April 13th, 2025

Zoom: https://ucsc.zoom.us/j/98559266028?pwd=XOXI1eAbHbfVmdgNNgEAcBZ9mM86JT.1

Meeting start time: 11:05

Present: Mel, Lauren, Shirley, Wahaj, Katie, Trey, Marshall, Cheryl, Lisa

1. Welcome and Introductions
   1. Members introductions: Name, Pronouns, Year, Major, and Space.
   2. Order: Cowell, Stevenson, Crown, Merrill, Kresge, Porter, Oakes, RCC, C9, JRL, GSA, GSC, SAB, Provost, SUA, Lisa, Lucy
2. Approval of Agenda & 4/8/25 Minutes
   1. Marshall makes a motion to approve the agenda and April 8th minutes. Motion is seconded by Cheryl
3. 2024-2025 Funding Call
   1. Resources
      1. Proposal Folder
      2. Rating Worksheet
      3. Absent Member Notes
   2. Proposals to review and discuss this meeting:

• Email from Slugworks
• No response (as of 4/11/25) to follow up request for information on 3/28/25 (requested response by 4/8. Send one final email on 4/11/25)

• No response (as of 4/11/25) to follow up request for information on 3/28/25 (requested response by 4/8. Send one final email on 4/11/25)

• Follow up from ITS (questions posed by SFAC)

• Updates from Lucy regarding proposal #41: DSAS will likely be giving funding to this program but it might not cover all costs. The department would still need partial funding to implement the program.

• Updates from AARCC Director regarding proposal #42: At this juncture, given the state of the budgets, we are willing to accept any amount of funding to ensure that our current mentors retain their positions for AY26 to properly plan to sunset the program in AY27 if we are unable to procure stable funding.

