Fee Transparency Project

Present: Marshall, Mel, Nicholas, Aims, Lyra, Arielle, John, Sofia, Vir, Trey, Cheryl, Maya, Lisa

[2:30 - 2:33] Welcome and Introductions
1. Members' introductions: Name, Pronouns, Year, Major, and Space.
2. Order: Cowell, Stevenson, Crown, Merrill, Kresge, Porter, Oakes, RCC, C9, JRL, Graduate Students, SAB, Provost, SUA, Lisa, Sezona, Lucy
[2:33 - 2:35] Approval of the Agenda and Minutes
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Approval of February 23, 2026, Minutes
[2:35 - 2:40] Public Comment
1. No public comment
SFAC Chair/Vice-Chair Reports
1. Chair
  1. No report
2. Vice-Chair
  1. Happy Week 9
Subcommittee Reports
1. Audit
  1. No report.
2. Outreach
  1. Nothing new since last week, check last week's meeting minutes
[2:35 - 2:40] SSF role in funding academic research
1. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1MtzV74hRJ8Rj844u-r9ioWBzrXQYEDM1?usp=drive\_link
2. Voting on SFAC opinion
3. Marshall restates that he believes SFAC should not be funding activities such as what’s proposed, as it’s aligned with research and academic activities. He may be OK with the archive, but is not sure, especially if the archive will be used for faculty research/publishing.
4. Mel agrees with Marshall; in the future, though, she is curious about whether we would fund any kind of research.
5. Trey says that if this was experiential, outside of an academic course, like programming, we shouldn’t fund it.
6. Aims says that he appreciates how SFAC understands the issues. When students pay their tuition, they should feel confident that their student services fees are key decisions left to students.
7. Nicholas expresses some concern regarding the role of the graduate student and the possibility of a grad student missing out on a work opportunity (e.g., the archivist work?)
8. Lucy shares that in the past SSF has been used for research purposes, usually student internships in student support departments.
  1. Mel motions to accept the appeal recommendation. Nicholas motions to second. No objections
  2. No motions are made regarding whether to adopt on a stance on use of SSF for research activities, generally, therefore, the issue will not be advanced.
[2:40 - 2:50] Discussion: Consolidated Shared Services Assessment - table this item to the next meeting.
1. https://planning.ucsc.edu/models-assessments/administration-service-assessments/
2. SFAC Response
3. Marshall explains that he is still working on adding to the statement which Audit committee has drafted. Marshall asks if there is support for the sections of the statement as outlined in the draft, and he will work on finalizing the language and bring it to next week’s meeting for final review. There are 8 votes in favor of moving forward.
[2:50 - 3:00] Debrief Visit with Executive Director Dan Henderson, TAPS / Visit with Chancellor Larive
1. FOLDER with materials provided by Dan, including slide deck
2. Develop a recommendation for the Chancellor
3. Discuss the proposed policy on reducing campus-based fees
4. Maya states that she is not supportive of increasing the fee due to mismanagement by TAPS of the existing fee.
5. John states that we should not recommend funding due to a lack of performance.
6. Sofia asks about the point that Mel made two years ago. We were expecting a new loop bus, but then the bus didn’t come. Now the bus is supposed to come next quarter.
7. The increase is $3 per year. Lisa says that the original purpose of the referendum was to pay for the electric buses and the infrastructure for those buses.
8. Sofia: My previous point by asking about the EV bus was just a lack of follow-up from TAPS, which makes it hard to recommend them to increase because of the little support from them
9. Nicholas: Seems like this increase in $3 of the TAPS student fee was voted for by students of the past on the condition that electrical buses were purchased as well as an electrifying dock that could charge those buses. Because TAPS has done these things, I'd recommend that we uphold the promise of past students.
[3:00 - 3:30] Right Livelihood Campus-Based Fee Presentation
1. Guests: David Shaw and Jacob Chaudhry
  1. David is a graduate student who leads the initiative
  2. Jacob is an undergraduate student and is the leader of the student organization Right Livelihood.
  3. The organization builds connections between Laureates and our students. Some students went to Sweden last year.
2. Ballot Statement
3. Budget for Fee Increase
4. Link to questions
5. Questions:
  1. How is Right Livelihood funded? Jacob says there is funding from different sources; SFAC has been a main source of funding. Last year, they did not submit a funding application. David shares that he started out doing much of this work as a volunteer.
  2. Is what’s being proposed an increase to an existing fee, or a new fee? A new fee of $4.99 per student, per quarter. Is it right to think about the Right Livelihood program positioned as a mentor program by changemakers? How are students who are involved able to get in touch with Nobel Laureates. Answer is yes. Alumni are also really involved.
  3. How is this different than this time and last time this program ran a referendum? David says that now there is more engagement with the Laureates. AI is changing our universities and democracies, facism is different. We don’t take asking students for a fee measure lightly. The $4.99 is a tiny amount for the value and benefits of what students will receive in return. We will not stop fundraising.
  4. What does a week to week look like for the committee? What is the work that students are doing? In winter quarter, there has been an event almost every week (World Cafe - 20 students, community organizing event- workshop
  5. The fee will include the 1% assessment amount.
[3:30 - 4:00] Basic Needs Fee Campus-Based Fee Presentation
1. Guest: Estefania Rodriguez and Francis Ge
  1. Slide Deck
2. Ballot Statement
3. Budget for Fee Increase
4. Basic Needs Operating Budget
5. Link to questions
6. Question:
  1. What index will the referendum be driven by? Lisa responds that she added a comment to the draft language. Marshall suggests the California CPI, but an increase should not be applied if there is a carry forward.
  2. What does Slug Support use their carry forward funds for? Estefania responds that funds go into the hardship fund, etc.
  3. How does the basic needs advisory committee (that is proposed by the fee) function? Will the advisory committee position be paid? Estefania says that many of the advisory committee members will be student staff who are already in positions, funded through other funds. The advisory committee will meet quarterly.
  4. Will this be the first basic needs referendum at UCSC? Estefania says yes, but not the first UC. Other UCs have an existing referendum.
  5. Does basic needs hire only students? The answer is yes, only UCSC students are hired at the Dean of Students office, Basic needs (23 students) and Center for Agroecology (30-35 students).
  6. Is there an existing fee committee? There is a campaign committee; and there will be a new advisory committee if the fee is enacted.
  7. Regarding the meal swipe program, do the donations from dining go to the bank? Yes. Can students donate more than 50 Slug points?
  8. What is the Calfresh alternative program? This program is open to students who have applied for financial aid but may not be eligible for CalFresh. If the fee passes, we would be able to provide an allotment every month in parody with Calfresh.
  9. On the fee document, there’s an item that says “supplies, farm to table” - could be paper bags, packaging for food, farm infrastructure (irrigation pipes, grow food, etc.
Meeting Adjourned

Upcoming Guests/Topics:

Potentially SFAC Attending a UC Regents Meeting: March 17th, 2026 @UCSF
Spring CSF Meeting: April 11th -12th
University Registrar Tchad Sanger: Records Fee (late spring 2026)

Meeting and Committee Member Resources:

SFAC Roster
Orientation Materials
Agendas and Minutes
Tracking Sheet for Campus-Based Fees: ongoing discussion
Google Folder
Summer 26 Fee Levels