Fee Transparency Project

Present: Lydia Jenkins-Sleczowski, Fiona Weigant, Elliot Lewis, Adam Selcov, Chase Hayes, Lisa Bishop, Brent Insua, Yuhao Chen, Issac Karth, Lucy Rojas, Veronica Mitry, Alexa Chavez, Venkatesh Nagubandi, Esther Chung, May Alvarez

Approval of Agenda and Minutes
1. Lydia welcomes everyone back following our break to review proposals.
2. Elliot motions to approve the agenda. Brent seconds the motion. Motion carries. Agenda is approved.
3. Elliot motions to approve the January 7, 2020 minutes. Adam seconds the motion. Motion carries.
Announcements and Updates
1. Announcements
  1. Esther Chung is rejoining the committee as the College 9 rep. Viggy has resigned from the committee.
2. SSF allocation update
  1. Lydia shares that we received a funding letter yesterday from iCP/EVC Kletzer confirming that $250,000 in SSF has been allocated for this year and two additional years.
3. CSF Debrief - Meeting was January 25th and 26th at UCLA
  1. Brent, Elliot and Lydia attended the winter CSF meeting at UCLA.
  2. Discussion items included tuition increase discussion at the Regents meeting; the topic was tabled to the next Regents meeting. CSF took a strong stance against the cohort tuition model and any tuition increases.
  3. Discussion on UCSA’s resolution to allow any student organization to add a referendum to the ballot.
  4. Chief Financial Officer from UCSA presented on the possibility of a UC system-wide fee that would fund UCSA operations. CSF took the stance that they were neutral to any additional fee and would only support if it went through the regular referendum process at each campus.
  5. The March Conference Call meeting would be an opportunity for any SFAC members to participate.
  6. Next CSF - Oakland and UC Merced. Friday would be in Oakland and Saturday in Merced. At the spring meeting, the CSF chair will be elected for next year.
4. Winter Quarter meeting: Tuesday’s 2:30 - 4:30 pm (Please be sure to pay attention to meeting announcement each week as we will not be in the same room every week).
5. Invitation sent to proposed referendum authors to visit with SFAC on February 18th or 25th (there are two proposed fees for this year’s ballot).
  1. Student Success Facilities Hub Fee and Campus Sustainability Fee.
Funding Call
1. SSF Funding Memo
  1. Discussion and next steps
  2. From the October 30th meeting, we voted to put $450,000 into the funding call with about $30,000 in reserves. At the time, we did not put any SSF in the call. We have some options with the new $250,000 of SSF that was allocated. We can put all of into the call or we can establish a reserve.
  3. Last year’s reserve was 15%.
  4. Adam recommends that the majority of the money should be put into the call. Adam suggests that we total our reserves at $30,000, so add $20,000 of the $250,000.
  5. Fiona asks what the reserves are used for? Lydia says we maintained a reserve last year, anticipating that we would have less of a balance this year. What is the goal of having a reserve?
  6. Elliot suggests putting a portion of the $250,000 into reserves each year so we can build a buffer for future years.
  7. Adam says that he is not as supportive of setting aside funding for multiple years, so students can benefit from fees they pay now.
  8. Lydia adds that in the spirit of student fees, students who are paying now should benefit from the fees.
  9. Adam motions to put the entire $250,000 of SSF for this year’s allocations. Elliot seconds the motion. No objections. Motion passes.
  10. Lydia thanks Planning & Budget and iCP/EVC for securing these funds for SFAC to allocate.
2. Debrief the Funding Review Process
  1. Lydia thanks everyone for their participation in the process thus far.
  2. Initial thoughts, feedback, comments, etc.
    1. Elliot shares that she observed that many of the proposals stated that they do not know where to go for other fund sources. There are other sources, so is this an issue of education or lack of awareness.
    2. Adam says that one group was requesting $150.00; can we review this proposal first and make a decision. Chase adds that some of the requests were very small and we should honor that the groups put time into the proposal process.
      1. Veronica asks whether we follow up with groups to provide them additional resources and fund sources? Lydia says that we typically provide feedback if it’s asked for.
      2. Chase suggests that we could provide some resources of other fund sources for students.
      3. Lucy adds that next year we should consider having a minimum funding amount for the requests. Any low-dollar requests can be deferred to the VPSS Funding process; Lucy explains that Jaye can receive any recommendations from the group to fund student organization lower-amount requests.
      4. Lydia recommends that we discuss the two-lower amount proposals today and then recommend to Lucy to fund through VPSS process.
      5. Elliot suggests we could encourage the groups to back to their student governments. Adam responds that we are student government.
      6. Fiona says that we should not change the rules, we should consider the proposals as we do all the other proposals. Veronica adds that the blood drive is in spring 2021.
      7. Adam says that he did not know what to do with the funding request for $150 first. He motions that we discuss this first. Move #54 to the first proposal that we discuss. Brent seconds the motion.

