8:30 – 10:30 a.m., Virtual Meeting via Teams
Attendees
Voting Members
Martin Abraham
Lorraine Acker
Mike Andriatch
Qudus Bawa-allah
Jennifer Blood
Monica Brasted
James Cordeiro
Michael Doyle
Tom Hernandez
Sara Kelly
Stephanie Learn
Theresa Martinez
Skye Paine
Kathy Peterson
Heather Raczkowski
Jamie Spiller
Elizabeth Thorpe
Ohiohen Uzebu
Non-Voting Members
Julie Caswell
Steve Cook
Keith Davis
Crystal Hallenbeck-McPhall
Mike Harrison
Rachael Killion
President Macpherson
Gary Morog
Logan Rath
Elliot Weininger: Co-Chair
Melissa Wight
Robert Wyant
Guests
Michael Baird
Denise Copelton
Jennifer Green
Scott Haines
Julie Letourneau
Tyler Moesle
Oana Prajitura
Summer Reiner
Garrett Roe
Janet Roy
William Ruiz
Katherine Schaal
Mark Stacy
Bonnie Swoger
Christine Walterick
Danielle Welch
Susan Wielgosz
Regrets
Voting Members
Frances Dearing
Carl O’Connor
James Onley
Non-Voting Members
Ian Harper: Co-Chair
The meeting was called to order at 8:30 a.m.
Approval of the Minutes
Dr. Weininger asked the committee to review the October 3, 2024, meeting minutes. Dr. Peterson motioned to approve the minutes; Ms. Raczkowski seconded the motion. 11 members voted to approve the minutes. Therefore, the minutes were approved.
Announcements
Dr. Weininger announced the following:
- The Five-year model presentation has been rescheduled to November 14, 2024.
- The Budget Townhall has been rescheduled to November 15, 2024.
- The Working Group for Investment Funds will be meeting on November 7, 2024, at 8:30am in the Liberal Arts Building.
Revised Enrollment Projections
Dr. Kelly and Ms. Prajitura provided an update on the revised enrollment projections. The following questions, answers and discussion points occurred:
- Appreciation was extended for the presentation.
- The question was raised regarding if our success with enrollment is at the expense of other SUNY and regional schools. It was stated that SUNY has experienced growth in general. We are not aware of the enrollments at the regional schools as we monitor our enrollment compared to the other SUNYs mostly. Across the board SUNY has been having a good year.
- The question was raised of what the basis is for the increasing freshman retention rate included in the enrollment projections, from 73% next year 76% in 2030. Is it a return to our traditional retention numbers or is it based on new initiatives in place to support students or is it based on an understanding of a post COVID bounce back trend? It was stated that generally it is all of the above. We are going to provide at the November 14th meeting a comprehensive retention presentation so we will discuss what we learned from the last group and what efforts are occurring. We also know that our scholarship students and student athletes retained at a much higher rate. There are a number of different efforts, and we will get into more detail at the next meeting.
- The question was raised regarding the projected retention for fall to spring and what are the assumptions that make the projection show constant. It was stated that we were higher in 2020 with 86%, then it goes to 82%, 79%, 84% and 81% and so we saw a decline in the last two years. We looked at 82% as a safer number knowing that we will be updating this again in the spring. We will put an actual in there and I won’t be surprised if we are tweaking the projection.
- The question was raised of whether an actual enrollment that goes over 8,000, which is projected to occur around 2030, would put us at our maximum capacity. It was stated that these discussions are occurring at Cabinet now and we would like to have them across campus a little bit more. The last couple of years have been great. We do have a long way to go to get to the 8,000 still but we are having discussions at Cabinet about what is our right size. I am sure there will be discussions with this group as we talk about resources and how we budget.
- The question was raised if Brockport has ever been much over 8,000 total enrollment. It was stated that we were at about 8,300 in 2018.
- The concern was stated that we need to ensure that we have adequate support services for students as we grow or maintain our enrollment.
Campus Based Fee Review Committee Update
Dr. Hallenbeck-McPhall provided an update on the Campus Based Fee Review Committee. The following questions, answers and discussion points occurred:
- Appreciation was extended for the presentation.
