Skip to content
Fee Transparency Project
Companion to the official sfac.ucsc.edu (opens in new tab) · About this site

October 30th, 2020

AgendaMinutes

Present: Brynna Downey, Lucy Rojas, Lydia Jenkins-Sleczkowski, Alvin Ho, Andy Huynh, Chloe Mietzel, Gloria Qiu, Isaac Karth, Lisa Bishop, Mathew Sarti, May Alvarez, Sue Carter, Venkatesh Nagubandi

  1. Welcome and Introductions
    1. Welcome to our new committee members!
    2. Brynna leads the group in introductions.
  2. Approval of Agenda and 10/23/20 Minutes
    1. Isaac motions to approve the agenda, May seconds. Motion passes.
    2. Isaac motions to approve the minutes, Alvin seconds. Motion passes.
  3. Announcements & Updates
    1. Campus Resources Summary
      1. Lucy shares that this is a new website with great resources for the overview of the university budget. There are resources that show the fund sources, how they’re allocated, which activities are funded, etc. This is very relevant. SFAC has a part of the budget, specifically SSF and M7. The purview of SFAC in terms of recommendations and allocations is a part of the overall university budget.
      2. Lisa adds that P&B will be adding a new Bird’s Eye View on the P&B website as well, less detailed but showing actual budgets and expenditures. Lisa will be giving a budget presentation to SFAC with the overall budget, showing actual revenues and allocations, and what is going on this year.
    2. Other announcements
      1. Lucy encourages folks, in addition to watching the orientation video, to peruse the SFAC website and read the meeting minutes and understand the published documents. You can also contact Lucy/Lydia if you would like to do a deeper dive into committee requirements. Lucy will also be prompting you to apply through the ER system in order to receive the stipend.
  4. Funding Call Preparation
    1. Summary of data from self-reflection surveys
      1. We have a goal to send out the funding call in mid-November, and this is the next step in preparing. Brynna reminds SFAC that it is a group that allocates money, and how the group chooses to spend money reflects the committee’s values.
      2. Lucy adds that many campus departments and student organizations are eligible for funding. Last year, there was a wide range of awards allocated, the largest was for a CARE advocate. The funding should reflect the values and resources that students want to preserve. The metric is the first place to start with this- members read proposals and put ratings, and this starts the discussion for making decisions. It begins with evaluation, then ranking, then deliberation. The application will mirror the rubric.
    2. Funding Proposal Priorities
      1. Themes? (e.g. specific student groups, mental health, etc.)
      2. Categories of expenses? (e.g. student employment, remote service resources, etc.)
      3. What is missing?
      4. Lucy gives an overview of the metric and the columns.
      5. Brynna asks if the “middle list” is missing anything, or if the committee members have thought of new priorities since last week?
        1. Isaac says that he’d like to see something that addresses safety. There is a lot of concern about that right now, and will likely remain moving forward. He’d like to ensure that funding is spent in a way that makes sure students are safe.
        2. Gloria says accommodations such as the DRC would be a priority for her.
        3. May mentions that outreach plans should be asked in the evaluation. Brynna suggests that this be asked in the methodology section.
      6. Brynna asks for suggestions about integrating old categories into new metric. Lucy says that categories are in bold font, and points are assigned to each.
        1. Brynna walks through each category.
        2. Overview: is modified to generalize more. Isaac requests to keep the date-specific question. Venkatesh says that overview might not need a point value, Isaac and Brynna agree.
        3. Student Impact: Lucy says that this category might not be weighted more. She also says that historically, there has been a value in direct support back to students. Matthew suggests asking if impact will be direct, and defining the type of impact. Alvin mentions asking about fostering community.
        4. Methodology: Question about outreach is added. Venkatesh points out that not all proposals are outreach-necessary. Brynna suggests that the question be more general for the unit, to make sure that units are serving students well.
      7. Brynna says that the discussion will be continued next week. She assigns the group to look through previous year’s proposals.
      8. Venkatesh suggests asking spaces what they would like to see in the proposals as well.
    3. Revisit the Funding Call Metric - tabled to next week
    4. Funding Call Letter Draft - tabled to next week
    5. Funding Proposal Timeline - tabled to next week
      1. Finalize Call Letter and Metric by Nov 6?
      2. Workshop dates
      3. Deadlines
  5. Adjournment
    1. Lucy says that by next week, all positions will be filled.
    2. Isaac motions to adjourn, Venkatesh seconds. Motion passes.

Upcoming Guests/Topics:

  • Lisa’s SSF presentation (November 6?)
  • Lucy Van Doorn for MCFAC participation (November 13)
  • Interim Vice Chancellor Baszile (November 20)
  • Associate Vice Chancellor and Dean of Students Naiman (December 4)