skip to main skip to secondary navigation
Navigation

JPBC Minutes: April 7, 2022

8:30 – 10:30 a.m., Virtual Meeting via Teams

Attendees

Voting Members
  • Sondra Aman
  • Mike Andriatch
  • Sarah Boroski
  • Hailey Gardner
  • Kandie Gay
  • Daniel Goebel
  • Kristin Hartway
  • Tom Hernandez
  • Margaret Lane
  • Dave Mihalyov
  • Janet Roy
  • James Spiller
  • Mark Stacy
  • Elliot Weininger
  • Katy Wilson
Non-Voting Members
  • Bob Cushman
  • Eileen Daniel
  • Crystal Hallenbeck
  • Mike Harrison
  • President Macpherson
  • Jason Morris
  • Darson Rhodes: Co-Chair
  • Kevin Rice
  • Karen Riotto
  • Taneika Thompson
  • Jim Wall: Co-Chair
  • Melissa Wight

 

Guests
  • Nathan Bull
  • Jennifer Green
  • Scott Haines
  • Erick Hart
  • Cathy Houston-Wilson
  • Mehruz Kamal
  • Rachael Killion
  • Heather Raczkowski
  • Rey Sia
  • Susan Wielgosz
  • Robert Wyant

Regrets

Voting Members
  • Justine Briggs
  • James Cordeiro
  • Frances Dearing
  • Linda Delene
  • Jose Maliekal
  • Janet Roy

The meeting was called to order at 8:30 a.m.

Approval of the Minutes

Dr. Rhodes asked the committee to review the minutes from the March 24, 2022, meeting. Ms. Aman motioned to approve the minutes; Mr. Mihalyov seconded the motion. 10 members voted to approve the minutes. Therefore, the minutes were approved.

Announcements

Dr. Rhodes made the following announcements:

  • The call for Investment Fund proposals closed last week. The members that are on the subcommittee will be receiving an email notifying them of next steps for review of the submitted proposals.

Vote to Endorse 2022-23 Course Fee Requests

(Note: Materials are available on Blackboard and Teams)

Ms. Riotto presented the course fee requests and the Campus Based Fee Review Committee’s voting results and concerns related to some of the fees. No questions occurred at this time. Dean Goebel motioned for the endorsement of the slate of course fee requests, Dr. Weininger seconded the motion. The following are the results of the present voting members:

Endorse Not Endorse Abstain
9 0 0

 

Campus Based Fee Review Committee (CBFRC) Biennial Report

(Note: Presentation is available on Blackboard and Teams)

Ms. Riotto provided the committee with the biennial report from CBFRC. The following questions, answers and discussion points occurred during the presentation:

  • Clarification was requested regarding removing JPBC from the course fee request approval process and why couldn’t JPBC remain in the process with just a scheduling adjustment to ensure the approval process is completed in time for the SUNY deadline. It was stated that JPBC would not be removed from the approval process. It would be more of a post endorsement. In concept it seems very easy to get on calendars for approvals, but it is very difficult this time of year. After today’s meeting, we have to get on President Cabinet’s agenda, and we have to meet SUNY’s deadline of May 1. It seems not that difficult, but agendas fill up quickly. The intent of the recommendation is to allow the process to move forward, but also provide JPBC an opportunity to review the course fee requests. If there was a compelling reason to rescind a request, we can do that. This recommendation comes from a logistical perspective, we cannot miss SUNY’s deadline, or we will not be able to submit course fee requests.
  • The concern was stated that the proposed new approval process would undermine JPBC’s advisory function if it becomes a post review.
  • It was stated that College Senate would be concerned about removing a shared governance step from the approval process.
  • The question was raised regarding if the recommendations were in unanimous agreement from the subcommittee. It was stated that there wasn’t a vote, but there was a consensus from the members.
  • The request was made to get further explanation for the typical timing of the SUNY deadlines. It was stated that the summer course fee requests were due April 1. We are seeking approval to submit the summer course fee requests late. The fall course fee requests are due May 1.
  • The question was raised how far ahead of those deadlines does information need to get Cabinet for approval. It was stated that the call goes out to the deans in mid-January and responses are due back in early March. This is to allow time to develop the requests. The requests are not always received on time. The materials are then compiled and the CBFRC invites requestors to a meeting. Due to everyone’s busy schedule, just like JPBC the meeting dates are determined at the beginning of the year and the committee schedules agenda items for those meetings. To set up a meeting outside of the meeting schedule would be challenging as it would be for JPBC. Once CBFRC has reviewed the requests, an agenda item needs to be set on the next JPBC meeting. Once JPBC endorses the fees, the review needs to be placed on President Cabinet’s agenda. Room on the agenda is determined based on what it is occurring on campus at that time.
  • The question was raised regarding the recommendation for additional student education and if the videos from the fall fee forum will just be placed on a webpage or will there be communication sent out to the students regarding the availability of the videos. It was stated the videos will just be placed on the webpage.
  • The question was raised regarding what amount of revenue change will there be with eliminating the double technology fee. It was stated that the amount will be around a $175,000 reduction of revenue. The Technology Fee has a very healthy balance. Also, balances are reviewed by SUNY, and they will question why fees are being assessed when there are resources in place. Based on the presentation that was viewed about two weeks ago, Technology Fee will have almost $2 million in balances. It was added that the double technology fee was included in the presentation, so the balances in the future may not be as robust.
  • It was stated that in reviewing the fees, it is not clear that a fee differential of twice for a student taking online courses only is justified. Especially now after the pandemic, so many students are using these resources. It is not just the online students using Blackboard, email, etc. There are resources that are used by physically present students. Such as the infrastructure of the internet in the dorms.

