Fee Transparency Project

Present: Brynna Downey, Stephanie Herrera, Maryann Godje, Charlene Proo, Emily Montano, Lisa Bishop

Welcome and Introductions
1. SFAC Community Agreements
Approval of Agenda and 2/14/2022 Minutes
1. Will motion agenda and minutes next meeting due to not meeting quorum
Announcements & Updates
1. Extra Winter Meeting Times
  1. Sundays 2-3pm
  2. Tuesdays 7-8pm
  3. Extending Monday meetings until 3:30
2. Other announcements
Spring 2022 Referendum Discussion
Funding Call Deliberations
1. Ratings worksheet
2. Discussion
  1. Appropriate uses of SSF and M7 funds
  2. Inappropriate for SSF funds
  3. Finalizing 1-22
    1. #7 UCSC iGEM 2022 Team Funding Request:
      1. Stephanie thinks they should get funded even if they impact a few undergraduates, they are still impactful. Suggest to find them $4,500
      2. Charlene agrees with Stehpanie, considering their past experience their request is doable and would do something with it. Is okay with allocating $4,500. Would feel uncomfortable completely not funding this proposal. Want to make sure allocations improve the student experience, and thinks this is one of those types of programs
      3. Stephanie unofficially motions to fund them $4,500 for student stipends, Charlene unofficially seconds, No objections.
    2. #10 Politics Dept. Grad Student Research Funding:
      1. Maryann suggests giving them the full $26k but the group thinks they should get 2k. Not a large amount and it is a good cause because we do want PHD students to be benefited.
      2. Stephanie understands it is strange that department themselves cannot provide this for their students, but understands how crucial the software is for graduate students research
      3. Brynna says there is a precedent for software being so critical that there is a central license provided by the campus and for advisors and she personally uses open source software but not everything is open source. This should not be coming out of the grad student’s pocket, in her opinion
      4. Stephanie says she cannot do research without software. Need software to analyze data or have a computer data design. Say’s software is critical for research.
      5. Maryann is thinking for now we can out $0 and take this open to everyone in the group. Can put “please contact ITS for funding, we are not for that”. Motions to unofficially fund $0 for now and have an open dialogue the next time we meet as a full group, Charlene unofficially seconds. No objections
    3. #16 Open Government Academy:
      1. Maryann originally gave them 6k for student stipends. But personally their student impact and budget sheet sections were weak and did not take the opportunity to shine in some areas. Group suggested $0 because their application was weak.
      2. Stephanie suggested only funding them 15k because the application was vague and the program is very short term and only benefits 18 students.
      3. Brynna says they did not use our budget template
      4. Maryann unofficially suggests $0 because they don’t use the budget template and overall application was very vague and weak, Stephanie unofficially seconds. No objects
    4. #12 Staff Human Resources:
      1. Maryann put $0 because she did not know how to determine an amount initially and rated this application low. One of her group members pointed out this had minimal impact and did not provide additional funding they are currently seeking.
      2. Stpehanie also suggested $0 because not all fields filled out, showing lack of effort. And it only supports 4 undergraduate students and thus not a useful way to spend money
      3. Stephanie unofficially motions to fund $0, Stephanie seconds. No objections
    5. #4 Light Leak Volume 4:
      1. Maryann and her group gave them $0. They went to all the colleges and pretty much will get all their funding from all the colleges. They are already getting a lot of resources for funding and utilize those funds. She is from Crown College and knows they already got funding from Crown
      2. Stephanie does not think it supports the initial needs of students
      3. Brynna points out that the average amounts are different and wrong.
      4. Maryann thinks because they did not follow the rules of the application, should just give them $0
      5. Unofficial suggestion of $0 overall from the group
    6. $20 GSC- Boiler Replacement:
      1. Maryann put $0 because it was suspicious that the school or state would not fund something like this because it is a health problem.
      2. Lisa says the state cannot fund this and no state funds can go towards capital projects at all. There is a facility fee each of the grad students pay and their income. Not inappropriate use for the allocation process but does require to be student fee funded.
      3. Brynna gives context since she used to be the GSC treasurer and reserve account for facility requests
      4. Lisa says for them to work for the budget office and see what the appropriate funds are
      5. Maryann suggests to move on and shave off at the very end, no objections
    7. #23 Building Experiential Learning Opportunities:
      1. Stpehanie was confused what experiential learning is and felt that it is HR training for students. Suggest to fund them $7,750 for one student assistant.
      2. Lisa says experiential learning is providing a place for a student to give them an opportunity to work in an area of need
      3. Maryann gave them about 16k for two student employees with paid benefits and rated them a pretty good score. If no benefits would suggest 15k. Maryann now suggests 15k for two employees, Stephanie is okay with this because it is unofficial
  4. Proposals 23-43
Adjournment
1. Cannot motion due to not meeting quorum requirements

Upcoming Guests/Topics:

Summer Campus-Based Fee Levels (February 21st and 28th)
Elimination of CBF Policy (Lisa and Diane Lallemand)
DSAS Space Initiative (Lucy)
SUGB, Student Union Governance Board
On The Margins, Daniela Obeso (coaching, care circle)
Discussion and follow up of referendum presentations