Final Report Student Life Committee

Fall 2009 - Spring 2010

April 30, 2010Miriam McMullen Pastrick, Chair

MEMBERS

STUDENT LIFE COMMITTEE 2009-2010 YEARLY REPORT MAY 10, 2010

Miriam McMullen-Pastrick (HSS, Chair), Vibhuti Dave (Engineering), Ed Evans (Engineering), Michael Justik (Science), Brad Kovalcik (SGA President, ex officio), Ken Louie (Business),Ken Miller (Student Affairs, ex officio), Todd Nesbit (Business), Joseph Previte (Science), Kelly Shrout (Student Affairs, ex officio), Sarah Whitney (HSS)

CHARGES AND ACTIONS TAKEN

1. Recommend ways to disseminate emergency procedures to students.

Vibhuti Dave, Ed Evans

Subcommittee members who volunteered to address this charge consulted with David Christiansen, Kelly Shrout, Police and Safety and staff members in the school offices. They found that because of our lack of lockdown capabilities the responsibility for an immediate response to an emergency rests with the faculty, staff, resident assistants and other personnel present with students at the time and site of a crisis.

Through their exchange with Police and Safety they learned that Police and Safety have an informative poster which indicates key emergency procedures to follow. These posters have been given to each school, and are on display in some of the school offices. In order to universalize exposure to this key information, David Christiansen’s office will finance the printing of additional posters. The Student Life Subcommittee will place a poster on every bulletin board in each academic building on our campus. In addition, Police and Safety volunteered to provide a one hour training session for each school’s faculty. David Christiansen will advise the school directors to schedule one hour of time during our pre-fall semester meetings for this training session.

2. Review and provide advice and input, if any, to the report on the use of Student Facility funds. Michael Justik, Ken Louie, Joe Previte

In October 2009, subcommittee members reviewing this charge studied the March 24, 2009 report and recommendations of the Student Facility Fee Committee (SFFC) provided by Ken Miller, the committee’s co-chair.

This document, Ken Miller’s response and other information from Miller’s office may be found in Appendix A.

See the minutes of the November 6 SLC meeting for the committee’s discussion.

The Student Life Committee’s thorough discussion of the responsibilities and role of the SFFC, led to a consensus that a member of the SLC would be an asset to the SFFCs committee’s considerations and procedures, and the SLC would benefit from the relevant and timely information gained through representation on this committee. Because of Ken Louie’s interactions with the SFFC and his communication with Ken Miller regarding the possibility of including a faculty member as an ex officio (non-voting) member of the Student Facility Fee Committee, Louie was the SLCs choice as our representative. Brad Kovalcik, SGA president and one of the core members of the SFFC verbally concurred with this decision at our December 4, 2009 meeting.

Ken Louie summarized the proceedings of the SFFCs February 1, 2010 meeting at the SLCs February 29, 2010 meeting. He also provided our committee with the meeting agenda and a confidential SFFC budget. Louie attended a subsequent SFFC meeting on April 19, 2010.

At this second meeting Ken Miller provided an updated budget, noted that the plans for the campus convenience store are moving forward, and stated that he would draft a proposal of the SFFCs recommendations for the convenience store to Jack Burke.

The subcommittee for charge two observed that “the SFFC seems to be functioning well in terms of overseeing the use of student facility funds, we encourage the SFFC to continue its very good work on this important aspect of Behrend’s student life.”

Since Ken Louie will not be a member of the SLC next year, the SLC recommends that the selection of a representation to the SFFC occur at the first meeting if not sooner.

3. Consult with student affairs and the SGA and recommend ways to increase student participation on the appropriate standing committees of Faculty Council. Todd Nesbit, Sarah Whitney

This subcommittee gave a short questionnaire to the SGA representatives assigned to various faculty committees. The questions dealt with meeting attendance, roles and participation, difficulties impeding attendance and participation, and the importance of students attending committee meetings.

The responses indicated that most students were satisfied with their roles, and supported student involvement on faculty committees. Some students indicated difficulties with scheduling and with a lack of regular meeting times. Students did not feel undervalued or underutilized on their assigned committees. Two students were unaware of their committee assignments.

The subcommittee recommended that the faculty committee meetings be scheduled for the entire semester after the second week of classes, and that when reasonably possible, student

scheduling issues be given consideration. They also advocated that there be a standardized process for assigning SGA representatives to committees. The SGA constitution was amended to specify which SGA members will serve on each faculty council committee. The subcommittee encourages the appointment of two representatives on each committee to increase the possibility of at least one student attending each meeting.

Finally, the subcommittee encourages that dedicated students be recognized for their contributions to and investment in faculty governance. Formal recognition could be given in the form of a certificate presented at the April awards convocation. A committee member volunteered to design a certificate. Other forms of recognition are also possible.

AGENDAS and MINUTES

October 13, 2009

November 6, 2009

December 4, 2009

January 29, 2010

February 26, 2010

March 29, 2010

AGENDASTUDENT LIFE COMMITTEE INITIAL

MEETING TUESDAY, October 13, 20098:00 AM

1. Call to orderMembers introduce themselves Absent members

2. Call for recorder

3. Chargesa. Current (Ken Louie)b. Former (Especially last year’s)

4. Volunteers for subcommittees to study our charges

5. Brain storming regarding emergency procedures and insights from committee members on our other two charges

6. Questions, concerns, other items of interest

7. Date for next meeting

8. Adjourn

Penn State Erie, The Behrend College Faculty Council

Student Life Committee (SLC) Meeting Minutes for October 13, 2009

Attendance: Ed Evans (Eng), Ken Louie (Bus), Todd Nesbit (Bus), Miriam McMullen-Pastrick (HSS- chair), and Kelly Shrout (Student Affairs)

Absent: Vibhuti Dave (Eng), Michael Justik (Sci), Brad Kovalcik (SGA), Ken Miller (Student Affairs), Sarah Whitney (HSS), Joe Previte (Sci)

1. Meeting was called to order at 8:05 AM by the chair. Each member in attendance briefly introduced themselves to the group. Kelly Shrout attended in

Ken Miller’s place.

