office space, human
resources, etc. so SLS isn’t totally funded by the SAF. Secondly, Student Affairs is not in a
position to fund Student Legal Services and that the original intent was for the funding to come
from the Student Activity Fee. It could change in the future, but at this time, no additional
funding is available from general funds.
Jon stated that the general consensus at the GSA meeting was that they would support the full $1
increase. He had done some research into this, and Penn State has a very small office for a
campus of our size and that the services we provide are valuable.
Kelly stated that she has talked with students and with the potential of budget cuts, is this really
the area that we want to grow and provide additional funding to?
Jon shared that this is still a very new office, and there hasn’t been much advertising for this
service. As people learn of this service, the office may become overwhelmed and not provide
timely service as they do now. If the need increases substantially, they will definitely need
additional funding.
TJ asked what the timeframe is for them to come back and ask for additional funding.
Andrea stated that a mid-year increase would be difficult, and UPAC has already started their
standing allocations. It would be very difficult to do a mid-year increase. Jesse agreed that it
would have to be yearly; changes would be difficult mid-year.
Jesse stated that UPAC is in support of increasing the fee by $1. This seemed more than valuable
to SLS, and they could fully utilize those funds to improve the student experience, but UPAC
would not be opposed to a partial increase.
Kelly stated that they believe the current fee works well for the campus, and if you increase the
SLS office then that would increase the SA Fee. For students, it is inevitable that their tuition is
going to rise this year. She did not believe that students want this. Students aren’t looking for an
extension of this service at this time.
Andrea stated that she does believe that may be true but if they need to legal services and the
office in unable to accommodate them, then they may change their minds. At some point, you
can’t have it both ways.
The PULSE survey stated that 91% of students felt that this should be increased by a $1.
Andrea stated that the group was sent an excerpt from this, and it is available online.
Jon stated that while GSA is in support of a $1 increase for SLS, they are not in favor of
increasing the SAF.
Kelly asked how that could be done.
Jon stated that you would decrease the SAF and the amount that gets allocated to UPAC. It is
getting more expensive to go to Penn State and a lot of fees are going up but the things that are
here at the University need to be maintained.
Mary asked Jon to clarify that GSA supports no fee increase but does support allocation of
another $1 of the current SAF to SLS. This would decrease the amount of funding for UPAC.
GSA is very clear on what the SAF goes to and what it pays for. GSA members are very well
informed and do understand that this is what would occur.
Andrea asked everyone to look at the various pieces of the PULSE survey from the fall. There
are many parts to this, but she wanted to point out one specific item. The average student does
not know how much they pay for the SA Fee and overestimates how much they pay. The average
student believes they pay $171, the mode is $100 and the median is $100. We could spend hours
debating this, but most students do not know the exact amount of what they are paying. There is
other information on the survey that all should review.
Rebecca added that the Commonwealth campuses do not have a dog in the fight for the SLS, but
she did share the levels with the constituencies (13) and 12 agreed to an increase in the SAF. All
but one agreed to an increase.
Peter polled his group also, and they were able to capture everyone on the three different levels,
and the proposed levels would provide flexibility for all the constituencies.
Andrea asked Peter to share the three tier information he shared to his group for documentation
in the minutes.
Peter shared that they spoke with the presidents and asked them to craft a proposal for all the
campuses. Those ties are $85, $82, and $78.
Andrea stated that what the proposal begins to do is reduce the difference between Tier 2 and
Tier 3 and begins to accommodate for the future when the budget office may request a two tier
system. This would help make the dropping of the bottom tier easier.
Jon asked a question who at UP would make the call for which tier UP campus should be in.
Peter asked to clarify whether the UP campus needs to be in the top tier.
Andrea stated that it has been the precedent that UP has been in the top tier. She felt that there
would be some skepticism from some about changing that. If you think about how it would
appear if a campus charges more that UP? Would they really be getting additional services? We
could recommend a different tier, but she is not sure who decides that.
Mary stated that if you went that route, you would be reducing the UPAC budget.
Andrea stated that in all fairness, UPAC doesn’t see all of this funding. There are other things
that come out of that fee prior to UPAC receiving their money.
Andrea shared that everyone has a breakdown from Galen to review. Jay asked everyone to
review those figures.
Peter wanted to state that with the new proposal of fees, UP could stay at the current level they
are and then at the campuses it could provide some flexibility.
Kelly stated that she can deal with the fact that the SLS needs an increase, but she doesn’t
support money being cut from UPAC. She proposes that the top tier should be changed to $83.
She stated that since UPAC is not running out of funds that there would be no need for them to
receive an increase.
Peter stated that $83 is so close to the 2nd tier, and if you look at the future of the SAF, the board
is trying to keep the tiers as close as possible. This would be closer to a merge of the top two
tiers. For Peter, it seemed to be too close, and it wouldn’t bring a substantial increase for the
campuses.
