Navigation
Search

JPBC Minutes: April 11, 2024

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

Attendees

Voting Members
  • Lexi Bradley
  • Austin Busch
  • Frances Dearing
  • Michael Doyle
  • Cathy Houston-Wilson
  • Sara Kelly
  • Stephanie Learn
  • Yin Liu
  • Theresa Martinez
  • Carl O’Connor
  • James Onley
  • Heather Raczkowski
  • Jamie Spiller
Non-Voting Members
  • Eileen Daniel
  • Damita Davis
  • Crystal Hallenbeck-McPhall
  • Mike Harrison
  • Skye Paine
  • Jim Wall: Co-Chair
  • Elliot Weininger:  Co-Chair
  • Melissa Wight
Guests
  • Mike Baird
  • Jennifer Blood
  • John Carlson
  • Thomas Chew
  • Keith Davis
  • Kandie Gay
  • Jennifer Green
  • Scott Haines
  • Jennifer Haytock
  • Mehruz Kamal
  • Rachael Killion
  • Catherine Lalonde
  • Jose Maliekal
  • Frank Mancini
  • Tyler Moesle
  • Gary Morog
  • Pam Powell
  • William Ruiz
  • Katherine Schaal
  • Rey Sia
  • Bonnie Swoger
  • Susan Wielgosz
  • Robert Wyant

Regrets

Voting Members
  • Martin Abraham
  • Lorraine Acker
  • Mike Andriatch
  • Monica Brasted
  • Kristin Hartway
  • Tom Hernandez
  • Gavin Miller
  • Lily Wegerski
Non-Voting Members
  • President Macpherson

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

Approval of the Minutes

Dr. Weininger asked the committee members to review the March 14, 2024, meeting minutes. Dr. Peterson motioned to approve the minutes; Ms. Dearing seconded the motion. 11 members voted to approve the minutes. Therefore, the minutes were approved.

Announcements

Dr. Weininger made the following announcement:

  • There will be a change to the order of the agenda items for today’s meeting.  The Campus Based Fee Review Committee recommendations will be moved to be the third agenda item.  This is due to competing obligations for various members.
  • Our next meeting is next week on Thursday, April 18.

Vote to Endorse Campus Based Fee Review Committee Recommendations


Course Fees Requests

The following questions, answers and discussion points occurred:

  • The question was raised regarding the Business fee request and if the fee for all the courses that use the Bloomberg terminals would go down as new courses are added with the fee. It was stated that the School of Business is actively working to find donors to support these costs so that we can eventually eliminate the fees. It is believed that the proposed fee for the new courses is a little lower than what is currently charged on other courses. It was added that the cost for the Bloomberg license is more than is collected in fees and the difference is paid out of Foundation funds. A course was discovered where they are not utilizing the Bloomberg terminals anymore and the fee is being eliminated. Within the new course, students will be certified in Bloomberg and is valuable in their careers. Even with this new course fee, the School will be paying for more than a third of the license with Foundation funds. The School is also looking to get online access to the Bloomberg terminals so that if a student is in an online section that is being charged for the fee they will have access to the terminals. Currently, they have to partner with someone in an in-person course in order to use the terminal.
  • The concern was raised regarding the Cybersecurity fees being viewed as an infrastructure issue and the possibility of the technology fee covering the costs. The concern is that this is a specialized program and it would not benefit anyone else other than the students within the program.
  • The question was raised if the Cybersecurity fee should be considered the same as a chemistry or biology lab. It was stated by several JPBC members that they viewed it the same as a science or nursing lab because it is a specialized space being designed for instruction.
  • The question was raised if the Cybersecurity fees are a one-time investment that the department is trying to spread over multiple courses. It was stated that it is an ongoing monthly cost to the campus to have the network connection. The concern was the ongoing cost and part of the fee policy is that students have to have a tangible take away.
  • The statement was made that Nursing has had to increase fees due to the increase in licensing fees. These fees are annual fees that the University will not cover, so they are included as course fees. The Cybersecurity fees seem to be similar to the Nursing fees.
  • The question was raised regarding the explanation between the science lab funding where there is fee-based funding and one-time capital expenses that the University covers. It was stated that with any course fee there are certain criteria and guidelines that have to be met in order to assess the course fee. For capital investments for a facility, a course fee can not be charged for that. However, some departments use course fees for replacement costs for equipment because the students need the equipment to progress their learning.
  • The question was raised regarding if any of the Cybersecurity fees are being used to fund capital infrastructure. It was stated that the understanding behind the fee is that it is for the monthly network cost. It was added that the main purpose to request these fees is to support the dedicated internet connection to the Cybersecurity lab. The department was told that BITS does not support the cost because it is not a general purpose across the campus. It is a specialized unique setting to support the curriculum needs of Cybersecurity. It was added that the concern from the Campus Based Fee Review Committee on how it was presented was coming from the angle of a routine monthly utility cost that was estimated to be around $8,500 annually.
  • It was stated that not charging a fee to the Cybersecurity students would not be fair to the other students that are charged lab fees.
  • The request was made to have the background of the course fee request including the justification of the cost supplied to the committee in the future. It was stated that it will be taking under advisement going forward.

