8:30 – 10:30 a.m., Virtual Meeting via Teams
Attendees
Voting Members
Martin Abraham
Mike Andriatch
Jennifer Blood
Monica Brasted
Frances Dearing
Michael Doyle
Tom Hernandez
Sara Kelly
Stephanie Learn
Carl O’Connor
James Onley
Skye Paine
Kathy Peterson
Heather Raczkowski
Jaime Spiller
Elizabeth Thorpe
Non-Voting Members
Julie Caswell
Steve Cook
Eileen Daniel
Crystal Hallenbeck-McPhall
Ian Harper: Co-Chair
Mike Harrison
Rachael Killion
President Macpherson
Gary Morog
Logan Rath
Elliot Weininger: Co-Chair
Melissa Wight
Robert Wyant
Guests
Mike Baird
Nathan Bull
Denise Copelton
Jennifer Green
Debbie Jacob
Mehruz Kamal
Dana Laird
Julie Letourneau
Jose Maliekal
Brittany Narburgh
Krystal Reagan
Janet Roy
William Ruiz
Megan Sarkis
Darlene Schmitt
Bonnie Swoger
Christine Walterick
Susan Wielgosz
Regrets
Voting Members
Lorraine Acker
Qudus Bawa-allah
Theresa Martinez
Elizabeth Thorpe
The meeting was called to order at 8:31 a.m.
Approval of the Minutes
Dr. Weininger asked the committee to review the March 27, 2025, meeting minutes. Dr. Peterson motioned to approve the minutes; Ms. Learn seconded the motion. 11 members voted to approve the minutes. Therefore, the minutes were approved.
Announcements
Dr. Weininger announced the following:
- The Budget Townhall will be on Thursday, May 8 at 11:00am in Edwards 103. Members are encouraged to attend.
Enrollment Projections Update
Dr. Kelly provided an update on the enrollment projections. The following questions, answers and discussion points occurred:
- Appreciation was extended for the presentation.
- The question was raised regarding if the reason for the increase in retention between fall and spring is because of the first six-week programming that was done by Student Affairs or is it another reason? It was stated that it is believed that the six-week programming has been a huge help to the increase in retention. There are so many different initiatives happening between the first six-week programming and some different academic interventions. The jump in emerging scholars and the increase in scholarships have also contributed to the retention.
- Appreciation was extended to all individuals working to increase the admissions and retention numbers.
- The question was raised regarding where we can find what the different levels of scholarship entails. It was stated it can be shared in the chat.
- The question was raised regarding whether the scholarship students receive the same extra programming or is there another reason for the increase in the retention of the scholarship students? It was stated that they are not necessarily getting more programming. You can make the argument that they are coming in because they are scholarship based on merit and with their accomplishments in high school, they are potentially having an easier transition. We do know that higher GPA students do retain, and we are getting more of those higher GPA students.
- Clarification was requested that the scholarship students have an increase in retention due to coming in with higher achievement records to start with. It was stated that we have seen that in the data before that the higher school average students are retaining. We would have to look closely at what other things could be contributing to it. We do not have any information about their behavior or what they are engaged with. Just simply that the scholarship students are retaining higher.
- The question was raised regarding the increase in the institution’s scholarship investment and if there is a plan for how many years the increased investment will occur and is there a long-term sustainability. It was stated that Mr. Harper and his team are working on further analysis, but the work that we have done has shown a pretty substantial return on investment over time. I know this will be built into the 5-year model what we are spending and what we are projected to spend. Since we are still mid-year cycle, we do not have the information right now for the fall to show our overall fall spend on scholarships.
- The question was raised regarding if it is possible to say whether the total scholarship commitment for the fall 2024 cohort was larger than the fall 2023 cohort. It was stated that if you look strictly at the numbers, the numbers are higher. There were 680 scholarship recipients in 2023 and 740 in 2024. It was added that you will see the leap in 2022 when we made the decision to increase the scholarship opportunities. We have added those figures into our ongoing budget until we have information that says we should do something different. We always have to make a commitment well over a year in advance to that level of scholarship because of the way in which the cycle works.
Strategic Plan Assessment Update
Dr. Kelly provided an update on the Strategic Plan Assessment. The following questions, answers and discussion points occurred:
- Appreciation was extended for the presentation.
- The concern was stated regarding using the surveys that we know we do not get a great return on, like the NSSE survey, but it is the only thing we have. It was stated that this is a tricky one especially with the NSSE because the response rates are low. For student engagement they are also looking at what information we have on card swipes. The committees are trying to look at this, but we still need to include it until we have more data where we can understand students’ satisfaction and engagement better than we can through NSSE.
- The question was raised regarding how the return rate is on the five-year employment survey. It was stated that it has been better since we started doing the survey earlier on in the process, so this has helped us to have better performance and activity on the survey.
