APPROVED

STUDENT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING

2325 Murphy Hall

WEDNESDAY, MAY 10, 2006

Present

Graduates: Julie Park, Jenee Slocum

Undergraduates: Eric Barba (Chair), Daniela Conde, Roy Samaan

Faculty: Charles Healy, Professor, Department of Education

Administration: Tina Oakland, Director, Center for Women and Men; Debbe Pounds, Director, Early Academic Outreach Programs; Shirley Wong, Assoc. Director, U-Apts., Business and Administrative Services

SFAC Advisor: Marilyn Alkin, Special Assistant to the Vice Chancellor, Student Affairs

Ex-Officio: John Dahl, Budget Analyst, Academic Planning and Budget

Absent: Greg Cendana, Matt Hopper

Guests: (None)

Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 11:15 a.m.

Review of Handouts

· The following handouts were distributed:

o Approved minutes for April 19, 2006

o Draft minutes for May 3, 2006

o Letter to Chancellor Carnesale, dated May 8, 2006 “Re: SFAC Response to Registration Fee FY2006-2007 Requests”

o Academic Planning and Budget Analysis of Physiological Science’s Course Materials Fee Increase

Approval of Agenda

A motion was made by Roy Samaan, and seconded by Julie Park, to approve the agenda as presented. This was done by consent.

Approval of the Minutes

· The April 19, 2006 minutes were reviewed, with no changes noted.

A motion was made by Daniela Conde, and seconded by Debbe Pounds, to approve the May 6, 2006 minutes as presented. This was done by consent.

Course Materials Fee Request (Physiological Science)

· Background

o In 1996, a fee of $20 was first established

§ Covered costs that were primarily $1,000 per cadaver

§ Department budgeted for five cadavers per year

o In 2004, the UCLA Willed Body Program, which supplied, at cost, the cadavers to the Physiological Science department was closed

o The Willed Body Program is now reopened and will again provide the cadavers at cost

· Current issues

o Cost per cadaver has risen to $2,600

§ Increases are associated with a new system of governance and accountability, security policies including cameras and alarm systems, and criminal and financial background checks

§ OP will not allow any UC to acquire cadavers from any source outside of the UC system

§ Cost is consistent throughout the system

o A past and present budget comparison shows course enrollments and supplies and material costs to be relatively constant, which highlights the fact that the fee increase is caused by the higher cost of cadavers.

§ FY 05/06

· Cadaver expense -- $5,000

· Supplies and materials - $1,500

· Projected Enrollment – 325

· Fee -- $20

§ FY 06/07

· Cadaver expense -- $13,000 ($8,000 increase in cadaver costs)

· Supplied and materials -- $1,625

· Projected Enrollment – 325

· Fee -- $45

o Departmental survey responses:

§ 26% of those responding made comments concerning the fee

· 70% of this group were accepting of the increase, if not encouraging

· 8 % of this groupfelt it would be wrong to increase the fee

· Remaining were okay with the increase, but felt the cadavers should be in better condition if an increase is imposed

o Question

§ What is the relationship between Financial Aid (FA) disbursement and course materials fees? Is that taken into account when FA packages are made?

· The department should contact FA indicating the increase

· The student could contact FA requesting additional funds

· The Committee in their recommendation letter should request the department to:

o Notify the students of the increase via

§ The first day of class

§ An email announcement

o Notify FA of the increase

· There isn’t any option, i.e., they are locked in by the Office of the President as to where they can get the cadavers

A motion was made by Tina Oakland, and seconded by Charles Healy, to approve the fee increase as requested. The letter should include directions to follow up with Financial Aid and provide an alert to students to take steps to obtain increased funding, if necessary. The motion was approved by unanimous vote.

The Committee thanked John Dahl for his guidance regarding the department request and analysis of their input on this fee request.

CUA Discussion – Wrapping Up

· The Chair is in the process of getting the final report done to send to the Chancellor

· Response to the units

o Discussion 3 weeks ago

§ Not necessary to get back to the departments in detail regarding the committee’s decision and thoughts

o November, 2005

§ Indicated it would be beneficial to get back to the departments

· Build rapport

· Have more of a two-way conversation

· Recognize that their time and input was helpful in the deliberation

· A simple Thank You

§ This also might help next year’s committee when they go back to the departments for more information

§ Individual letter to each department

o Discussion

§ Courtesy to send a “thank you”

§ Some reports were critical, e.g., looked to reduce funding

· May be important for the units to see why they were criticized even though some may come back and question the committee

o We may have an influence in their being more constructive in what they are doing

o But it will leave us open to rebuttals from the units

§ May make them more cognizant of the use of the Reg Fee money

· More aware of how it is being used, and the need to be efficient in using the money for the purpose it was given

o Letter to the units will include:

§ Thank You

§ Executive Summary of the CUA, which outlines our report, in no great detail

§ CUA report for the unit, without the ranking

Rest of the Year Discussion

· Things to still be done

o CUA Report (Executive Summary)

o Policy sub-committees

§ User Fee

· Recommend a policy change, if appropriate

§ IEI

· No report given

o Funding guidelines

§ Last year’s committee approved a change in Reg Fee funding guidelines

§ They were mostly cosmetic

· However, no letter was ever sent to the Chancellor

§ Chair decided to bring it forward to this year’s committee to approve, then include it in the letter of policy changes to the Chancellor

o Continuity reports for next year -- User Fee, IEI, and PRG

§ What we did

§ What we urge next year’s committee to look at

§ Chair’s report

· Description of CUA

· Chancellor’s reception

o Elections for the committee

§ Dates

· 5/17 and 5/24 – open nominations

· 6/7 – elections

§ Returning students: Julie Park, Daniela Conde and possibly Greg Cendana

§ There can be Co-Chairs

o CUA Report – all will help review it for the Chair

Announcements/Adjournment

· Response for the reception for the Chancellor was positive

• Approx. 40 attended

· UCUES wants feedback

• Do we want to look into adding questions?

• There might be ways to add on to the systemwide questionnaire
• Should we make recommendations for next year’s committee or put it in the Continuity report?
• Copies of the Graduate, Senior and UCUES survey will be brought to the committee

· Last scheduled meeting is June 7

A motion was made by Jenee Slocum, seconded by Daniela Conde, and approved by consent to adjourn at 11:57 p.m.