2. Call for recorder. Ed Evans volunteered to record the minutes for this meeting.

3. Chargesa. Current (Ken Louie)

Recommend ways to disseminate emergency procedures to students. The committee is to recommend ways to inform students of what steps students

should take in the event of an emergency, such as a fire, explosion, shooter, extreme weather, etc.

Discussion brought up the questions “How much information do students already have?” and “What else should they have?” Police and Safety has a safety handout and Student Affairs has a guide to living. Kelly Shrout indicated that students don’t really have a lot of information available to them.

Discussion tabled until later in the meeting.Review and provide advice and input, if any, to the report on the use of Student Facility Funds.

These funds are currently being used for the renovation of 117 Reed which is used for speakers, films, and as a classroom. The bidding process for this project will begin in November.

Because the funds are to be used for non-academic purposes, the chancellor’s office will pay for the collapsible arms that provide the seats with a desk-like adaptation for note taking.

The SLC is to recommend possible future projects.Consult with Student Affairs and the SGA

and recommend ways to increase student participation on the appropriate standing committees of Faculty Council.

b. Former – especially last year’si. Try to establish a program for inviting high school students to attend on-campus

speakers and other presentations. Miriam suggested that we could contact H.S. principals to invite students to events. A

faculty member from the hosting school could then act as host to the student guests. The students would have preferred seating and parking. The students would be acknowledged by the master of ceremonies. It was suggested that Admissions carry the major effort of this endeavor and that they should provide refreshments for a reception after the program. Schools could be chosen through a rotation cycle. We would need faculty input to initiate this practice.

Miriam will discuss this issue with Mary Ellen Madigan. She will also send the letter written by last year’s committee to the members and to Mary Ellen.

ii. Recommend ways to encourage someone to open a convenience store on-campus or very within walking distance to campus.

It was noted that Harbor Creek Township is willing to change the zoning to accommodate a convenience store. This in not being actively pursued by any committee on campus to our knowledge. This charge seems to be beyond the scope of this committee.

4. Volunteers for subcommittees to study our charges.a. The committee members volunteered or were assigned to charges as follows:

Charge 1: Ed Evans and Vibhuti Dave Charge 2: Michael Justik, Ken Louie, and Joe Previte Charge 3: Todd Nesbit and Sarah Whitney

5. Brainstorming regarding emergency procedures and insights from committee members on our other two charges

a. The guiding principle regarding dissemination of information is “we don’t know what’s going to happen, so the students have to be trained to do what they are told to do in an emergency.

b. The subcommittee needs to prioritize what to do and when to start it. Also, determine the cost for each recommendation and determine if funds are available to carry out the action.

c. Brainstorming ideas included: Include emergency information on syllabi Some kind of electronic posting Show the “shooter video” in residence hall programming Do residence hall programming including something with roll playing Have the Chancellor or some other official email students about where to find

information Set up bulletins similar to the ones provided by Health and Wellness Set up an ANGEL group Include information training session in orientation programming Place placards on the back of residence hall doors – like in hotels Post bulletin board posters Include emergency information in PSU 7 courses Set up a “Table-Top Program”. A training session where the scenario changes every

five minutes and the participants need to decide what to do in a changing environment. Housing, Student Affairs and Police & Safety routinely do these kinds of exercises.

6. Questions, concerns, other items of interest None noted

7. Date for next meeting: Friday, November 6, 2009, 8:30 a.m. in the H&SS Conference Room

8. Adjourn: 9 a.m.

Respectfully submitted, Ed Evans

AGENDASTUDENT LIFE COMMITTEE (2)

November 6, 20098:15 AM

1. Call to order

2. Volunteer secretary

3. Welcome to people who were indisposed

4. Report on Faculty Council

5. Subcommittee updates

6. Any insights for the good of the order

7. Preferences for next meeting

8. Adjourn

Penn State Erie, The Behrend College Faculty Council

Student Life Committee (SLC) Meeting Minutes for November 6, 2009

Attendance: Vabhuti Dave (Eng), Ed Evans (Eng), Michael Justik (Sci), Ken Louie (Bus), Miriam McMullen-Pastrick (HSS-chair), Joe Previte (Sci), and Sarah Whitney (HSS)

Absent: Ken Miller (Student Affairs), Todd Nesbit (Bus),

1. Meeting was called to order at 8:30 AM by the chair.

2. Volunteer Secretary. Ed Evans volunteered to record the minutes for this meeting.

3. Welcome to people who were indisposed.

4. Report on Faculty Council:• Athletics committee asked to be dissolved• Another committee asked to have a redundant charge removed from their assigned tasks• Next meeting is during the week of December 1, 2009.