Chase objects. If we do this, it sets a precedent that we can discuss proposals out of order. The point of the ranking system is maintain our normal process for discussion.

Vote: 3-Yes. 4-No. 2-Abstention. Motion fails.

- 1. Elliot reflects that many groups put a lot of effort into the proposal, including data and facts, and she is excited to see what we can do.
  2. Chase asks if there is a total amount requested? Yes, $2.7 million in requests.
  3. Chase adds that it was distracting that some proposals looked different than others, because they submitted their own format. We should consider next year to require all groups to use only the Google Form. Lucy adds that if we do that, we should discuss character limits.
  4. May says that some of the proposals that had citations were confusing. Going forward, we should keep a consistent format for all groups. It was hard to toggle back and forth and figure out the format.
1. Materials and Resources
  1. Numbered Folders - this is the link where all proposal materials can be accessed.
  2. Rating spreadsheet - see “rankings” worksheet for full details.
2. Discussion on Process
  1. Lydia explains that each week when the agenda is published, we will include a brief summary of each proposal that will be discussed during that meeting. Please come ready to discuss as we will target 5 minutes for discussion on each proposal.
  2. Adam is suggesting to look at proposals ranked under 70 points to get them out of the way
  3. Adam references last year’s similar process.
  4. Lydia asks if this is okay with the group. The group is in agreement.
  5. Lydia asks if we need two minutes. Adam is ready to dive into reading the proposals. Lydia begins the timer of 5 minutes to discuss the first proposal.
  6. Lisa references her own excel file to cross check later on in the quarter.
  7. Esther has not read to proposals and Lydia says if Esther has questions to ask any of the members.
3. Proposal #43 - Quarry Plaza Owl Boxes
  1. Lydia says we are starting with proposal #43
  2. Fiona says she will be recusing herself from any funding request from the Graduate Student Commons. She will not report back to GSA until the entire SFAC process has been completed.
  3. Adam asks if we are bringing owls to the quarry. Lydia explains there are rats in the quarry and the owls will help eat them.
  4. Lisa, references her friends owl houses and eggs hatching.
  5. May’s grandparents also have owls.
  6. Adam now understands, but is iffy if there is enough owls in the forest to do this work.
  7. Elliot does not think this is a priority.
  8. Adam motion to not fund. May seconds. No objections. Motion passes. #43 is not funded.
  9. Adam now must leave. Quorum is still met.
4. Proposal #6 - Experiential Education Trip to the Middle East
  1. Adam says there is no itinerary, and does not feel comfortable funding an ambiguous trip.
  2. Elliot thinks the goal is cool, but only a few students get to go and for this to be funded by student service money, it is not fair to the other students who do not get to go.
  3. Adam motions not to fund. Second by Brent. No objection. Motion passes. #6 not funded.
5. Proposal #20 - UCSC Muay Thai Club Funding Proposal
  1. Elliot says there is not enough information in this proposal.
  2. May motions not to fund. Elliot seconds. No objections. #20 not funded.
  3. Veronica asks if we will make a note to reference this org to Lucy to Jaye.
  4. Lydia makes a note to pass it along to Student Success or Dean of Students.
6. Proposal #59 - Centennial Grand Boulé Conference
  1. May is concerned about the lack of student impact. Elliot is concerned with the same sentiment, about lack of student impact.
  2. May motions to not fund. Second by Brent. No objections. Motion passes. #59 not funded.

Adjournment
1. Chase motions to adjourn. Brent second. No objections. Motion passes.

Next meeting: February 4, 2020, 2:30 - 4:30 pm @ Kerr 278

Upcoming Guests:

Referendum Authors
iCP/EVC Kletzer - February 25th