Fee Transparency Project

Present: Lydia Jenkins-Sleczkowski, May Alvarez, Isaac Karth, Lisa Bishop, Adam Selcov, Alexa Chavez, Chase Hayes, Fiona Weigant, Viggy Iyer, Lucy Rojas, Sue Carter, Elliot Lewis, Venkatesh Nagubandi

Approval of Agenda and Minutes
1. May motions to approve the agenda. Isaac seconds the motion. No objections, motion carries.
2. Adam motions to approve the minutes. Alexa seconds the motion. Motion carries.
Announcements and Updates
1. Announcements
2. CSF Conference Call
  1. Lydia shares that the staff advisor to CSF is resigning in May. CSF will be involved in the process to refill the position.
  2. UCSA provided an update, which included information about a possible update the funding model for UCSA.
3. CSF Meeting - January 25th & 26th
  1. There is a space limit for the Winter Quarter meeting.
4. Winter Quarter meeting: based on Doodle Poll - Tuesday’s 2:30 - 4:30 pm
  1. Lydia explains that Tuesdays from 2:30 - 4:30 seems to have the best availability for our weekly meeting.
  2. Discussion
    1. Isaac has a conflict with this time.
    2. Lydia will re-send the “When is Good Poll”. Please update your availability.
Prep for Funding Call
1. Summary of the process
  1. There were 59 proposals submitted, totaling $2.7 million in requests. We have $450,000 available.
  2. During the last couple of weeks of the quarter, between Lydia and Lucy, they conducted a number of individual meetings and did one consultation session with the Division of Student Success.
  3. Lydia explains that different groups had inquiries, editing proposals, etc.
  4. Lydia recommends that we have a 5:00 pm deadline next time.
2. Materials and Resources
  1. Numbered Folders
    1. All of the information submitted for each proposal is included in the numbered folders.
  2. Tracking and Evaluation spreadsheet
    1. Lydia refers everyone to the tracking and evaluation spreadsheet which has been set up so each member can track their evaluations.
  3. Discussion
    1. Discussion regarding the units that are only eligible for SSF, given our limited amount of SSF funding. Lucy and Lydia will add a column to the evaluation spreadsheet that reflects if the program is available for SSF and M7 or only SSF.
    2. Adam suggests taking detailed notes while you are reviewing applications. The clearer your notes are, the easier the deliberation process will go. In terms of ranking, Adam thinks everyone gets in their own groove. As long as you are consistent in your evaluation process, the outcome should be good. The quality of the application may be different than the quality of the program; please keep this in mind, the proposals should be professional, etc., but a spelling mistake or incomplete sentence should not weigh on the importance of the program.
    3. Fiona asks about the budget documents.
    4. Fiona suggests that everyone has a different way to compare proposals and to establish a metric. Keep notes about how you are scoring as well. At the very end, you may want to go back and review again and adjust scores.
    5. Chase recommends that even if you don’t take notes on the sheet, be sure to read and understand each proposal before the January 28th meeting.
    6. Lydia says that she is aware that many committee members are directly involved in some of the programs that are requesting funds. If this is the case, please remove yourself from evaluating the proposal and/or the deliberation process.
    7. Adam says that one thing that he would like to change this year is that we don’t ask follow up questions to authors, or we establish in advance a methodology for when we ask questions. He suggests that we only follow up if we have clarifying questions about eligibility. Chase says that if half the group were not to understand something, it’s important to go back for clarification, we should take things on a case by case basis and not have a methodology in advance. Adam responds that if half the group is confused about something, that says something about the quality of the proposal.
    8. Brynna asks whether we provide feedback to the requestors. Lydia responds that the minutes are public, and can be accessed online.
    9. Lisa reminds everyone that when you review the budgets, be sure to take notes on aspects of the proposal that you may want to fund.
    10. Viggy says that last year because of the number of proposals, and the follow up questions we asked, our process seemed to be delayed. He agrees with Chase that we should approach follow up on a case by case basis.
    11. Venkatesh says that he likes the process of asking for clarification.
    12. Chase suggests that we come back after we review and then determine if we want to set guidelines.
    13. Isaac asks a scheduling question: if he is not able to attend the meetings this quarter, how should be approached. Lydia suggests that she can meet with Isaac to receive his feedback.
3. Process to Review and Evaluate Proposals
  1. Lydia proposes adjourning until January 28th to read and evaluate the proposals.
  2. Evaluation deadline
    1. Lydia asks that committee members have their ratings finished by Sunday, January 26 in order to allow time for creating the ranked list.
  3. Adam mentions that we should consider scheduling the weekend meeting for winter quarter. Lydia suggests that we do this after we reconvene in late January when people have a better sense of their schedules.
Adjournment
1. Adam motions to adjourn. Chase seconds the motion. Motion carries.

Next meeting TBD.