TUITION AND FEE TASK FORCE
AGENDA and MINUTES
December 3, 2013
Members present: Terisa Riley, Bruce Schuneman, Duane Gardiner, Nancy KingSanders, Bob Paulson, Scott Gines, Charles Espinosa, Jo Alaniz, Rex Gandy
1. Minutes from previous meeting
Dr. Riley explained that agendas and minutes are not formally approved; however, if amendments need to be made to contact her. Also, she indicated that these will be posted on the University Budget Council website under the Tuition and Fee Task Force tab.
2. Instructions from TAMU System
The President has received formal permission from the Chancellor giving us the ability to schedule university fee hearings in the spring. The group discussed timing and the agenda for fee hearings. Also, the group discussed the need to hold referendum voting for any fee that is requesting an increase. Dr. Riley indicated that a good turn-out would equate to about 20% of the student population, or about 1,560 students.
3. Discussion about Fees and Fee Elimination or creation (with Models)
The majority of the meeting was dedicated to discussing the models created and used at College Station and San Antonio at which many fees were eliminated and a new University Services/Advancement Fee was established. The members discussed pros and cons of this type of plan and realize that guidelines would need to be established which allow current fund managers and students to believe the new fee would be clear and fairly distributed.
There was discussion about the three models created, and Dr. Riley indicated that another model could be created where any other fees were not eliminated. Dr. KingSanders indicated that the academic advising fee was of concern due to the need for additional advisors, and Dr. Gandy advocated for holding out that fee to account for growth. Dr. Riley countered that all existing fees would want the same in order to account for growth in their areas, too.
Dr. Abdelrahman indicated that many fees shouldn’t be kept because the final outcome of the new fee would be so small that it would not make a meaningful, strategic impact.
All participants indicated that there may be fear from managers that their departments would lose money as a result of the new fee creation and that they would need to have reassurance that any change would be revenue and expense neutral. Dr. Abdelrahman suggested allocating the funds to the VPs currently responsible for the fund groups.
Ms. Alaniz indicated that she had concerns about transparency and student involvement in making recommendations about the allocations of any new fee. Dr. Riley indicated that students would be involved in decision-making and shared governance because she felt that they would have many concerns about losing their majority voting position on the Student Services Fee advisory board, if SSF is eliminated. She encouraged the group to consider not eliminating the Student Services Fee for two reasons: 1) So that students would retain majority vote to recommend allocation of their funds, and 2) So that students receiving Hazlewood Waivers would continue to pay that fee. If eliminated and revenues are collected into a University Services Fee, the students receiving Hazlewood Waivers would not have to pay the new fee.
The group discussed the possibility of not eliminating any fees or creating any new fee in FY15. Dr. Riley said that if we are going to do so, this is the year to do it or else the whole process would be much more difficult if we do not couple this with the guaranteed tuition rate program. The group discussed the need to hear from Enrollment Management about the benefits of this fee for recruiting students or being competitive since several other universities are adopting this model.
NEXT MEETING: Attendance at next University Budget Council Meeting to discuss elimination of fees and creation of new: December 16, 2013, at 3 p.m. in Javelina Dining Hall.