5. Subcommittee Updates:a. Ken Louie reported on the second charge: Review and provide advice and input, if any, to the report on the use of Student Facility Funds. His observations and comments:

• Ken Louie indicated that he thought the sub-committee should provide faculty input to Student Affairs and others responsible for implementing the plan. He questioned whether faculty should have input since the funds are for non-academic uses.• Ken Miller has a well defined report which contains lots of input. This report was written by the Student Facility Fee Committee. Comments and observations:• Faculty input should have been obtained before the report was written• It is not feasible for us to do another study• The survey participation rate was pretty low at around 29%• It is suggested that students be required to take the survey anonymously in order to get a higher participation percentage• The survey results weren’t listed by demographics (resident, commuter, etc.) which would be important if we wanted to weight the views of one group over another• 87% of all those surveyed indicated a desire for a convenience store on campus• The survey questions could have been better prepared –• The survey seemed to be focused on the Reed Building and the Junker Center. Additional questions about the theater, the picnic grove and the chapel could have been included.• The report suggests the preparation of feasibility studies each having short deadlines before the end of the semester. Are the deadlines flexible?• Joe Previte agreed that the survey was geared towards the Reed Building and Junker Center facilities. He thought the report has a predetermined expectation.• Joe Previte also mentioned that the Penn State Student Facility Fee Guiding Principles indicates that the Student Facility Fee Committee be comprised of members including “… and/or a member of the Student Life Committee…” Joe Previte, Ken Louie, or Todd Nesbit will contact Ken Miller about becoming a member of the Student Facility Fee Committee. The subcommittee report will include a recommendation for this membership in their report.

b. Ed Evans had no report concerning first charge: Recommend ways to disseminate emergency procedures to students. Discussion as follows:

• There was a question about the Critical Response Team (CRT) “table-top program” from the last meeting brainstorming session. It isn’t clear what the activities are and what are the results of the activity? The CRT website is pretty outdated and the SLC should recommend that the CRT

website be updated more frequently. The SLC should also contact the CRT about a presentation for freshman and RA programs.• Recommend to Student Affairs that they remind students about the text messaging alert system at the beginning of each semester.• Students are “trained” to “do what they’re told to do” in an emergency. We need to recommend faculty training so that students are told the right thing to do in an emergency. This training could be provided by Policy & Safety, or the CRT, or by some other organization. This training could take place during faculty meetings or during the period prior to the fall semester each year.

c. Sarah Whitney had no formal report regarding the third charge: Consult with Student Affairs and the SGA and recommend ways to increase student participation on the appropriate standing committees of Faculty Council. There will be a formal report at the next meeting. Comments and observations included:

• The SGA president, Brad Kovalcik (bck5013@psu.edu), is assigned to be a member of the SLC• Some Faculty Council committees do not have students assigned to them• The sub-committee report will likely contain

o A history of student participation on committeeso A map of participantso A discussion of the desired level of participationo Recommended methods for encouraging student participation

d. Miriam McMullen-Pastrick discussed the program for inviting high-school students to on-campus Speaker’s Series events.

• Miriam talked to Mary Ellen Madigan and has revised the letter to be sent to schools. Unfortunately, it wasn’t completed in time for the last speaker.• Mary Ellen Madigan’s office has the resources to do this program. They already do this for sporting events, but not for academic events. They are willing to adopt this program for academic events as well.

6. Any insights for the good of the order• None noted

7. Preferences for next meeting:• Miriam McMullen-Pastrick will notify the committee of the next meeting time and place.

8. Adjourn: 8:30 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Ed Evans

AGENDASTUDENT LIFE COMMITTEE MEETING (3)

Friday, December 4, 20099:00 AM

Humanities and Social Sciences Conference Room

1. Call to order

2. Welcome to SGA president, Brad Kovalcik

3. Minutes/ approved/ seconded

4. New businessa. Schedules for next semesterb. Members’ meeting preferencesc. Diversity Report (20) to UP on December 1, 2009d. Other from committee members

5. Old Businessa. Up-dates from work dyads and triads

1) Todd Nesbit and Sarah Whitney2) Ed Evans and Vibuti Dave3) Ken Louie, Joe Previte and Mike Justik

b. Other members

6. Adjourn/ See you in 2010 Thank You!!!!!!!

Penn State Erie, The Behrend College Faculty Council

Student Life Committee (SLC) Meeting Minutes for Friday, December 4, 2009

9:00 AM

Attending: Sarah Whitney, Ken Louie, Brad Kovalcik, Kelly Shrout

1. Call to order: 9:20 am2. Introductions3. We did not have the minutes from the previous meeting4. New business:

a. Everyone should send their schedules and meeting time preferences for next semester to Miriam.

b. Sarah talked a little about the Diversity Report but was unsure of why it was on the agenda for this committee.

5. Old Businessa. Updates from work dyads and triads

1. Ken Louie said that his group had been assigned to find out information about a faculty representative for the Student Facility Fee Committee. Ken talked with Ken Miller, Director of Student Affairs and co-chair of the facility fee committee. Ken Miller informed Ken Louie that he would not see a problem with an ex-officio non-voting faculty member being a part of the facility fee committee. The Student Life Committee will discuss at the next meeting how we would like to go about assigning this position.

2. Sarah Whitney said that her group had been assigned to analyze student involvement in faculty committees. The data is incomplete at the present time but first look at the numbers shows that there are no problems that are not non-pragmatic. Sarah said that in January her group will nudge people to respond to the survey.

3. There was no information on the distribution of safety information group.6. Comments by Brad Kovalcik

a. Brad will talk to students that are assigned to faculty committees and remind them that they are part of the committees and need to attend. Brad also said that SGA is working on a way to have it as part of SGA members written responsibilities by adding it to the constitution.

b. Brad also discussed that he would not foresee a problem with a faculty representative as long as they were a non-voting member.

