MEMBERS PRESENT:

Don Farish		Chair
Deborah Gallagher		Staff Representative
Mette Adams		Student Representative
Chanel Brown		Student Representative
Larkin Child		Student Representative
Michael Ogg		Student Representative
Aaron Pava		President, Associated Students
STAFF PRESENT:
Larry Furukawa-Schlereth		Vice President for Administration and Finance
Dennis Harris		Senior Director, Planning and Analysis
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Melinda Barnard		Immediate Past-Chair, Academic Senate
Sue Parker		Chair, Academic Senate
Martha Ruddell		Chair, Academic Senate [or designee]
GUESTS PRESENT: None

I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 6, 1997
III. EXISTING COURSE FEES
IV. PROPOSED COURSE FEE POLICY
V. EXECUTIVE ORDER ESTABLISHING FAC
VI. NEXT MEETING - DECEMBER 11, 1997
VII. ADJOURNMENT

1. CURRENT COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
2. FAC MINUTES, NOVEMBER 6, 1997
3. STUDENT COURSE FEES TABLE
4. PROPOSED COURSE FEE POLICY
5. CSU STUDENT FEE POLICY, CSU TRUSTEES, 15 MAY 1996

I. Approval of the Agenda

Don Farish convened the meeting at 10:07 AM. Since no additions or changes were proposed to the agenda, the proposed agenda was accepted without formal action. Noting the absence for a second meeting of both faculty members on the committee, Larkin Child expressed her concern for faculty input in the committee's discussions. Larry Schlereth explained that both the Chair and Immediate-Past Chair of the Academic Senate were ill.

II. Approval of the Minutes of November 6, 1997
The first sentence under item II was changed to read "Don explained...." [additions underlined]. The last paragraph in that section was modified by addition of the following sentence: Don offered to draft a general policy concerning miscellaneous course fees to be considered at the next meeting of the committee. Item III.A. was changed to read:

Mette also expressed the desire that someone from the proposing department be in attendance when FAC considers course fees, as well as the benefit of having a formal policy and criteria for consideration of course fee change proposals, and verification of student consultation prior to approval . Larkin asked why FAC was meeting so late and said that FAC should meet earlier in the course scheduling process to avoid the pressure to make quick decisions to meet course schedule deadlines; Don responded that scheduling conflicts prevented an earlier date for this meeting. Don asked for and received unanimous consent to approve a fee not to exceed $150 for Geog. 314. Aaron commented that the decision was done without reference to a general policy, which should be developed and sent to the faculty for comment. Due to the need for immediate action on proposals for Spring 98 class fees, the committee agreed that approval would be provisional, until a general policy is adopted.

Item III. C.: The first sentence was changed to read: "Don introduced the request from the Department of Anthropology for a fee not to exceed $10 for Anthropology 347...."

The reference to the Associated Students' President and the IRA Board in the first sentence of item IV was changed from "serves on" to "chairs".

With these corrections, it was Moved by Deborah Gallagher, Seconded by Chanel Brown, to approve the minutes as amended; motion passed unanimously.

Don Farish announced that he would have to be away from the meeting from 10:20 until 10:50; in his absence, Aaron Pava chaired the meeting.

III. Existing Course Fees
Dennis Harris explained the sources and organization of the table of Student Course Fees distributed to committee members. He noted contradictions between the two sources, with the Fees listed in the Schedule of Classes sometimes not corresponding to courses listed in the Catalog. He also noted that with two exceptions -- Art and Nursing courses, each course had a separate account; in the case of the two exceptions, there appeared to be one account into which all Art courses and all Nursing courses were deposited. Mette asked whether documentation regarding the establishment of the fees and/or a historical record regarding the origin and purpose of the fees existed. Larry Schlereth responded that the information could be in his office; Don added that the materials requested could also be found in his office. Aaron raised the question of whether FAC should review all existing course fees and the appropriateness of grandfathering in existing fees. Don responded that, while not opposed in principle to such a review, this would be a time-consuming task for FAC. As an alternative, Aaron suggested that the fees be reviewed every five years, a schedule already followed by departments with program review, beginning with the oldest fees. Dennis was requested to revise the table to include the date the fee was established and whether or not documentation existed. Committee members also requested specific information on Art 212 (World Film History), Anthropology 396 (Experimental Courses), and Anthropology 424 (Mesoamerican Archaeological Field School).

IV. Proposed Course Fee Policy

Having returned to the meeting, Don introduced a draft policy and procedures which he had prepared. He explained that the President and the Administration concur in the desire to avoid course-fee proliferation. The intent of the proposed language is to discourage proposals to raise miscellaneous course fees except for compelling reason.

Aaron expressed his appreciation for Don's draft policy. He suggested that, in addition to the required approval by the school dean and provost, as stipulated in the first procedural step, a proposal should also have benefited from prior consultation with a school's student advisory committee or some other body representing the students whose fees would be directly affected by the proposal. Larkin Child also asserted the value of input from those who had actually taken the course. Farish agreed that the appropriate procedure would be for approval by the school dean, following consultation with the school's student advisory committee, and then submission to the Provost.