Members decided to vote to endorse the three recommendations separately.

Dr. Weininger motioned to endorse recommendation one regarding increasing student education resources on fees; Ms. Aman seconded the motion. The following are the results from the present voting members:

Endorse Not Endorse Abstain
13 0 0

 

Ms. Boroski motioned to endorse recommendation two regarding eliminating the double technology fee for exclusively online programs; Ms. Aman seconded the motion. The following are the results from the present voting members:

Endorse Not Endorse Abstain
13 0 0

 

Ms. Aman motioned to endorse recommendation three regarding updating the campus policy on the assessment of campus-based fees; Mr. Stacy seconded the motion. The following are the results from the present voting members:

Endorse Not Endorse Abstain
0 5 3

 

Pool Report

(Note: Presentation is available on Blackboard and Teams)

Dr. Houston-Wilson presented the pool report. The following questions, answers and discussion points occurred:

  • It was stated that in creating the Aquatics Director position, this would allow the swim coach to focus on recruiting and coaching the team. This could potentially allow for the swim team’s roster to double.
  • The question was raised if the proposed Aquatics Director position would be best in KSSPE, Athletics or another area and if this discussion has occurred. It was stated that what lead to this discussion is that two years ago this was submitted as a recommendation when a call was sent out to the campus community to submit cost savings or revenue generating ideas. There was a task force developed to review this recommendation. When looking at the pool’s possible uses and current uses, it really overlaps with every one of KSSPE’s majors. In addition, there is a graduate program within KSSPE that is Athletic Administration and managing facilities is part of what is taught.
  • The question was raised regarding if all the expenses and potential revenue has been reviewed. It was stated that a fiscal analysis has not be completed yet. The vision has been developed and now the next step would be the financial analysis.
  • The question was raised regarding the longevity of this proposal in terms of if the KSSPE department would want to continue with this into the future. It was stated that the KSSPE department sees the benefit in taking on this endeavor and all individuals in the department are comfortable with this proposal. It was added that Dean Hernandez thinks this is a compelling idea. This is a way for the institution to generate revenue, but also to attract students. Some of the ideas that were presented are some of the reasons students would want to come to an institution to engage in those type of activities with the community.
  • The question was raised regarding who teaches the aquatic courses. It was stated that right now the only courses that are offered are for the Physical Education Teacher major and they are Beginning/Intermediate Swimming and Teaching Aquatics. Currently there is a GA teaching those. We used to offer lifeguard training and water safety instruction but because they were taught by adjuncts and we had to cut the adjunct budget, we had to stop offering those courses. These could be offered as certification workshops and not necessarily courses. Also, we used to offer scuba diving but that was taught by an adjunct as well. The number of classes that have been typically used for the pool have been reduced because of the budget. There is potential for the Aquatics Director to teach these courses as well.
  • It was decided that the next step is to do a comprehensive financial analysis. Once completed, it can then be presented to JPBC for review and potential endorsement.