Submitted by:

Kelly Shrout

AGENDASTUDENT LIFE COMMITTEE MEETING (4)

January 29, 201011:30 AM

1. Call to order

2. Happy New Year while it’s still January!

3. Approve/Amend minutes

OLD BUSINESS

4. Review of charges

a. Looking for concrete commitments

b. Progress beyond last year’s report

5. Response to Ken Miller re student facility fee

6. Committee members’ concerns

NEW BUSINESS

1. Question plus 2 back up questions for chancellor interview

2. Committee representative to attend Facility Fee Meeting on Monday, February 1 at 3:30 pm in Reed 113

3. Meeting attendance makes committee membership an ethical claim on our yearly reviews

4. Next meetings Friday, February 26 at 12:15 PM, Monday, March 29 at 8:30 AM, Friday, April 23 at 12:15 PM.

a. 8:30 AM

b. 12:15 PM (Todd has class at 1:00PM)

5. Committee members’ insights

6. Adjourn Thanks, everyone!

Penn State Erie, The Behrend College Faculty Council

Student Life Committee (SLC) Meeting Minutes for January 29,

2010

Attendance: Ed Evans (Eng), Brad Kovalick (SGA), Ken Louie (Bus), Miriam McMullen-Pastrick (HSS-chair), Todd Nesbit (Bus), Kelly Shrout (Student Affairs) and Sarah Whitney (HSS)

Absent: Vabhuti Dave (Eng), Michael Justik (Sci), Ken Miller (Student Affairs), Joe Previte (Sci)

1. Meeting was called to order at 11:35 AM by the chair.2. Volunteer Secretary. Ed Evans volunteered to record the minutes for this meeting.3. Approved minutes from last meeting.4. Review of charges:

Miriam indicated that we need to get some of the continuing charges finalized:* Student attendance at Faculty Council meetings* Disseminating emergency information to students

Ways to disseminate information were discussed:* Perhaps we could contact Lindsey Hopkins Hall in Student Activities to get

emergency information into the summer program.* It was discussed again that students should be trained to follow instructions

from instructors and other university officials in the event of an emergency. Faculty need appropriate information in order to know what to tell students in an emergency.

* A consultant will be on campus in mid-February. They will be creating an emergency plan which will be distributed to faculty. Ed Evans is to call John Ream so that he can direct us on the current plan and what can be forwarded to faculty.

Student Facility Funds – Ken Louie* We discussed the email from Ken Miller of 12/18/09. The comments from the

previous meeting were not meant to be a criticism of the Student Faculty Fund survey. It will be good to have an ex-officio faculty member on the Student Faculty Fund Committee to offer faculty input into the process.

Getting student leaders to attend faculty council meetings – Sarah Whitney’* Sarah will be sending another email to student leaders to solicit responses to

include in her report. She will then compile her report based on these and previous responses she has received.

5. New Business We need a question and two backup questions to be asked of Chancellor candidates

during their interviews. Joe Previte submitted four questions to Miriam prior to the meeting. The Student Life Committee question will be a modified version of one of Joe’s proposed questions:

* At Behrend, faculty members are expected to engage undergraduates inresearch, and their success at doing so is included as a component in their teaching and research evaluations. The college provides significant financial support to undergraduate researchers and hosts an annual regional

undergraduate research conference. How do we as an institution further encourage undergraduate research?

6. There was some discussion of meeting attendance and people reporting committee participation on annual reports. Committee members need to follow their conscience when reporting committee participation.

7. Preferences for next meeting: The consensus of the committee members was that meetings should be held on Fridays

at 12:15 PM. Most people seem to be available at that time.8. Adjourn: 12:35 PM

Respectfully submitted, Ed Evans

AGENDASTUDENT LIFE COMMITTEE MEETING (5)

February 26, 2010

1. Minutes

2. Zack Goncz—Aquarius Way

3. Ken Louie—Committee reports

4. Miriam—Chancellor interviews

5. Subcommittee reports

6. Student government up-date—Brad Kovalcik

7. Committee members agenda, insights, comments

8. Final reports—Insights/suggestions for next year’s committee

9. Next Meeting—Monday, March 29, 8:30 AM

10. Final meeting including review of subcommittee reports—Friday, April 23, 12:15 PM

PENN State Erie, the Behrend College Faculty Council Student Life Committee

(SLC) Meeting SIX Minutes for February 26, 2010

PRESENT Vibhuti Dave (Eng), Michael Justik (Sci), Brad Kovalcik (SGA Pres.), Ken Louie (Bus), Miriam McMullen-Pastrick (H&SS-chair), Sarah Whitney (H&SS)

ABSENT Ed Evans (Eng), Ken Miller (Stu. Affairs), Joe Previte (Sci), Todd Nesbitt (Bus)

1. The meeting was called to order at 12:20 pm by the chair

2. Chair volunteered as secretary

3. Minutes approved

4. Zack Gonz, a student government representative, joined us to ask for in-put regarding changing the name of a small road off Jordan Road onto campus in front of dorms to Jack Burke Way. All negotiations with the Township supervisors and the campus board of supervisors has been completed. There did not seem to be any problem with this initiative. Questions were asked about the history of the road’s name and Michael Justik challenged Zack to consider making the naming a fund raising and media event. Zack may be contacted at zag102@psu.edu.

5. Subcommittee reports

Charge One -- disseminate emergency procedures (Vibhuti Dave and Ed Evans)

Vibhuti and Ed will confer with John Ream and present their findings at the Marchmeeting. Kelly Shrout has noted at an earlier meeting that the faculty being instructed is key.

Charge Two -- review and provide advice and input, if any, to the report on the use of Student Facility Funds ( Ken Louie, Joe Previte and Michael Justik)

Ken Louie is in place as the ex-officio faculty member on the Student Facility Fund Committee and has explained the informational intention of our committee’s questions to Ken Miller. The members of the core committee include four students appointed by the student affairs director and the SGA president. This group gathers extensive information on student opinion for Student Facility projects and communicates its findings to the Chancellor who usually honors the project selection of the student body.

Brad Kovalcik provided additional information regarding the renovation of Reed Lecture Hall. The Chancellor's Office will finance the desk arms. Because the Reed Lecture Hall is not effective classroom space, it may be phased out of classroom use. According to Kovalcik, the next project will be a convenience store which will be accessible from Bruno’s Café, followed by a fitness center in the Reed area because there is no suitable land on which to enlarge the Junker Center facility.

