SUFAC
Meeting Minutes for October 13, 2005
I. Call to Order
SUFAC Chair Katie Gassenhuber called the meeting to order at 5:01 P.M.
II. Roll Call
a. Members Present: Katie Gassenhuber, Sarah Oldenburg, Yer Lor, Nathan Petrashek, Crystal Jushka, Josh Kaurich, Tricia Evers, Olga Kirilchuk, Adam Warpinski, Angela Oestreich, Jou Vang, Matt Stiltjes, Crissy Stogbauer, Matt Winden, Bob Telford, Andrea Heiting, Ron Ronnenburg.
III. Recognition of Guests
Karen Swan (Health Services), Greg Smith (Counseling Services), Sue Keihn (Dean of Students), Jackie Johannes (UUB-PCT).
IV. Approval of Agenda
Adam moved to strike Discussion Items d. At-Large Applicant and Discussion Item e. CCTV Capital Request from the agenda. Seconded by Matt W. Olga moved to approve the agenda with the amendment. Seconded by Tricia. Agenda is approved.
V. Approval of Minutes
Nate moved to approve the minutes. Seconded by Olga. Sarah called question. Motion passed.
VI. Reports
a. OFO: Last week, SUFAC allocated $89.99 to the 4E for their scanner leaving the Contingency Funds with a balance of $29,410.01. SUFAC also allocated $100 to Law Society out of the Small Org Fund, leaving a balance of $900.
b. Senate: Last week Senate discussed Campus Safety Issues as well as Public Safety’s announcement through e-mail when attacks may not be actual (“Boy who cried wolf, etc”). Counseling and Health will be at the Senate meeting this Monday.
c. UUB: Rick presented what he has for the Union Budget thus far. UUB has 2 new members. Discussed booth space and whether companies should be charged to use booths right now without student org or department sponsors. Twilight Golf was cancelled due to weather and only a few people were signed up.
d. GTP: Frightfest was this past weekend and was a full trip. This brings GTP’s Outdoor Adventure and Travel to be 98.9% full for the entire year thus far. Jim Wand is performing tonight in the Phoenix Rooms at 7 p.m. At their last meeting, GTP discussed possible changes for next year.
e. SGA Exec.: On Monday, SGA discussed constitution changes. They will also be doing a form of self evaluation at the meeting to determine how they have done thus far, and where they want to go. Will also be discussing election changes. The directors have been working on their own projects.
f. Vice: Sarah pointed out that the board should have received 2 e-mails. The first e-mail was about food request guideline changes. Sarah went on to read the e-mailed possible changes to the board. The possible change is: If more than one-third of attendance at an event is comprised of non-students (including, but not limited to: faculty, staff, and community members), segregated fees cannot be used.
A member of the board felt that this was fair and sounded good. Another member of the board felt that the fraction was a good idea. A member of the board asked how organizations are supposed to judge the percent of participants that are Faculty and Staff. Someone pointed out that it would be based on past programs and most of the time an organization has a good idea of what the ratio will be. Another member of the board pointed out that this is all based on the honor system and that the board expects organizations to be honest when they are presenting to SUFAC.
Sarah then asked the board what their opinion is with prizes. Does the board want organizations to provide an itemized list or just say the money is for prizes in general? A member of the board felt that it was fair to ask the organizations to provide an itemized list of prizes when they present to SUFAC. Another member of the board asked what the past precedence was. Sarah said that it has varied. Last year the board decided that they didn’t want to fund Tee-Shirts that were primarily just for members of that organization. However, the board was willing to find Tee-Shirts that were specifically for promotional use. It was pointed out that the decision of what to do this year is completely up to this board.
Some members of the board felt that prizes should be looked at by a case by case basis. A member pointed out that the board should look at the number of people attending and if it is open to all students, and then decide on a case by case basis. Another member of the board suggested that the board look at what the prizes are used for and if it is solely for the board versus being used as promotion to an event. A member of the board questioned if the board wanted to make a set amount that they are willing to set on prizes. A member of the board pointed out that the amount of prizes differs depending on the number of prizes they are giving out and how big the even is. Another member of the board suggested that the board create a limit as a ratio to the number of people attending the event, for example $2/person attending. Another member of the board then questioned that if an organization meets all the criteria, should the board automatically fund those prizes.
A member of the board looked at the guidelines not as a guarantee but more as something to follow. Some of the board like the percent idea, but for an organization to approximate the number of people attending when they have no idea and to decide the amount of money for prizes based on this would be fiscally irresponsible. Another member of the board felt that the percent is ambiguous, and that the board may want to look at the amount allocated in previous years. This member felt that prizes where good for an organization. Sarah said she will work on this, and bring it back next week.
The next item discussed in the e-mails, was the 1/3 contribution for university business. Sarah asked if the board wanted organization to be responsible for their 1/3 contributions in these cases or not. A member of the board felt that if the trip is in their job description and is required for them to attend; they should pay a percent, but not the full 1/3 the board requires of other trips. Another member of the board felt that if it was in the job description they shouldn’t be responsible for the 1/3. Another member of the board gave the example of United Council. The students of this school past the referendum for UWGB to be part of United Council, and this member felt that students should be able to go and participate without making them pay the 1/3 to go. A member of the board pointed out that some budgets passed and the organization was requested to come back to SUFAC with more information. Another member of the board felt that whatever the board decides on now should be carried over to D-Day. Sarah said that she will do the same thing as she is doing with the other topics discussed, and will bring it back to the board.
g. Chair: We have Auxiliary Budgets tonight. Sarah and Katie created a list of suggested questions to ask, and everyone should have a copy of this list. Ask many questions of the Auxiliaries as you see necessary to fully understand their budgets.
