Budget Planning and Management
DATE: May 9, 2008
TO: Jolene Koester, President
FROM: Sharon Eichten, Chair, Student Fee Advisory Committee
SUBJECT: Approval of Recommendation of the Student Fee Advisory Committee
As requested in your memo dated March 14, 2008 to the Student Fee Advisory Committee, the committee met on March 26, 2008 to discuss the Quality of Student's Experience Fund Fee information pamphlet with Vice Presidents Hellenbrand and Piper. After discussing recommended changes to the pamphlet and changing the name of the proposed fee to Campus Quality Fee, the committee approved the attached pamphlet for campus consultation.
During the month of April, Provost Hellenbrand and Vice President Piper conducted open forums to get feedback regarding the fee. At the same time, input was gathered on a special web site that allowed for open-ended comments.
On May 2, 2008, Vice President Piper distributed summaries to the committee via email of the input gleaned from both the open forums and from the web, and categorized the input within a framework that made it easier to review (putting the data into themes or common attributes).
Again, as requested in your memo dated March 14, 2008, on May 7, 2008, the Student Fee Advisory Committee met to review the alternative consultation findings. Discussion during the meeting was supportive of the goals of the fee and the majority voted in favor (5/1) of the fee proposal going forward for your approval as outlined below:
|Year||Summer Fee||Fall Fee||Spring Fee|
To accommodate inflation and provide operational stability, beginning in 2011/12, the fee would increase by $2/year with the resulting 60% calculation applied to summer term.
Additionally, funds should be distributed as noted in the Monetary Impact Analysis Statement within the attached pamphlet; however, the committee is providing information to you regarding additional concerns or caveats as part of their recommendation, which are:
- Accountability of the fee was an issue and they agreed that the language noted within the resolution from the Faculty Senate meeting of April 10, 2008 was appropriate for use: "That an accountability process to include students, faculty, staff, and administrators, be established to ensure that the funds generated by the new fee are properly spent on proposal's identified needs that are not sufficiently covered by the University budget."
- The current AS Vice President wanted to go on record as the only dissenting vote, but also specifically requested on behalf of Associated Students that they would like the President to consider covering specific programs including the Matador Involvement Center (MIC) and the Student Development and International Programs (SDIP) from the Student Services budget from this fee.
- Associated Students wanted to ensure that the language regarding the Associated Students savings from Athletic scholarships in year two of this fee, 2009/10, is not yet binding. The language within the fee pamphlet states that the university will seek a binding agreement to permanently re-direct these funds. Associated Students wanted this noted as a concern.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Pamphlet and binder with all materials
cc: Terry Piper