Don then introduced a form, distributed by Larry Schlereth, which had been developed by Letitia Coate, the University Controller. As written, the form would be used for all fees - mandatory, penalty, and user, whereas Don's draft policy only addressed mandatory course fees. After a brief explanation of the form by Larry, Larkin suggested adding another line to Part B so that the student advisory committee, along with the department chair and school dean, would sign requesting the fee or fee increase. After distinguishing between approval and consultation, Don agreed that there should be a signature validating that student consultation had taken place. Aaron agreed that consultation with the students was the appropriate objective, and the committee agreed that the draft form should have a line added to Part B signifying that consultation with students had occurred. Larkin also requested that the form distinguish between courses which were required for the major or optional.

Aaron recommended a third policy statement requiring review of existing course fees no later than every five years. Larkin expressed concern over the annual change in membership in FAC, to which Channel Brown replied that this stressed the importance of solid documentation, both in the proposal and in the committee's minutes. Farish pointed out that if departments were permitted to propose raising fees earlier than five years because they were losing money, that request itself would result in a review of the fee. Mette asked what other changes would trigger a review of a course fee. Don responded that changes in unit value or in course description now trigger review by the Senate's Educational Policies Committee. Don will develop similar language for course fee review, keeping in mind Larry's earlier caution about too complex a process and over-administration of the task. Larry also noted that every three years the FISMA audit resulted in the random checking of some course fees. Aaron urged and the committee agreed that the appropriate length of review was every five years, as it is with departmental program review. Don will develop a draft which reflects this desire.

Mette asked if there was any information on the existing Nursing fees, which she had questioned at the last meeting. Don will request a rationale from Nursing for fees which, at first appearance, seem to be normal operating expenses rather than a "value-added" expense. Chanel asked whether Don had received clarification from Financial Aid on the issues she had raised at the previous meeting. Don said that Financial Aid would be represented at the next meeting. Mette urged her colleagues to bring their questions to that meeting.

V. Executive Order Establishing FAC
Mette requested clarification of the relationship between Executive Order 661 and the Student Fee Policy attached to the agenda. Larry explained that CSU executive orders were of two types: those which implemented CSU Trustee Policy and those which implemented other regulations. EO-661 was the implementation of the attached Policy. Mette noted differences in language between the Policy and the EO. Larry said it was wise to have both, to know both the intent of the Trustees and the procedures established by the Chancellor. Staff was asked to provide committee members with a copy of EO-661.

Mette commented on currently proposed revisions to EO-661. Don stated that the revisions under consideration should not affect our effort to develop a policy.

Larkin asked about the Title 5 guidelines referred to in Section III.C.3. and requested a copy. Don said that this did not exist, and Mette added that this was what she was working on.

Don said that in conversations with Mette he noted the "wonderful luxury" available to the committee at present. Without an actual proposal before the campus, FAC could develop policies and procedures in an atmosphere separate from that which would exist with a proposal. FAC should take advantage of this opportunity and make the development of a policy the focus of its spring activity.

Mette noted that the current EO makes no reference to a student-run election or to the Associated Student election code. There also appear to be contradictions between the intent of the policy and the specific language of the executive order.

Aaron asked whether section III.A.3. would include course fees. Larry responded that the requirement for a "statement of revenues and expenditures ... of one year of actual costs and two years of projected revenue and expenditures" would be difficult to develop for new course fee proposals, but that the records should be available to develop such a statement for existing fees. The intent is that students see what funds have been derived from the fee, what the revenue has and will be used for, that the fee is actually needed, and that the expenditures have gone for the purposes originally intended when the fee was established, as determined by an audit of the fee expenditures. As he understand the EO, it requires a statement of fee revenue and expenditures by course each year. Mette stressed the importance of a record of why actions are taken and of what interpretations are made as SSU adopts and implements the EO, putting in writing the policies and procedures it establishes in its interpretation of the EO and the policy.

Mette also asked for clarification of the phrase in III.A.2. that the "president shall consult the committee before adjusting any fee...." Larry responded that the FAC must be given an opportunity to provide its recommendation to the President as to whether a fee should be increased and/or a referendum held.

Mette noted the difficult position FAC is in when it is simultaneously charged with assessing the value of a proposed fee and then preparing unbiased, objective information. Believing it impossible for individuals to come to a conclusions that something is needed and then develop an objective statement regarding that proposal, she wondered whether FAC might require subcommittees to carry out the two processes. FAC should find a means of avoiding a situation in which future FAC members are both advocates and charged with developing an objective appraisal. Mette noted that the SLO pamphlet stating the pros and cons of their proposal was prepared wholly but the students, which she considered an improvement on the practice followed at SSU. Don expressed his hope that, in exploring revisions of the existing EO, the CSU permits the two campuses with experience on this issue to develop procedures appropriate to their respective situations and not spell out in too much detail the procedures to be followed by all campuses.

V. Next Meeting

The committee agreed to meet again on Thursday, November 20th, from 10:00 AM until Noon, in the Provost's Conference Room. (NOTE: later changed to 1:00-3:00 PM, same date.) The agenda will include the following:

A. Approval of the Agenda
B. Approval of the Minutes of November 20, 1997
C. Existing Course Fees - an Updated Report
D. Course Fee Accounts & Subaccounts
D. 2nd Draft - Proposed Course Fee Policy
E. EO-661
F. Nursing Fee Proposal
G. Financial Aid

VI. Adjournment

There being no further business, Farish adjourned the meeting at 12:03 PM.


Minutes prepared by Dennis Harris
November 24, 1997



Back to Fee Advisory Committee
Back to Provost's Page
Back to SSU