Undergraduate Enrollment and Retention Update

(Note: Presentation is available on Blackboard and Teams)

Mr. Wyant provided an update on undergraduate enrollment and retention. The following questions, answers and discussion points occurred during the presentation:

 

  • It was stated that SUNY Oswego advertises on a billboard downtown and we should develop a plan to compete with their advertising tactics. It was stated that SUNY Oswego invested a lot of money into a consultant that resulted in many billboards across NY. They did the free application push like us, and we had a higher yield with ours.
  • It was stated that two years ago the projections showed the freshman applications bottoming out this year and it is good to see that was an accurate prediction.
  • The question was raised regarding the decrease in transfer applications and if there is a projection of when those applications will bottom out. It was stated that the transfer applications are going to continue to steadily decline because community colleges are struggling with that. High school graduations are continuing to decline.
  • The request was made to receive information regarding retention before the end of the semester.
  • The question was raised regarding what the average number of applications a student submits to colleges and has the number declined, in turn increasing the yield or is it our enhanced scholarship. The request was made to continue sharing the SUNY comparison reports with JPBC. It was stated that we do look at SUNY reports. It is just an application report right now. We should see deposit reports around May 1 where we self-report our deposit numbers and we will see how others are tracking with that. In addition, shared in the chat was that there are 2.19 applications for SUNY per applicant based on Fall 2021.
  • The question was raised regarding why it is so hard to recruit EOP when there are extra resources available. It was stated that EOP is a challenge right now because of the required documents. After visiting some schools down in NYC, we saw many students are behind in completing the documents. The number of documents is more than the number needed to buy a house. The way that the State has the system set up, it is a very challenging process and difficult to navigate. In addition, as EOP students they have many options of where they can choose to attend.

Graduate Enrollment Update

(Note: Presentation is available on Blackboard and Teams)

Mr. Harrison provided an update on graduate enrollment. The following questions, answers and discussion points occurred during the presentation:

  • The question was raised regarding if Brockport has received approval of the new Master’s in Public Health degree. It was stated that there are multiple stages of the approval. Since this is a new degree for the College, it had to be reviewed by SUNY first and then it had to go the SUNY Board of Trustees for a process called Degree Authorization. It successfully went through both steps. It is now being reviewed by the State Education Department. We did receive some feedback from them with some minor questions. We are hoping we will hear about the approval very soon.
  • The question was raised regarding where the external review is in the approval process. It was stated that the external review has taken place and it is part of the process. When a proposal for a new program is submitted, the external reviewer’s report needs to be included with the proposal. So that is in the early stages of the process.
  • The question was raised if there are graduate programs that currently turn applicants away because of limited space. It was stated that there are programs that turn applicants away, but we are working on it. For example, the Nurse Practitioner Master’s program receives an extraordinary number of qualified applications, and we cannot come close to admitting all of those. There are some resource conversations that are looking at that opportunity. The challenge for each program may be different as to why they are restricted in how many students they can bring in. For example, it might be the number of placements available in the field. Also, the School Health was restricted on the number of classes that could be offered based on faculty. Recently, there was support from Cabinet for a temporary lecturer position and this has opened that program to admit another 20 students over the course of the year. There are a few programs with limited space, but overall, for many of the programs that is not true.

5-Year Financial Model Update

(Note: Presentation is available on Blackboard and Teams)

Mr. Wall presented an update on the 5-Year Financial Model. The following questions and answers occurred:

  • The question was raised regarding why 2015-16 is being used as a benchmark and if our infrastructure is still the same as it was in 2015-16. It was stated that our infrastructure here supports a student body of over 8,000. If you look at our facilities and our staffing, it is designed to support 8,000 students. We currently have 7,000 students, so there is an opportunity there to right size. That is the rationale behind looking at that number. If you look at the staffing trends, many areas have kept it at the same staffing and resource level, and we need to adjust.
  • The request was made to see personnel and salary levels year-by-year and by division. It was stated that was presented recently, but an update can be made and presented. In addition, it was suggested to include this information at the budget townhall.
  • The question was raised regarding why contractual salary increases are projected but not tuition increases. It was stated that we are following the State guidelines regarding tuition increases and right now the State has not given any approval through the Board of Trustees to increase tuition. Once the Board of Trustees approves tuition increases it will be placed in the model. Typically, when the contract is settled there are retroactive increases and even if you don’t have it designated in the year it is paid out, it is going to be retroactive and catch up at some point. It was added that the model is updated every six months, so any changes in tuition rates can be added if needed. It is also better to be fiscally conservative around what revenue we think we might generate than not at this point.
  • The question was raised regarding if the largest factor in the deterioration since the fall projections is related to salary pool funding. It was stated that was correct.
  • It was stated that due to time constraints, there was a limited number of questions that could be answered. Any unanswered questions can be asked at the forth coming budget townhall.

Other Items from the Committee

  • It was stated that the Strategic Plan has been approved by Senate.
  • It was stated that we had a fantastic Middle States report that looked at accommodations across the board included related to joint planning and budget and shared governance.

  • President Macpherson extended her appreciation for the shared governance, JPBC for the work that members complete and to the Middle States team.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:34 a.m.

DR/JW/mw