• Tabled based on Manel’s feedback; please confirm with Manel before making any final decisions.
  1. Deliberations
     1. Proposal #24
        1. No updates, being cut
     2. Proposal #26
        1. No updates, being cut
     3. Proposal #29
        1. Complicated, as the funding request seems all-or-nothing
        2. Question of what would happen to funds if distributed in a smaller amount
        3. Willing to fund for now, as a strictly one time event, and require that they seek outside funding next year
        4. Mel motions/suggests to fund $25,329, with a strict condition that they must seek outside funding in the future.
     4. Proposal #41
        1. Willing to give an amount to be used at their discretion
        2. Proposal that it will be the lower of either proposed amount or the difference between required funds and what DSAS is willing to fund
        3. Ex: $20,000 OR the difference, whichever is lower
        4. Marshall motions/suggests to fund $15,000 OR the difference between needed funds and what DSAS is allocating
     5. Proposal #42
        1. Mentors is the most important aspect of cost
        2. Would like to fully fund two lead mentors
        3. As well as the $950 for programs
        4. Marshall motions/suggests to fund $14,466 for lead interns and program costs
     6. Proposal #46
        1. Gave them $8500 on last proposal
        2. Would like to simply fund program
        3. Trey motions/suggests to fund $9000 for just the program costs
     7. Proposal #47
        1. Because this is specifically for transfer students, more willing to provide more as transfers don’t often get much funding
        2. They are also seeking outside funding, so this is one-time
        3. Marshall motions/suggests to fund $7335 for one intern and programming.
     8. Proposal #48
        1. If funding, would like to fund an earlier proposal as this was grouped in a prior proposal with other programs
        2. Agree with the amount previously given, previously allocated $24,811 to be split between all resource centers
        3. Do other resource centers already have more money, and didn’t submit a request because of this?
           1. No, there were proposals made by others
        4. Funds essentially exhausted for funding of this type, will affect other proposals
        5. They have a student fee already of about $27000 each
        6. Requests full funding, but this cannot be provided, could just fund lead events coordinator
        7. Mel motions/suggests to fund $13968 for lead events coordinator, if they get their fee passed the money must be returned
     9. Proposal #49
        1. Mock and moot trial both already get $27,000 apiece
        2. Suggested to only fund supplies, $1983
        3. They have many alleyways to get money from student governments and others
        4. Have funded before
        5. Mel motions/suggests to fund $1983 for supplies only, and would like to suggest that they seek other funding
     10. Proposal #50
         1. This is another resource center, looking at employees
         2. Suggestion to just fund supplies, or also one or two intern positions
         3. Suggestion to fund early move-in
         4. Or to give flexibility on what they would like to spend money on
         5. Being asked for funding for slug points for early move-in students, need to know they won’t go to waste if not spent
         6. Mel motions/suggests to fund $7000 to be spent at their discretion
     11. Proposal #51
         1. Reminder to not take dear colleague letter into consideration as this is student fees and not federal funding
         2. Willing to fund photographer and cultural stoles
         3. Mel motions/suggests to fund $10,000 for cultural stoles and photographer
     12. Proposal #52
         1. As the money needed is very high, will be difficult for them to find elsewhere
         2. Ideathon is only thing planned for certain, everything else leading up to Slug Tank is TBD
         3. Cannot possibly raise these funds from student governments
         4. Marshall motions/suggests to fund $17000 just for programming and supplies, not travel
     13. Proposal #53
         1. Not under umbrella of resource centers
         2. Received $8500 last year
         3. Provided operating budget for greater org, not just veteran resources
         4. Marshall motions/suggests to fund $8500
     14. Proposal #54
         1. Receive funding through Cantu Queer Center already
         2. Already funded their student employees in proposal #23
         3. Would like to aim for programming and supplies with this proposal
         4. Lauren motions/suggests to fund $14500 to be used at their discretion
     15. Side discussion: SUA funds
         1. Lack of clarity of where funds are going, they seem to have quite a lot and it is unclear how they plan to spend it all, fee was passed and hasn’t gone into effect
         2. If they have carry-over of $450,000, should ask for $100,000 back, need to open discussion with them
         3. They should have enough left over to fund programs even after returning $100,000
         4. SOFA takes presentation proposals and decides how to use funds
         5. Would need to go into SUA space and share this information with them
     16. Proposal #55
         1. Would like to fund performers and entertainment
         2. Or cut stipends and just entertainment
         3. Could fund food as well, can use $18 per person rate to gauge how many students willing to fund
         4. Last year, funded $12,620
         5. Marshall motions/suggests to fund $10000 for regular catering
     17. Proposal #56
         1. Large carry-forward
         2. Not supposed to fund EOP as part of governing doc, it should be covered by the state
         3. For students, not for organization
         4. Cheryl motions/suggests to fund $12000 for EMH programming specifically
     18. Proposal #57
         1. Proposal has not been made before
         2. Are we in a position to fund an entirely new program?
         3. Should focus on programming
         4. Already funded their interns as part of proposal #23
         5. Trey motions/suggests to fund $9000 for programming, $3000 per quarter
     19. Proposal #58
         1. Have definitely gotten this proposal before
         2. Seems to have a large projected carry-forward of $137,000, should advise them to contact college government
         3. Could avoid funding them this year, see if they need money next year, as they already have money
         4. Wahaj motions/suggests to not fund them, and advise them to ask again if their reserves are lower.
     20. Proposal #59
         1. Suggestion to fund supplies and student employees
         2. Mel motions/suggests to fund $7334 for supplies and student employee wages with benefits
     21. Proposal #60
         1. Same opinion as previous resource center seeking supplies insurance
         2. Carry-forward significantly lower
         3. Asking for many interns for different things, hence the many different proposals instead of one cumulative one
         4. Funded lead intern for the last one
         5. Mel motions/suggests to fund $8507 for the lead intern
     22. Proposal #61
         1. Want to fund stoles
         2. They used all of the funding given last year
         3. Programming and $350 for stoles
         4. Mel motions/suggests to fund $4480 for fully funding programming and stoles
     23. Proposal #62
         1. Denied in the past as Student Media Council has approximately a million in carry-over funds and they should cover it
         2. Unsure if they are a part of SMC
         3. Should return to this discussion when confirming in the future
         4. Trey motions/suggests to fund half of programming, $5837
     24. Proposal #63
         1. Going to just training students and not into the community, paying for students to volunteer
         2. Four quarters, includes summer as well
         3. Could fund specific sections that go directly to students such as food
         4. Seems like a lot of money for just 18 students, will fund two
         5. Marshall motions/suggests to fund $6721 for two student workers
     25. Proposal #18
         1. Fine funding one lead mentor and programming
         2. There are multiple divisions, would have to fund one mentor each
         3. Five mentors at $1000 each
         4. If fee gets passed, need to submit a report to keep their funding
         5. Mel motions/suggests to fund $8000 for five mentors and programming
     26. Proposal #20
         1. Could use mental health funding for this
         2. Peer educators probably the most important, suggested to fund two
         3. They do already get peer educators from intensive psychology field study program
         4. Program assistant noticeably more expensive than peer educator
         5. Marshall motions/suggests to fund $5400 for two peer educators
     27. Proposal #21
         1. Cannot fund supplies as they requested alcohol
         2. Agree to fund stipends
         3. Wahaj motions/suggests to fund $3500 for stipends
     28. Proposal #35
         1. Unsure why they do not have a proper budget
         2. They must pay money out as fellowships
         3. Do we want to fund this proposal at all?
         4. Have previously received HSI funding, so they do have the ability to apply for other funding
         5. Wahaj motions/suggests to fund $5000 total, hard to specify as their budget doc is unclear
     29. Proposal #28
         1. Can just throw out a number, ask if it works, and if it doesn’t can simply not fund
         2. Could fund two
         3. Marshall motions/suggests to fund $16390, with condition that it is based on conversation had with them.
  2. Discussion on Cutting Funding
     1. Flat rate or deliberation?
        1. Concern with flat rate is that they will ask for more if we fund a smaller amount
        2. Ask everyone to bring a proposal in approximately two weeks at meeting on April 22nd, can go over proposals everyone brought, discuss the breakdown
        3. Notably more generous in beginning before budget became lower

1. Adjournment
   1. Meeting was adjourned at 1:32