Charge Three -- consult with Student Affairs and SGA and recommend ways to increase student participation on the appropriate standing committees of Faculty council. (Sarah Whitney and Todd Nesbit)

Sarah Whitney distributed copies of the results of her questionnaire to student representatives on Faculty Council Committees which included recommendations, thoughts and suggestions for increasing student presence at these meetings.

The subsequent discussion included indicating the 24 SGA students’ membership on faculty council committees in the SGA Constitution and perhaps in the Student Athletic Advisory Committee’s Constitution as well if more student representatives are needed. Committee members seemed to favor

the idea of the SGA president serving on the Student Life Committee and the VEEP on Scholarship and Awards. Perhaps these appointments could be implemented at the end of spring semester and students informed of their committees at that time as well.

6. New Business

*Committee members would like a meeting time set for the year instead of having a meeting announced without adequate notice. The chair apologizes for this inconvenience.

**If we can wrap up our charges at the March 29th meeting, then we can cancel our meeting on April 23rd.

***What are the possibilities of having a common hour during which meetings could occur? Couldn't classes be shortened by five or ten minutes?

7. The meeting adjourned at 1:35 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Miriam McMullen-Pastrick

AGENDASTUDENT LIFE COMMITTEE MEETING (6)

March 29, 20108:30 AM

1. Minutes

2. Old business--subcommittee reportsa. Charge one Vibhuti Dave, Ed Evansb. Charge two Ken Louie, Joe Previte, Michale Justikc. Charge three Sarah Whitney, Todd Nesbit

3. Ken Louie--update on student facility committee

4. New businessa. Brad Kovalcik--SGA update

b. Miriam McMullen-Pastrick--faculty council update if this is our final meeting, please, send your reports to me by Friday, April 16Two students per faculty council committees

e. Committee members--suggestions for new chair and faculty council for next year

Relevant chargesTerm length Other

5. Thanks to everyone! Carpe diem!

PENN State Erie, the Behrend College Faculty Council Student Life Committee

(SLC) Meeting Minutes for March 29, 20108:30 AM

Present: Michael Justik (SCI), Brad Kovalcik (SGA President), Ken Louie (BUS), Miriam McMullen-Pastrick (H&SS Chair), Sarah Whitney (H&SS)

Absent: Vibhuti Dave (ENG), Ed Evans (ENG), Ken Miller (Student Affairs), Joe Previte (SCI), Todd Nesbitt (BUS)

1. Meeting was called to order at 8:30 AM by the chair2. Volunteer secretary—chair3. Approved minutes from last meeting4. Review of charges

a. Vibuti Dave and Ed Evans will complete their charge by consulting with Police and Safety and other relevant personnel.

b. Ken Louie, Joe Previte and Ed Evans have completed their charge and will submit a written report.

c. Sarah Whitney and Todd Nesbitt have completed the tabulation of their questionnaires and submitted a written report of their results and recommendations.

5. Ken Louie attended the final Student facility committee meeting for this semester. The committee is completing plans for a convenience store that will be accessible from Bruno’s, and are looking at long-range plans for a fitness center somewhere in the vicinity of the Reed building. There is only minimal level space in the area of the Junker center and there would not be enough room to accommodate an additional center or the expansion of the present facility. Louie also announced that he will not be a committee member in the fall of 2010; so, a new ex officio member of the Student Life Committee will need to be selected.

6. Faculty Council Committees will present their final reports at the April 23rd Faculty Affairsmeeting.

7. The committee agreed that the final work could be done without another meeting.8. Committee members agreed that the chair could discuss Student Life Committee Charges for

Fall 2010 with Ken Miller, Stephen Burger SGA President and Ann Quinn.9. Committee term length was discussed in reference to the completion and repetition of

charges. Would a two year committee chair help the continuity and completion of charges?10. Thanks to everyone for your cooperation and efficiency in completing our three charges.

Respectfully submitted,

Miriam McMullen-Pastrick, Chair

Student Life Committee (SLC)Subcommittee Report

Charge #1

RECOMMENDE WAYS TO DISSEMINATE EMERGENCY PROCEDURES TO STUDENTS

This report was communicated via phone and is summarized in the yearly report.

Student Life Committee (SLC)

Subcommittee ReportApril 23, 2010

Charge #2

Subcommittee Members for Charge #2 :Michael Justik, Ken Louie, Joe Previte

Charge #2 :“Review and provide advice and input, if any, to the report on the use of Student Facility Funds”

Activities of the Subcommittee :

1. In October 2009, we reviewed the “Spring 2009 Student Facility Fee Committee (SFFC)Report and Recommendations” (dated March 24, 2009), sent to us by Ken Miller, Senior Director of Student Affairs & Institutional Research & Planning and Co-Chair of the SFFC.

A lengthy discussion about the SFF Report was held at the Student Life Committee (SLC) meeting of November 6, 2009. (Please see the summary of this discussion in the minutes for the November 6, 2009 meeting, as well as Ken Miller’s response, which was sent via e-mail to the SLC on December 18, 2009.)

Based on these discussions, it was agreed that we would ask the SFFC to include a faculty representative from the SLC in future SFFC meetings.

Ken Louie communicated with Ken Miller, who stated that he would not see a problem with having an ex officio (non-voting) faculty member as part of the SFFC. At the SLC meeting on December 4, 2009, Brad Kovalcik, SGA president, also said that he did not see any problems with having a faculty representative sit on the SFFC, as long as s/he was a non-voting member.