VII. Information Items
VIII. Discussion Items
a. Auxiliary Budget Presentation: Dean of Student- Sue Keihn presented the budget for the Associate Provost for Student Affairs. The Associate Provost for Student Affairs/Dean of Students Office has a duel mission. They are providing policy, leadership and coordination for all of Student Affairs along with the other mission of performing Dean of Student functions including hearing and resolving student complaints/grievances and student advocacy. On the first page of their budget, they included a table on the bottom half that has the budget for this year, the actual for this year, and the proposed budget for next year. They are not asking for an increase in the total Seg Fee Allocation for next year. Under Salaries for ’05-’06, they are funding an LTE since they had a retirement of a 35 year employee that was on the pay roll for 4 extra months due to vacation time and other things.
Sarah asked why in the summary of Campus Life S&E, they have $2,000 in actual than what they budgeted for. Sue Keihn said that they only spent $903 of the $3,350 budgeted in the previous year, so they are trying to use up the extra money. She wasn’t exactly sure what they were going to spend it on this year, but they didn’t’ want to carry the money over next year because they don’t need a large reserve. This will be voted on next week.
b. Auxiliary Budget Presentation: Health Services- Health Service’s budget begins by reflecting on why Health Service is necessary on campus. Health Service is composed of a full time Director, 2.8 FTE Student Health Nurses, 1.48 FTE clerical support persons and contracts with 3 physicians for 204 hours/year. They help students with their needs and offer many different services. They have almost 4,500 student/Nurse visits last year, and 678 Student/Physician Visits. Their budget is composed of 3 parts: Revenue, Expenditures, and Reserve. 80% of Health Service’s revenue is generated from Student Seg Fees. Sales and user fees compose the other 20% of their revenues. The prices of services offered through Health Service have increased over the years to offset the cost and try to not have an increase in the Seg Fees. Personal make up for 81% of the Expenditures in Health Service’s budget. S&E create the other 19% of Expenditures.
Health Service needs to keep $30,000 in their reserve for emergency back up for equipment and for Physicians in case of an out break. Karen pointed out that it is hard to create a budget for future years when this year is just beginning. The amount of Seg Fees requested this year has gone up from the amount requested last year, but Health Services kept it to the same amount that they projected last year that they would ask for this year. The Sales and services charges are based on users demand. The biggest change in the budget is the classified staff. Health services needs 75% of the University Services Associate 1 position to maintain it’s current level of service, and they have changed around the pay so that 128 will pay 75% instead of 10% of this position, and 102 will pay 10% instead of 75% of this position. They plan to keep the reserve at $30,000 by using some of the reserve that will be extra this year.
A member of the board asked what they plan on spending the reserve money on. Health Service said that they will use it to cover the change in classified staff salary. Health Service also puts $1,000 towards programming that includes Up with Good Bodies, SPA and promotion for the flu vaccine. A member of the board asked how many students visited Health Services last year. Karen said they had 4,486 Student/Nurse Visits, 1,460 Individuals visit, and 678 Student/Physician Visits. A member of the board asked what money the staff is paid with. Karen said it is with 128 dollars. This will be voted on next week.
c. Auxiliary Budget Presentation: COPE- COPE pointed out that their budget consists of small numbers than the previous two budgets seen tonight. Initially the money was for alcohol related programs only. COPE has evolved into a prevention oriented budget, which includes education for preventing sexual assault, violence, and eating disorders to name a few. Many of the programming is being planned and coordinated through a committee which is headed by the director of Counseling Services and has members from Counseling and Health, Residence Life, Student Life, the Student Ambassadors, and the Resident Assistant staff. The budget gets a little complicated since COPE received a $3,000 grant for more experimental programs. This includes the “Got the Real Facts” program. They are using this to try to get students to come to the other programs provided by COPE. This program is also offering prizes and is fully funded by the DOT Grant.
COPE would like to get some large programs going. They want to bring in a drunk driving stimulator. They have also been using an online program called E-Chug where students answer questions and it finds their risk of alcohol abuse along with comparing their alcohol consumption to other students across the country. COPE also wants to put on a Blood Alcohol Level program with residence life. COPE also puts on several programs that have local people come in and talk. Some examples include the family violence center coming in and talking, and self defense courses. COPE has also put up posters on the date rape drug, and put up balloons on safety phones. Insight is a 6 hr course that COPE uses, but is not part of their budget since it is paid for by fees. They are co-sponsoring Wendy Foxx to come in next semester with GTP. COPE has had a budget of $7,500 the last couple years, and is requesting this amount again this year.
A member of the board pointed out that COPE is doing amazing things and wondered if they had any research backing up that their programs are working on this campus. Greg said that they don’t have a lot of research to back up their programs. They are doing a little bit of research with the grant that they received. They do have research on alcohol use on this campus and research on what seems to work. Another member of the board asked what their goals are with the alcohol and drug related programs. Greg said that they want to get people thinking about their alcohol use and about low risk versus high risk choices. They also want people to be aware of the fact that alcohol dependence is a real danger. Another member of the board asked if they will be receiving another grant next year. Greg said that the Dean of Students office last year received a grant, and this year COPE received the next phase of the grant, but it is a one time deal type of thing. A member of the board asked why there is a difference in operating S&E from what they budgeted last year, and this year’s actual. Greg said that they want to use up their fund balance. This will be voted on next week.