Student Fee Advisory Committee
Minutes
Monday, October 12, 2020
1:00-2:00 p.m.
AGENDA
- Welcome & Introductions Co-Chair Juarez
- IRA Update (Informational) Noelia Brambila
- 20/21 Allocations
- Revised IRA and SFAC Schedule
- Goals for the Year (Discussion) Juarez
- Review of IRA Funding Model
- Formation and Authority of Executive Team
Members:
Jonathan Juarez
Laura Monje-Paulson
Noelia Brambila
Briana Sanchez
Yeymi Perez Bravo
Emily Miller
Hollis Robbins
Jeffrey Reeder
Elizabeth O’Brien
Non-Voting Staff to the Committee:
Sue Hardisty
Erik Dickson
Hayley Avery (absent)
Hilary Smith
Shanon Little
1. Meeting was called to order at 1:06pm by Co-Chair Juarez.
2. IRA Update
Funding for 20/21 was delayed as President Sakaki requested additional information. Recommendations were recently approved by the President. Now the IRA subcommittee is working on 23 rollback requests. Rollback means that programs were approved for a certain amount of money for last year and funds that were not expended at year end were “rolled back” into the IRA fund. 23 programs have asked for those funds back for this year.
3.A. Review of Funding Model for IRA Programs
Background: The President’s Cabinet has requested that SFAC review the “above the line” programs of student fee supported IRA funding. The goal is to evaluate the IRA permanent funding model to see whether it is meeting campus needs, and to make recommendations to the president.
Juarez provided an overview of the review process timeline:
October 2020 – April 2021 – SFAC completes review
May 2021 - SFAC finalizes recommendation and sends to President
Summer 2021 – President considers recommendation
Spring 2022 – Referendum as a part of Spring 2022 election, if applicable
Fall 2022 – Implement funding changes, if applicable
Dean Robbins shared that one of the permanently funded “above the line” programs is the Center for Performing Arts. She has questioned the model of using student fees to fund the CPA because two departments are structured around classes that are partially funded in ways that guide and channel how the curriculum is delivered. She expressed appreciation of the goal to make sure it is more equitable.
3. B. Executive Committee to conduct business over the summer
Juarez explained the need to conduct SFAC business over the summer due to unforeseen circumstances, such as we are experiencing this year. The idea behind this comes from uncertainty about enrollment and the budget which impact the availability of funds for IRA programs, and who should be weighing in on these decisions. The Associated Students executives, as well as support staff to SFAC, work during the summer, and can therefore serve on an Executive Committee over the summer. What is missing is a faculty representative. Though he agreed it was a good idea to have such a committee with the authority to make decisions on behalf of SFAC, Dr. Reeder was not sure we would find a faculty member to volunteer to serve during a time when faculty are on summer break and many are in research and curriculum development mode.
The goal is to complete the review, recommendations, and approvals during the academic year, but the student representatives on SFAC wanted to find out what members thought about the Executive Committee concept and the issue with faculty representation during the summer. All seemed to agree that an Executive Committee would be helpful for decision making during the summer but it is doubtful that a faculty member, particularly one with knowledge of the current fee related issues, would be available to serve on the committee during the summer.
Dickson warned that there are lots of conversations throughout the CSU about decisions regarding student fees and advised the committee to be prepared for more inquiries and quick turnaround in providing information to the Chancellor’s Office. Emergency meetings might need to be called.
The Student Association, CSSA, is also having a lot of discussion about student fees and where the funds are going.
Robbins observed that there are new students each year on the committee and acknowledged there is a learning curve to understanding student fees, fee structures and the history behind these structures at SSU.She is serving her third year and is just now beginning to fully understand the structure and its nuances.
Brambila asked Robbins for advice on what her take is on departments coming to IRA to get extra funding for their courses and if it is worth it to students. Robbins responded that in the case of CPA, students basically prepay to go to performances, so there is less of an incentive for the Theatre Arts department to sell tickets to students. Consequently, there is no need for courses around marketing. Not all campuses fund their CPA this way. Would students prefer to pay by performance or are they happy with prepaying for the performances? Currently, because performances are virtual, instead of student fees paying for costumes, they are paying for green screens and cameras so they can still deliver the performances to the students because they have already paid for them.
Dickson agreed that it does take a while to consume the information to make informed decisions and advised the committee to begin consuming now and not to wait until they think they will need it. Time to think through these processes so we get to a model that works better for students. Ask questions of the staff on this committee.
Monje-Paulson: The questions were “Where are the student fees going and is that where the students wanted them to go?” She mentioned the Fee Review Task Force report as a way to help bring students up to speed.
Robbins added that there was some high-level discussions around mandatory student fees, such as “Is it a benefit to the campus in general, to the students, to specific populations? Is it a good, moral expenditure? Would you choose to continue to support this fee and its intention?”
Brambila asked why SSU fees tend to be higher than at similarly sized campuses. Dickson answered it has to do with economies of scale. Larger campuses have more resources and therefore student fees are generally less. It also has to do with the fact that each campus operates very differently.
Robbins thinks the question to ask is “What is a funding structure that best suits the institution?” This is a question that is asked no matter what business you are in.
Brambila asked if the CPI could be waived in difficult budget years? Reducing or freezing CPI could have a negative impact on the student experience ultimately. If CPI is eliminated, what is the impact to the campus? SFAC can make a recommendation to the students and to the President.
Monje-Paulson recalled the Fee Review Task Force having a lot of discussion about the CPI and what she took away from that discussion is that there could be a cap on the CPI. CPI as a budget planning tool is a standard strategy for ensuring the campus ability to deliver the same level of services over time. Recommending that the CPI go away would require a campus disentangling to be able to absorb the impact. The current model includes salaries so we really need to think carefully about all aspects to changing this model and how to disentangle it in a thoughtful way.
Brambila expressed that IRA funding is supposed to be one-time funding but it feels like it is becoming more depended upon by departments. She asked if deans regularly review which courses tend to rely on IRA funds, and course fees.
A lecture series is an example of an educational experience that student fees would pay for. There should be a stage in the program that involves the Dean to make a determination as to whether IRA is the most appropriate funding source and that it is serving the maximum number of students. Robbins suggested that after everyone reads the Fee Review Task Force report, to come up with some questions, a rubric for decision making and bring it back to the next SFAC meeting so we can continue the discussion. This is a time to rethink fundamentally how we do things. IRA sections 13 – 16 of your binder is a good place to start, as well as the Fee Review Task Force report.
Discussion to continue at next meeting.
Meeting was adjourned at 2:01 pm.