Rebecca made a recommendation; go back to Option 2- $83, $80 and $75.
Andrea stated that there is a big difference between what the campuses with 1,000 will get from
a $1 increase compared to what UP will receive. She shared some data from the PULSE survey
where 58.6% supported a more than $1 increase. The mean was $7. She wanted to make sure
that we are hearing from all students and not just a small group.
Jesse added two points; first, students think they are paying more than they really are for their
SAF and they are in favor of raising it $7. Second, 58% feel they are not informed at all.
TJ shared that he didn’t feel it was right to increase the fee just because the students are
oblivious. We do know what the fees are, and we should not take advantage of them because
they are misinformed.
Andrea stated that we are using University resources to obtain data to base our decisions on, and
if is not helpful or being used then we should not be doing it.
Jesse reminded the group that at the campuses, they are seeing the full amount of their SAF. At
UP, the full fee is not all going to UPAC. There would be $3 going to SLS plus the other debt.
Jay, Galen and Jess summarized the UPAC funding for 2010/2011.
Kelly asked about the carry-over from UPUA and GSA. Galen stated that those monies are set
aside to wait for bills to be paid. The money is encumbered.
Jesse stated that we are currently seeing an increase in requests for funding. If you look at where
we are currently with allocations and you add in what is sitting to be reviewed, you are looking
at an overage of about $200,000. Not everything will be allocated but we are not at the end of
the year and there will be more requests submitted. He would find it hard to argue that keeping it
the same would be an intelligent decision.
Andrea asked if the rule had changed on the percentage that clubs have to pay. Jay stated that
the amount the clubs were required to pay went down to 10% from 20%. Andrea stated that the
number of student orgs keeps increasing, and the students will not be happy if they aren’t able to
get funding because the funding is gone.
Students have an expectation and if they are unable to do the things to meet their expectations
while in college, they may become upset especially if tuition and other things go up.
Rebecca stated that at the campuses they are running out of money for their programs. The
students at the campuses support an increase.
Andrea asked for an unofficial poll. For the $85, $82, $78, there were 9 in favor. For $83, $80,
$75, there were 3 in favor.
A motion was made by Pete Khoury to adopt the $85, $82, $78 tier structure, and a second made
by Jesse.
Marika stated that the student governments decide at the campuses, and it should be up to
UPUA and UPAC to decide at UP. She didn’t think that there was anything in the manual that
stated that UP needed to stay at the top tier.
Mary stated that she had a real concern that if you move to a different tier and increase SLS
funding. UPAC funding will be decreased.
Andrea shared a section from the manual about the tiers, and it does not specifically state that UP
needs to be at the top tier, but it is implied
Marika stated that that would be up to the chair or Damon Sims to make that decision. Or, it
could be a decision that would be voted on.
Andrea stated that it would be up to the group to make a recommendation to move the UP
campus to a different tier. UP doesn’t have the same structure as the campuses. We have two
separate groups and would be something that could be recommended. Andrea stated that as the
designee of Damon, she will not make that decision.
Rebecca asked if Worthington Scranton and York had responded to Pete.
Pete stated that yes, they did reach out to them and they did feel it was a substantial change but
that there were 18 of 19 campuses who supported the changes and increases.
A vote was taken on the previous motion for the tiers.
_____ Andrea Dowhower __Y___ Catarina Moriera
__Y___ Jesse Scott
__Y___ Brian Martinowich __N___ Jon Lozano
__Y___ Marika Merritt
__N___ TJ Bard
__Y___ Peter Khoury
__N___ Kelly Terefenko
__Y___ Ron McCarty
___Y__ Mary Edgington
__Y___ Rebecca Pennington
__Y___ Matthew Swatchick
Motion passes for the tiers at $85, $82, $78.
Jon stated that we need to discuss the increase of $1 for SLS. He would be in favor of doing this.
A motion was made by Jon Lozano to increase the SLS Funding by $1 and a second was made
by Jesse Scott.
_____ Andrea Dowhower __AB___ Catarina Moriera
__Y___ Jesse Scott ___Y__ Mary Edgington
__AB___ Brian Martinowich __N___ Jon Lozano
__AB___ Marika Merritt __Y___ Rebecca Pennington
__N___ TJ Bard
__AB___ Peter Khoury __Y___ Kelly Terefenko
__Y___ Matthew Swatchick
__AB___ Ron McCarty
Motion passes.
Andrea stated that the Post Doc Student topic will move to the March meeting.
Jon stated that he will chair the subcommittee to make manual changes for the Student Legal
Services section of the manual.
Andrea will send the recommendations to Damon Sims for approval.
A motion was made by Jesse Scott to adjourn the meeting and 2nd was made by Kelly Terefenko.