Fee Transparency Project

Student Fee Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes November 27, 2017

Attendees: Suini Torres, Kiryl Karpiuk, Ian Gregorio, Sabina Wildman, Lisa Bishop, John Steele, Lucy Rojas, Gina Tu, Ashley John, Regina Gomez, Cathy Thomas, Bryna Haugen, Alice Malmberg

Approval of Agenda, Minutes, Announcements

a. Check-In Question – salty and sweet b. Approval of Agenda

i. Gina motions to approve the agenda. Regina seconds the motion. Motion carries.

c. Approval of Minutes

i. Following making edits, Gina motions to approve the minutes. Sabina seconds the motion.

Motion carries.

d. Announcements

i. John shares that the meal drive is now underway; students can donate meals now at the

dining hall.

ii. Sabina shares that later this week there is a student worker-student solidarity lunch.

November 29th 12-1pm at Colleges 9/10 lawn.

iii. Suini sent out a poll this morning with “When is Good” poll so we can plan Winter Quarter

meeting time. Please reply as soon as you can.

iv. CSF meeting for winter will be January 20th – 21st at UC Riverside Suini, Kiryl, Amanda will

attend. Anyone else? Please let Suini know by next week if you are interested.

Summer Campus Based Fees

a. Suini asks whether anyone had the opportunity to consult with their spaces? Some did and there

are still questions.

b. Suini asks Lisa for clarification on what the timeline is for response. Lisa responds next quarter would

be fine, but no later than March.

c. Sabina suggests that it is important for us to hear from units about how they are spending their

summer fees; then we could hear from constituents about these programs.

d. Lucy will send a survey to the units that receive summer campus based fees and ask for a response on how the fees were spent and how summer session students are supported. How many students are being served? List of services provided during the school year vs. in the summer; could help develop an appropriate percentage. Develop a questionnaire.

e. Gina motions to table the summer fees discussion until we get feedback from the units that are

receiving summer campus based fees about how they are serving summer session students. Second from Bryna.

i. Sabina moves to amend the motion to read that while the discussion is tabled, we should

continue consulting constituents. Suini responds that Gina’s motion is to table our discussion but it makes sense that everyone would continue consulting in their spaces.

ii. Vote: Yes-10. No-0. Abstention-0.

f. Bryna asks for clarification on what role SFAC has in this process? Lisa will take the recommendation

from SFAC and present to EVC Tromp who will make the final approval.

Funding Proposal Process

a. Feedback from constituents. Suini says that we discussed collecting feedback from students about

their experiences with the departments/programs that are asking for funding.

i. Sabina asks how would we outreach to students? Can we offer anonymity to students?

ii. Suini says that she envisioned a survey where students would be invited to give feedback; we

could offer an incentive.

iii. Narrative vs. scoring? Lucy suggests that we could ask simply, “this department is asking for X

for Y activity. Yes or No?” Ian responds that what is disclosed would depend on the proposer; suggests adding a place for narrative comments.

iv. Once we read the proposals we can summarize and determine what we will share. v. Discussion on possible rating scales. vi. Possible Questions:

Have you ever used this service
Rate your experience
Talk about your experience
Lucy responds that these questions would collect qualitative information about the department but may not necessarily address the value of a program being proposed to be funded by the funded.

vii. Cathy suggests that we ask the requestor to develop a distilled description of the proposal

that is added to the feedback request.

viii. Ashley asks about proposals that ask for funding for multiple things; how would this be

reflected.

ix. John shares concerns over adding this additional process to the funding review; given his

past experience with this process, it could make the review more cumbersome.

x. Gina suggests that the survey could ask people to self-identify their college, grad student

status, etc. so the feedback could be searchable. For instance, she would only read feedback from Rachel Carson students.

xi. Sabina asks how we will weigh the responses that are received? Bryna adds that we may not

get as many responses as we think we will.

xii. Straw poll – should we pursue this idea of collecting feedback from constituents? Response is

mostly positive.

xiii. Bryna suggests that we could defer this process for one year so we have sufficient time to

prepare. Alice adds that we could develop a “baby” survey and ask for feedback about units that we may have had concerns about in the past. Further discussion regarding creating a shorter survey after the initial review so we are focusing on collecting information on proposals that are likely to be funded, and the committee would like more information to help with the consideration process.

xiv. Timeline discussion

Wait to see what proposals come in and take it from there

b. Consultation meetings – how’s it going?

i. Cathy has met with two groups. There was a request to clarify the language about GSRs, that

tuition cannot be funded. Both requests were about funding for staff positions.

ii. Suini met with one group, which was also related to grad student staff. She has another

meeting scheduled later this week. iii. Bryna has one meeting scheduled. iv. Sabina mentions that you can’t put on programs and provide services without staffing. v. Ashley has one meeting this week. vi. Ian has one meeting scheduled.

Next Week’s Meeting

a. Lunch for next week’s meeting: make sure there are vegan and veggie options. Any allergies? Indian

food, Thai food, New Leaf (salads, etc.).

b. Gifts for gift exchange.

Adjournment

a. Kiryl motions to adjourn. Gina seconds the motion. Motion carries.