Dr. Weininger requested a motion to vote on the course fee request recommendations. Dr. Spiller put forward that motion to accept the recommendations with the amendment to endorse the Cybersecurity fees, Dr. Houston-Wilson seconded the motion. The following are the results from the present voting members:

Endorse - 13 Not Endorse - 0

Broad-Based Fee Requests

Dr. Hallenbeck-McPhall stated that we are still waiting on guidelines from SUNY on whether fee increases will be supported or not. We going through our normal process just to make sure we are prepared if the call comes.

Dr. Weininger requested a motion to vote on the broad-based fee request recommendations.  Dr. Peterson put forward the motion to endorse the recommendations, Dr. Houston-Wilson seconded the motion.  The following are the results from the present voting members:

Endorse - 12 Not Endorse - 0

 

SEM Retention Council Update

Mr. Chew and Dr. Haytock provided an update on retention and persistence. The following questions, answers and discussion items occurred:

  • The question was raised regarding if there is a way of looking at other factors for retention rate other than major and emerging scholar category. For example, the highest math or science course taken by incoming students. This could be used in an analysis to determine if programs can be altered to meet the needs. It was stated that many individuals across campus have asked various questions regarding retention and persistence and Vice Provost Maliekal has been reviewing the data in relation to these questions. It was added that Vice Provost Maliekal has some results but they are not in a cohesive format at the moment, but can be shared in the future. In addition, in terms of comparing higher math and other factors, one of the initiatives is trying to get historical information into Slate so that comparative data points can be pulled better.
  • The suggestion was made that withdrawing from a course later in in the semester could be used as a red flag for retention purposes.
  • The question was raised regarding if there is other retention data from SUNY schools for comparison. It was stated that we do receive information from the State on the various SUNY institutions’ retention and enrollment rates. We are trying to examine the rates and see what they mean. We have met with other SUNY schools to talk about advisement and retention programs.
  • The question was raised regarding the Bridge Program and the average GPA for Emerging Scholars and what portion fell below the 2.0 threshold. It was stated that half of the Emerging Scholars that were dismissed were from the Bridge Program and the other half did not attend the Bridge Program. There were 28 total, 14 from each group.
  • It was stated that the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) survey is currently live. This goes out to all first-year students, seniors and any juniors that are about to graduate. There is a robust set of questions on the survey that are around the sense of belonging and different engagement indicators across campus. There is a low response rate right now. Please spread the word to first-year students and seniors to encourage them to complete the survey. They can search their emails or log in to their Brightspace portal to complete the survey.
  • The question was raised regarding if the accelerated senior students receive the NSSE survey or is it just the traditional students. It was stated that it is based on credit hours that a student is currently at and where they are in terms of credit hours needed to graduate.
  • Confirmation was requested on when the NSSE survey is live. It was stated that the survey is live now. Students will be getting two more follow-up emails. One is going out today and the other one is going out next Wednesday. The survey is open until May 3rd or May 5th.
  • The statement was made that retention drop between fall and spring can cause anxiety, but it needs mentioning that it appears that it is about 1.5 to 2% in relation to the data that was shared.

2024-25 Enrollment Projections Update

Mr. Moesle presented an update on the enrollment projections. The following questions, answers and discussion points occurred:

  • The question was raised regarding how the projected number of 1200 new freshmen going forward is determined. It was stated that it is informed by how higher ed as a whole is, looking at main feeder high schools, looking at previous trends, etc. These numbers will be adjusted each year after the census. This is a tentative five-year projection, but it is going to change year over year.
  • The question was raised regarding if the freshman projection is moderate. It was stated that it is. 
  • The question was raised regarding the transfer projections and how confident we will sustain the transfer projections over the next five years. It was stated that we are more optimistic with transfers than we are with freshmen. With the FASFA, there is so much unknown that is going to happen and it is becoming more competitive. We are behind with freshmen deposits from last year and the year before. As of today, the transfer number is more realistic than the freshmen number, but that could change in a week. We don’t know what the new awarding process is going to look like and how our admitted students are going to react to it. These numbers will adjust year to year as demographics change and other external factors change.
  • The question was raised regarding what the trends are with international students and does it impact the enrollment projections. It was stated that it is believed it does. The numbers were low during the pandemic. One thing to point out about the pandemic versus now and why we reworked the model, is higher weight is given on our more recent retention numbers. This is something indirectly impacting the model. We are projecting an increase in our international enrollment, but it is nothing that will swing the numbers either way.
  • The question was raised regarding what can be done to entice students from Canada to enroll at Brockport without being hampered by the international and exchange rates. It was stated that we offer the most competitive scholarships in SUNY in regards to out of state students and Canada is on the list of recruiting.
  • The concern was raised regarding the potential age of student athletes coming from Canada being around 20-21 and they are not interested in living in a freshman dorm. They have been living on their own and they are not going to want to live with 17-18 year olds and that is what the scholarships are tied to. It was stated that discussions would occur around this because recruitment in Canada would like to be increased.
  • The statement was made that Honors has enrolled Canadian students so there is activity happening around recruiting students from Canada.

 

Additional Items from the Committee

No items at this time.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:07 a.m.

JW/EW/mw