- It was stated that the presentation is drawn from a long comprehensive report that is available for review in today’s meeting folder.
- The question was raised regarding the rubric for reviewing course fee proposals and does it include criteria for the potential total cost to the student. It was stated that some of the questions within the rubric do touch on cost to the student. We do need to continue our work in looking at the total cost to the student. Sometimes it is difficult to do, and we are going to have to brainstorm as a committee on how to better do that.
- The question was raised regarding if the college fees are assessed differently for online courses. It was stated that if a student is enrolled in a program that is considered an exclusively online approved by the state, they have a different fee structure than an on campus student. The student does not pay the transportation fee, the health fee is a flat rate and there are few others that are different. We did some work this year with Teresa Major and Dr. Daniel due to some questions about programs that are hybrid or if a student is taking electives on campus, but their program is an exclusively online program. We will present more of this in detail to JPBC as we work through it. We have already made some changes that if a student is in an exclusively online program and takes a course on campus, they will still be charged the exclusively online rate. We are actively looking at that and we are going to have more conversations with the committee, and we will bring the results back to JPBC.
- The statement was made that one of the issues and risks with fees is student upset and if we are in line with peer institutions in regards to fees with online courses much the same as in person is, then that is the answer to a student that is upset about the fees. It was stated that Ms. Major did do some bench marking across other SUNYS. Some of them did not make changes for online programs and others did.
- The question was raised regarding the broad-based fees and the situation with SUNY monitoring the amount we are able to charge and some of the fee budgets are looking at potential deficit situations in the coming years and how are we going to manage this. It was stated that SUNY’s goal is to keep the cost of attendance down for students and they do a great job at evaluating the fees we charge the students. We are not unique in this situation. There are a handful of other SUNYs struggling with this situation where their fee budgets are in deficit situations or moving towards deficit situations. We just need to continue to advocate and when we do get those additional dollars, we figure out how best to utilize those balancing the needs of the fee budgets and the University as a whole. It was added that the Board and the Government are very concerned about the cost of attendance. One of the ways they have been dealing with that lately is looking very carefully at fees and making sure we don’t have any increases in our tuition. This is what they have been doing for a long time. They have been backfilling what we would have gotten in tuition raises with additional dollars. So that is how they are trying to accomplish that. Until we get to the point where they give us the comprehensive fee opportunity and let us make our own decisions on that, they are really being very careful about that. As a campus, one of the things we have to look at is where we have staffing on the programs. We have a lot more that we have to pay because we are paying the benefits. That is part of what we are going to have to look at as an institution as well. In addition, there are those discussions around the pooled offset or what we know as fringe and this has been ongoing for a year plus about changing this process as well. This could have an impact on fee budgets if anything is decided.
- The question was raised regarding when we might know when the situation may become clearer. It is stated that we move forward with the best information that we have at this time, and we always plan for the worst and hope for the best.
- A reminder was stated that in the spring semester, there will be a working group devoted to examining the long term fiscal health of the activities that are supported by the broad-based fees because as we keep saying some of them face potential deficit situations that have to be addressed.
- It was stated that the work that we are doing around retention has a direct impact on our engagement efforts with students. As we are looking at these fee budgets and thinking about retention we need to keep resources in mind. We are going to have to make important decisions around our engagement efforts as it relates to retention.
- It was stated that Campus Recreation, since SERC has been open, has paid almost $1.5 million in IFR fringe benefits and two full time staff are on these lines. In addition, our student fee covers over $300,000 a year in student employment to give back to help our students go to school here. It used to be that 48% of the student fee went to cover student employment, 30% was the overhead charge and the other 22% went to expenditures. Now there is still that 30% overhead charge. Our student employment even with the cuts that we have made, adjusting hours, etc., there is 80% to cover just student employment alone. So, we are spending at 110% of the student fee just to cover the overhead and student employment. We have had to move all of the other expenditures over to a different IFR that is bleeding as well. Last year was the first that we have had a structural deficit.
Additional Items from the Committee
No items at this time.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:16 a.m.