- The question was raised regarding if there is any sense at getting what the employment rate is at graduation. It was stated that we are sending it out and getting that information in advance of graduation and following up. It takes about six months after trying to get that. It was added that the first destination survey has similar results in response rate as the NSSE survey. We are working on getting it out sooner to students. We have cohorts within campus in certain majors that are finding employment before graduation. They are leaving with jobs. We are working just like Dr. Kelly in trying to figure out how to get students to answer some of these things.
- The statement was made that SUNY Central has created an online dashboard that shows median salaries at various points of time after graduation. If I am remembering correctly, they use taxation data, so it is comprehensive. Presumably, it is not impacted or less impacted by the no response bias that you have with surveys. If you have not looked at that, I urge you to take a glance to see if it can be integrated into the data on long-term outcomes. It was stated that I know exactly what you are talking about. I will make sure the committee reviews it.
- The question was raised regarding SUNY IR and if they are very responsive and could we ask for a different part of the data and would they provide that. It was stated that generally they ask us to do things on our own campus. They are more interested in things that are SUNY wide. So, they rely on our data for a lot of population. I do not think that we get a lot of opportunities to ask for specific surveys to be done by SUNY.
Vote to Endorse Campus Based Fee Review Committee’s Recommendations
Course Fees
Members reviewed the recommendation. The following question, answer and discussion point occurred:
- The question was raised regarding what the expected enrollment is for the course. It was stated that there are 48 students annually.
- The statement was made that the science courses often have fees, and this is going along with the science course fees. In addition, it is a really low fee.
Dr. Peterson put forward the motion to endorse the committee’s recommendation on the fee; Ms. Dearing seconded the motion. The following are the results of the present voting members:
Endorse – 16 Not Endorse – 0
Fee Based Budget Requests
Members reviewed the committee’s recommendation. The following questions, answers and discussion points occurred:
- The statement was made that there may be ways to offset these fees like billing for the Health Center. I am going to ask that we look into that and that may be something do to offset the fees for the Health Center.
- The question was raised regarding the student forum and what the attendance was and feedback that occurred. It was stated that attendance was great with well over 40 students to start out with. As the presentations went on attendance kind of dwindled. There was some conversation and questions from the students. Most of it was curiosity based. For example, “I heard the computer lab in Drake is closing, can you tell me if that is true?” So, there was very little questioning in regards to the fee amounts or the fee budgets. They were very supportive and a great audience.
- The question was raised regarding the fact that there were not notable expressions of concern about specific fees or the collective cost of the increase. It was stated that not this year. There were some questions for the transportation fee around services but more so the things we are already looking into. Such as dissatisfaction with RTS and transportation to and from Brockport Downtown.
- The question was raised regarding why there is a requested increase for the technology fee when there is an operating surplus and we continue to maintain over a million dollars in reserves. It was stated that the reserves have built up over time and there are some projects slated to go against that. Such as more wireless upgrades. With the plans that the IT team has, those reserves as well as the fee increase will be spent down. In addition to that, we are seeing the cost of services going up. I believe Microsoft itself went up 16% for next year. It was added that over the next three years we are going to be significantly spending down the reserves. We still have two more years left on the wireless upgrade. In two years all of our server infrastructure will need to be replaced. The infrastructure of how all of the ethernet or wireless connections across campus needs to be replaced in the next three years. So, there is a significant spend for those things. What we try to do is we try to keep around $300,000 in reserves at all times just in case of an emergency and in case something needs to be replaced. Our bottom line is increasing. For example, most of you have probably heard about the phishing attempts that we have on a regular basis so we are changing our identity management. We are about to kick off a project for that and that will increase our bottom line by $100,000 a year in continuous costs and another $100,000 a year in continuous costs within cyber security in general because we are moving to a different technology platform that once we implement it will be part of our bottom line in continuous costs.
- The statement was made that these projects are planned out and things get lined up, so the money doesn’t automatically flow out all of the time. It was stated that these projects are planned out over three to five years. For example, the wireless project we started last year, and we had been planning two years prior to that. We are trying to be good stewards with the money. Last year we could have replaced all of the wireless at once and it would have been $2.5 million. So, we chose to stretch it out over three years so that we could buy stuff that was refurbished and other things to get us all on the same platform and gradually replace it over time. Part of the overall goal is so that we will replace a piece of it every 6-7 years, so we are not trying to spend $2.5 million every time we turn around. It is about creating a model where we are spending money up front but creating a consistent spend that we can plan for.
- The question was raised regarding if we are seeing any inflationary pressures on the equipment that we need to keep the process of updating the tech infrastructure. It was stated that most of our items come out of China. We have something in right now for our wireless that Procurement is pushing through because the cost will go up 25% if we don’t get it purchased within a certain timeframe.
