3-16-21 SFAC Minutes

SFAC Minutes

Tuesday, March 16, 2021

 

Agenda

1.    Welcome                                                                                                

2.    Approval of February 16 Minutes (Action)                                                

3.   Orientation Fees Proposal (Presentation/Decision)                       

4.  Update: Decision Memo re: IRA Applications Process for 2021-2022 Programs (Informational)                                                                         

5. Update: Fee Task Force Recommendations (Informational)       

 

MEMBERS:

Jonathan Juarez Dominguez

Laura Monje-Paulson

Noelia Brambila

Briana Sanchez

Melissa Kadar

Emily Miller

Hollis Robbins

Jeffrey Reeder (absent)

Elizabeth O’Brien

 

Non-Voting Staff to the Committee:

Sue Hardisty

Erik Dickson

Hayley Avery (absent)

Laura Lupei (absent)

Hilary Smith

F. Shanon Little

MINUTES

1. Welcome. Meeting was called to order at 12:05pm by Co-Chair Juarez.

2. Approval of February 16 minutes. Minutes were approved with no changes.

3. Orientation Fees Proposal (Guest Colleen Mahoney, coordinator of Orientation and Family Programs)

The Orientation and Family Programs office is proposing to decrease the orientation fee from $255 to $125 for First Time First Year (FTFY) students, and increase the orientation fee for First Time Transfer (FTT) students from $35 to $115. Transfer students now receive many of the same services as FTFY students (dedicated advisors, orientation leaders, technological services).

Last year Orientation was provided free of charge and the program was able to save money on costs such as overnight accommodations, meals, space rentals and faculty advisors that were not incurred. However, other costs were incurred such as new technology, as well as the salaries of the professional staff who coordinate the programs.

Orientation Programs is proposing to offer a more robust orientation to transfer students similar to what is provided to FTFY students. They will now have access to assigned student leaders (peer success coaches) and the same technological services to help support their transition.

Mahoney was not sure when the fee structure would be reassessed in the future and therefore could not say if this was a short term or long term plan. This is a fee for service so all costs associated with providing an orientation program are covered by these fees.

For last year and this year, Orientation is fully virtual (no welcome week).

A member noted that our transfer students have higher persistence and graduation rates than non-transfer students and another member questioned if they really needed peer success coaches or the same level of services as a first time first year student. Another wondered if they could “opt out” of Orientation or if there were any other alternatives for those who couldn’t afford the fees or simply didn’t want the services provided by the fees. Mahoney explained that there are different technology tracks and there are costs associated with this technology.

She also shared that SSU has the 2^nd highest Orientation fee for FTFY students in the CSU and the 2^nd lowest Orientation fee for FTT students. This proposal is designed to address this disparity.

Someone asked about the $10 differential between the FTFY and FTT fees. Mahoney was not sure but thought it might simply be due to FTT being here less time. Another member surmised it was to keep the transfer student fees down below the FTFY fee, as it is quite a jump from $35 to $115 and they are not entirely new to the college experience.

O’Brien expressed concern about the tight turnaround, and getting the necessary approvals in time to implement. When we visit this again, will there be a guest component to Orientation? Mahoney thought that system implementation could occur pretty quickly, once the president approves of the proposal. Currently there are no plans to provide a parent/guardian/guest orientation at a level that would warrant charging a separate fee.

A discussion ensued. Most expressed favor with the reduction in fees for the FTFY students but struggled with the high jump in fees for FTT students. A non-voting member shared that they have participated in the parent orientation and were struck by the equity issue (attendees were mostly white). She feels the online orientation helps folks who are unable to take time off work and absorb travel expenses in order to attend an on-campus orientation. She also feels the increase in service to transfer students is a supportive move and would help their transitioning to SSU.

Co-chair Monje-Paulson expressed appreciation for the progress that’s being made to Orientation and acknowledge that change cannot happen overnight but that this was a start. She wondered if the new fee would be an unwelcome surprise to our transfer students and what has been conveyed to them thus far in terms of costs to come to SSU.

Mahoney answered that the Orientation website has indicated there will be a fee but no specific amount has been communicated. Jamie Zamjahn and Elias Lopez have been trying to figure out what the sweet spot is. The program has been described on the website as a robust program with a student leader to help with first semester transitioning.

Co-chair Monje-Paulson asked if there is a threshold where we could waive the fee?

Mahoney answered that she is exploring fundraising options to help students who are unable to pay for orientation.

She also shared that she was not involved in the decision-making process that resulted in the proposal she was bringing forth to SFAC to consider but that much thought and consideration had gone into development of the proposal.

The committee then weighed the pros and cons to delaying making a decision on this proposal and any negative impacts that delaying might have on enrollment.

A lot of students have not yet paid the enrollment deposit. The April 15 launch date was a long thoughtful process with IT, the Seawolf Service Director and other campus partners. May 1 is a standard national date for college decision dates, so Mahoney is concerned about losing time to tell students we want you to come to SSU. We’d like to be ahead of the curve, particularly in light of the enrollment issues we’re experiencing.

Miller would like more information and more time to consider this proposal. Kadar is feeling similar and would like to see the data that Zamjahn and Lopez based this decision on. After further discussion, Co-Chair Juarez ask if the committee was ready to vote on this item and all indicated they were ready.

Co-Chair Juarez called for a vote to approve the fees as presented.

Yes                                          No                                           Absent

1 Brambila                                                                              1 Sanchez

2 Kadar                                                                                   2 Reeder

3 Miller                                                                                   3 Robbins

4 O’Brien                                                                    

            5 Monje-Paulson

            6 Juarez

Co-Chair Juarez adjourned the meeting at 12:59pm.

4. Update: IRA Application Process for 2021/2022

Tabled for next meeting.

 

5. Update: Fee Task Force Recommendations

Tabled for next meeting.

 

Minutes prepared by Sue Hardisty