2. At its January 29th meeting, the SLC appointed Ken Louie to be the faculty representative to the SFFC.

3. Ken Louie attended the SFFC meeting on February 1, 2010, and presented a summary of this meeting to the SLC on February 29, 2010. The following documents from the SFFC meetingwere also given to members of the SLC: (1) agenda of the SFFC meeting on February 1st; and (2) a confidential budget document itemizing the Student Facility fee Budget. (The SFFC agreed tomake the budget document available to members of the SLC, with the understanding that the information contained therein is confidential.)

4. Ken Louie attended a second meeting of the SFFC on April 19, 2010 (which had been postponed from April 12, 2010). At this meeting, Ken Miller provided an updated Student Facility fee Budget document, and said that the plans for the campus convenience store are moving forward – he will draft a proposal to Jack Burke with the SFFC’s recommendation for the convenience store.

Subcommittee’s Recommendations: The SFFC seems to be functioning well in terms of overseeing the use of student facility funds, and we encourage the SFFC to continue its very good work on this important aspect of Behrend’s student life.

Student Life Committee (SLC)Subcommittee Report

2009-2010Charge #3

Survey Questions about Student Participation (given to student reps)

1. How long have you been assigned to your committee, and how many times have you attended a committee meeting?

2. How would you describe your level of participation in the committee? How do you see your role?

3. If it is difficult for you to participate for any reason (scheduling, feeling unimportant, etc), what would make it easier?

4. In your opinion, is it important to have a student on your committee? Why or why not?

Conclusions

1. Students who have a genuine investment in the process of self-governance are relatively satisfied with their roles:

“ I am responsible to notify the members of what we are doing, meeting times, etc. It is hard sometimes to hold meetings with the aspect of school work overload and trying to find a time when all can meet, however I think I have found a happy medium and have little to no problems participating. It is important the campus revolves around students.”

2. Student report the usual pragmatic problems with scheduling and/or the lack of regular meeting times.

“Honestly, it is hard for me to answer these questions because our committee does not regularly meet.”

3. No student reported any problem with feeling undervalued or underutilized on a committee.

4. There appears to be some confusion about which student is assigned to which committee – two students did not know they were on an assigned committee.

Recommendations

1. It is incumbent upon faculty committees to make sure that meetings are regularly scheduled, and that student scheduling issues are accommodated whenever reasonably possible.

Recommendation: The committee chair should consider scheduling the committee meetings for the entire semester after the second week of classes.

2. There needs to be a more standardized process for assigning students to committees.

Recommendation: The Student Life committee supports an effort from within SGA to standardize committee assignments. Whereas in the past, assignments have been made individually by the president, now the SGA proposes to draw committee assignments from the relevant areas of representation within SGA. For example, the head of the Student Athletic Committee would serve on the Athletics committee of Faculty Council. Similarly, the President serves on Student Life and the Vice-President on Undergraduate Studies. In this way, students and faculty will always know ahead of time which office goes with which committee (thus eliminating the problem in #4 above).This effort requires revision to the SGA constitution.

Recommendation: The Student Life committee supports the plan to place a total of two students to each relevant faculty committee. Doing so would create better odds that at least one student would be able to be present at each meeting.

3. There needs to be investment by students into faculty governance, and they in turn need to feel that their contributions are appreciated.

Recommendation: Students who contribute significantly to faculty governance should receive formal recognition from Faculty Council in some form.

Appendix A PENN STATE TUDENT FACILITIES

FEE

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

For Commonwealth Campuses

Penn State approved a student facilities fee that can be implemented at the various campuses of the University beginning in Fall 2008. Each campus will have differing priorities or approaches to the use of this fee; however a common set of broad principles supporting this fee will assist in ensuring its consistent administration and understanding.

Guiding Principles

Funding Parameters of the Faci litie s Fee

Monies generated from the Facilities Fee will be used to accommodate improvements and expansions to non-academic, recreational and/or multi-use space for students.

The Facilities Fee will not be used to support on-going operational costs associated with any project.

The Facilities Fee will not be used to pay debt service. The Facilities Fee will not be used to pay for rental agreements. Monies raised from the Facilities Fee at a particular location will be used at that location. Monies not used in a particular year will be carried over from year to year for use when enough

funds are generated to complete an approved project. Interest will be credited (using the University’s short term rate) on an annual basis to any unused funds.

New facilities or modifications to current facilities will be consistent with the campus’ strategic and master physical facilities plans.

Composition of Facilities Fee Advisory Committee

Each campus will establish a broadly representative committee to recommend and advise the Chancellor on the proposed use of these funds.Committee membership should include 2 to 3 student representatives appointed through the Student Government Association, the lead student affairs and business services officers, a representative from the Campus Senate responsible for student life and/or physical facilities issues and a representative of the development office.

Expectations of Facilities Fee Committee This committee will make every effort to secure wide input into the proposed use and administration of these fees before reviewing and recommending proposals to the Chancellor.This committee will provide to the campus community an annual statement regarding the disposition of the student facilities fee.

Additional Sources of Funding: A campus should make every effort to explore additional sources of financial support for any proposed capital expansion project to assist in minimizing fees charged to students.

Student Facilities Fee – Implementation at Commonwealth Campuses Operational Procedures:Background: Penn State approved a student facilities fee to be implemented at the various campuses of the University beginning in Fall 2008. Facilities fees will be used to fund improvements and expansions to non-academic, recreational and multi-use space for students. Projected income and the associated expense will be budgeted permanently beginning in FY 2008-2009. Temporary adjustments will be made each spring to reconcile projected income with actual.