- The question was raised regarding what the concerns or feedback within the Campus Based Fee Review Committee were regarding the Athletics fee since the vote was split. It was stated that it wasn’t discussed in detail. I think the votes were more so on what they heard in the presentation and seeing that Athletics is receiving the largest increase and knowing that we making campus investments in that area such as adding a sports team. I think that is where the concern is coming in because there are a lot of resources going into Athletics and we have other areas that have needs as well.
- The question was raised regarding if there was discussion around the growth in the number of students participating in Athletics in relative to the increased cost knowing the growth has been hundreds in the last couple of years or is it more just they reviewed the presentation and voted? It was stated that we did not have a ton of discussion around it.
- The question was raised regarding if there has been assessment of what the increased fees could do to the value of the total cost of attendance. It was stated that an assessment has been done but mostly around housing and dining fees not so much these fees because they are more substantial. Looking at the Athletics piece, Athletics is a huge recruitment opportunity for us and a huge enrollment driver. We have looked at the investments in Athletics to do just that. We have grown from just over 600 to 800 student athletes. In terms of the question around competitiveness around these fees it is comparable. We see more differences here and there for housing and dining just because they are such big costs to families so they kind of look more closely at those pieces and how they influence the overall cost of attendance.
Dr. Peterson put forward the motion to endorse the committee’s recommendation; Dr. Spiller seconded the motion. The following are the results of the present voting members:
Endorse – 13 Not Endorse – 0
Additional Items from the Committee
The following items were discussed:
- Andriatch shared good news and extended appreciation to everyone about the Days of Giving. Last year we broke our previous records with just over $213,000 and about 1,400 gifts. This year, we are at $335,000 and over 2,300 gifts. Phenomenal response from our faculty, staff, alumni, corporate partners and others. In addition, we do a lot with Athletics. A significant amount of that money was for Athletics, so they are doing a lot to raise money on their own behalf.
- The question was raised regarding if there were any updates from SUNY leadership regarding some of the implications from the policies coming out of Washington, D.C. on the financial position of the University. It was stated that the federal level and the state level are connected but in interesting ways. We do not have a state budget, and they are still in negotiations. The budget extender finished yesterday, and they have not yet passed one. This could mean two things, one is they are really close to getting the state budget and there is no point in extending it because they are going to vote on it this morning, but the other thing is that they are having quite a lot of internal dispute over policy issues which is one of the reasons why the state budget is delayed. I will give you an example, one of the things the Governor is looking for is a mask ban for people who are using masks to intimidate people and use violence against people and that has been built into conversations around what is happening with students that might have been protesting on campus and masked and being under a federal government kind of issue. The reason that I mention that is because you can see how things can get intertwined, and people will say those are two different things but of course the implications may be somewhat similar. Part of the other reason for the state budget impasse is that there are expectations that the federal government will fund the state on a lower level in relation to health in particular. If that happens, they are preparing for an in year budget cut or budget reassessment probably sometime in September. This is actively being discussed. So those things around the budget are definitely very connected. You may have seen that yesterday Cornell had a big hit for about a billion dollars in relation to research grants related to the federal government’s feelings that they have not tackled antisemitism as well as they should. Northwestern is another one that lost funding. There are so many things that are going on at the federal level that we do not yet know what the full implications will be. The advocacy groups are trying to work together on talking with those that have power in the government about what kind of implications will be for cuts to funding, cuts to research grants and cuts to anything that is unrelated to what we think the federal government should be working on. I do think everyone is a little nervous about that so therefore final decisions are not being made yet. Since I have last written to the institution there have not been any additional executive orders that are impacting higher education yet. There have been executive orders looking at education K-12. If there is some executive order in education K-12, that is around DEI initiatives I think we can expect some things to come forward as well. One of the areas that they are looking at is every year we sign new agreements that are compliant with Title IV regulations (financial aid). There are some concerns that things will be tied to future Title IV negotiations that are unrelated to student financial aid. These are all things that are people are hearing and they are worried about but we don’t have any concrete details yet. We are still trying to find out more from what is going on, but we are doing some active monitoring of all these situations.
- The question was raised regarding how much federal funding we receive in terms of research grants. It was stated that the figure is not available right now. Sometimes it is hard to unpack those things because sometimes we get state funded research dollars which may have a federal impact in there that we do not necessarily know. What I am proud of at Brockport is we have a good diversification of grants opportunities. We get grants from private areas, we get stuff from the state department for education, we do a variety of different things. We get a lot of grants around areas of ecology. Every year we work on about $4.5-5 million in grants coming in. I do not have the percentage of what federal grants are. That we can certainly get that information for the next time we meet.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:44a.m.