Expense:

Initially, the expense budgets for each participating campus will be housed under the Office of the Corporate Controller. In conjunction with the guiding principles, the following procedures are proposed to facilitate the use of these funds:

For projects $10,000 or greater: Submit a special project request to Damon Sims, Vice President for Student Affairs and Al Horvath, Vice President for Finance and Business with a copy to John Romano, Vice President for Commonwealth Campuses. The request should include project information, amount, confirmation of funding sources being used and approval from the Chancellor. If the campus is already working with the Office of Physical Plant (OPP), please coordinate the special project request(s) with OPP. The Chancellor and Financial Officer will be notified when the special project account is established. All expenditures associated with the project should be charged to this account. The special project account will be established under the campus administrative area, utilizing campus approval paths for the routing of documents. Given this, access to the special project accounts and reporting capabilities will be determined by the campus.For projects under $10,000: Each campus Financial Officer should work with Susan Sampsell to create cost centers in the designated facilities fee operating account (currently housed under the Corporate Controller) to track these expenditures. Expenditure documents should be submitted by the campus and routed for approval using a campus budget and related campus approval path. Susan will also work with campus Financial Officers to provide the necessary access to view transactions and monitor spending on these operating budgets.

The creation of special project accounts and cost centers within the facilities fee operating account are essential for reporting by central offices throughout the year.

Income:

Consistent with the guidelines established for the student activities fee, all students enrolled in on-campus programs should be charged a student facilities fee according to the published schedule. Only those students enrolled exclusively in off-campus programs may be eligible for a fee waiver, which is processed manually by the campus through the facilities fee offset account. A campus proposing to waive the student facilities fee, for students enrolled in on-campus programs, must submit a request with appropriate rationale, to the Vice President for Student Affairs.

Division of Student Affairs Student Government Association

Introduction Spring 2009 Student Facility Fee Committee Report and RecommendationsMarch 24, 2009

The Penn State Behrend Student Facility Fee Committee is co-chaired by Erin Kennedy, SGA President, and Ken Miller, Director of Student Affairs. The SFF committee is comprised of nine members and includes the co-chairs, four student members, and the director of Business and Operations, director of Athletics, and director of Student Activities. The director of Housing and Food Services and the campus Finance Officer serve as ex-officio members. The SGA secretary serves as the recorder.

The SFF met throughout the 2008-09 academic year and commissioned a campus-wide survey conducted from January 23, 2009 through noon on January 30, 2009. All students in scheduled or registered status were invited to participate in the 42-item online survey. The survey was designed to assess students’ satisfaction with the facilities located primarily in the Reed Union Building and the Junker Center and asked them to indicate the level of importance that should be placed on the building of new facilities or renovation of current ones. In some cases, students were also asked to place importance of additional services that could be offered following a renovation/addition. General questions about the spending of the fee and how frequently students used certain facilities were also asked.Students were also invited to add their own comments in a text box after four sections of the survey.

A total 1197 students participated in the survey for a 29% response rate. Students authenticated with their PSU user ids and were only permitted to complete the survey once. Student user id information was retained to combine the survey data with specified demographic variables obtained from the Penn State Datawarehouse, the university’s repository for student information. Once the demographic information was imported into the survey data file, the user id information was deleted leaving an anonymous file for data analysis.

It is upon this data that the committee has based its recommendations found at the conclusion of this report.

Results By Survey Section Section I includes items 1-5 related to student satisfaction with the Reed Union Building. Students were most satisfied with the meeting rooms located in the building and least satisfied with room 117, the Reed Lecture Hall. Student organization office space was the space identified as least applicable to survey respondents.

Section I: How satisfied are you with the following aspects of the Reed Union Building? Questions 1-6 ranked by satisfaction.

Area SatisfiedSomewhat Satisfied

Not at all Satisfied

Not Applicable/Don't Use Blank

Grand Total

Meeting Rooms 545 266 38 341 7 1197 (Percent) 45.53% 22.22% 3% 28.49% 0.58% 100.00%Bruno's Convenience Items 440 459 179 114 5 1197

(Percent) 36.76% 38.35% 15% 9.52% 0.42% 100.00%Student Lounge Space 381 427 131 255 3 1197

(Percent) 31.83% 35.67% 11% 21.30% 0.25% 100.00%Student

Organization Office Space

289 246 69 583 10 1197 (Percent) 24. 20.5 6 48.71 0 100.00%

Reed Lecture 117 271 406 326 189 5 1197 (Percent) 22.64% 33.92% 27% 15.79% 0.42% 100.00%

Question 6 is comprised of student written comments and is included in Appendix 1.

Section II included 12 items asking students to rate the importance of adding new facilities and/or services to the Reed Union Building. Some services are offered on campus, such as the Copy and Multi- Media Center currently located in the Kochel Building, while others could be new services (dvd kiosk) or an expansion of currently-offered services (convenience store).

Students identified the development of a convenience store and the renovation of Reed 117 as the most important facilities to be improved. Least important was the addition of digital signs, a bowling alley, and a student art gallery.

Student organization space stood out as the item least applicable or not used by students which is not surprising given the specialized nature of the space.

Section II: How important is it to you to improve the following aspects of the Reed Union Building? Questions 7-18 ranked by importance.

Area Important

SomewhatImportant

Not at allImportant

Not ApplicableDon’t Use

BlankGrandTotal

Convenience Store 790 247 89 62 9 1197(Percent) 66.00 20.63 7.44 5.18 .75 100Renovation of Reed 117 748 262 74 102 11 1197(Percent) 62.49 21.89 6.18 8.52 .92 100Additional Lounge Space 508 395 176 111 7 1197(Percent) 42.44 33 14.7 9.27 .58 100Copy Center 430 464 208 84 11 1197(Percent) 35.92 38.76 17.38 7.02 .92 100Game Room 417 425 262 82 10 1197(Percent) 34.84 35.31 21.97 6.85 .84 100DVD Kiosk 391 421 273 99 13 1197(Percent) 32.66 35.17 22.81 8.27 1.09 100Coffee Shop 322 320 410 135 10 1197(Percent) 26.9 26.73 34.25 11.28 .84 100Bowling Alley 322 337 443 86 9 1197(Percent) 26.90 28.15 37.01 7.18 .75 100Radio Station 277 438 372 96 14 1197(Percent) 23.14 367.59 31.08 8.02 1.17 100Digital Signs 207 366 537 77 10 1197(Percent) 17.29 30.58 44.86 6.43 .84 100Art Gallery 195 460 434 94 14 1197(Percent) 16.29 38.43 36.26 7.85 1.17 100Additional Student Office Space 160 355 304 366 12 1197(Percent) 13.17 29.66 25.40 30.58 1 100

The following chart ranks the improvement elements most desired by students and collapses the “Important” and “Somewhat Important” response options into one category.

Importance of Improving Reed Union Building Elements

Convenience Store 87%Renovation of Reed 117 84%Additional Lounge Space 75%Copy Center 75%Game Room 70%DVD Kiosk 68%Radio Station 60%Bowling Alley 55%Art Gallery 55%Coffee Shop 54%Digital Signs 48%Add’l Student Office Space 43%

The majority of students (60%) enter the building on a daily basis with Bruno’s and the Bookstore being the most likely destinations. It is important to note that students were asked to choose all those options which applied for their reasons to visit the Reed Union Building. Almost one-half of the students surveyed reporting being a part of a student organization either currently (37.6%) or in the past (10.4%) and almost a quarter more (23.6%) plan to get involved in the future

.19. On average, how often do you visit the Reed Union Building?

Answer Frequency PercentCumulative

PercentBlank 9 .8 .8Daily 722 60.

361.1

Monthly

96 8.0 69.1Never 47 3.9 73.0Weekly

323 27.0

100.0Total 119

7100.0

20. What are the most likely reasons for you to visit the Reed Union Building? (choose all that apply)

AnswerFrequency

PercentCumulative

PercentBruno's 100

7 19.80

19.80Bookstore 73

4 14.40 34.20Meet Others 55

3 10.90

45.10Get Mail/Mail Room 44

9 8.80

53.90Attend a Program or Event

425 8.40 62.30

Attend Class 423 8.3 70.60

Meet with Staff 364 7.2 77.80

Weekly Movie 336 6.6 84.40

Coffee Shop 307 6.0 90.40

Check Email 250 4.9 95.30

Relax 229 4.5 99.80

Blank 70.1 99.94

Total 5084 99.9

499.94

21. Are you involved in a student organization?Answer Frequency Percent Cumulative

PercentBlank 8 .7 .7In the past but not currently

125 10.4 11.1

Never 332 27.7 38.8No, but plan to in the future

282 23.6 62.4

Yes 450 37.6 100.0Total 1197 100.0 100.0

Students’ written comments from question 22 are included in Appendix 2.

Items 23 through 28 pertained to student satisfaction with various elements of the Junker Center. Students were most satisfied with the Junker Center gym and least satisfied with the Jageman Fitness Room. Over half of all students reported they do not use the aerobic room with slightly under half reporting they do not use the pool or locker rooms.

Appendix 3 contains the written comments regarding the students’ satisfaction with the Junker Center.

Section III: How satisfied are you with the following aspects of the Junker Center and other recreation space on campus? Ranked by satisfaction level.

Space SatisfiedSomewhat Satisfied

Not at all satisfied

Not applicable/Don't Use

(blank)Grand Total

Junker Center Gym 463 350 111 267 6 1197(Percent) 38.68% 29.24% 9.27% 22.31% 0.50% 100.00%Pool 373 194 52 570 8 1197(Percent) 31.16% 16.21% 4.34% 47.62% 0.67% 100.00%Locker Rooms 311 253 64 564 5 1197(Percent) 25.98% 21.14% 5.35% 47.12% 0.42% 100.00%Junker Center Track 298 287 218 386 8 1197(Percent) 24.90% 23.98% 18.21% 32.25% 0.67% 100.00%Jageman Fitness Room

265 373 264 292 3 1197(Percent) 22.14% 31.16% 22.06% 24.39% 0.25% 100.00%Aerobic Room 251 239 90 608 9 1197(Percent) 20.97% 19.97% 7.52% 50.79% 0.75% 100.00%

Question 29 includes student written comments and is included in Appendix 3.Section IV: How important is it to you to improve the following aspects of the Junker Center and other recreation space on campus? Ranked by importance level.

SpaceImportant Somewhat

ImportantNot at all Important

Not applicable/Don't Use

(blank)Grand Total

Improve JagemanFitness Room

584 235 101 268 9 1197

(Percent) 48.79 19.63 8.44 22.39 .75 100.00Improve Junker

Center Gym389 335 200 261 12 1197

(Percent) 32.50% 27.99 16.71 21.80 1.00 100.00Improve Junker

Center Track319 296 211 357 14 1197

(Percent) 26.65 24.73 17.63 29.82 1.17 100.00%Improve Aerobic

Room170 257 274 481 15 1197

(Percent) 14.20% 21.47 22.89 40.18 1.25 100.00%Improve Locker

Rooms 167253 300 461 16

1197(Percent) 13.95% 21.14 25.06 38.51 1.34 100.00%Improve Pool 155 286 284 461 11 1197(Percent) 12.95 23.89 23.73 38.51 0.92 100.00%

The following chart ranks the improvement elements (questions 30 – 35) most desired by students and collapses the “Important” and “Somewhat Important” response options into one category.

Importance of Improving Junker Center Building Elements

Improve Fitness Center 68%Improve Junker Center Gym 60%Improve Junker Center Track 51%Improve Locker Rooms 37%Improve Pool 36%Improve Aerobic Room 35%

Item 36 includes student written comments and is included in Appendix 4.

The majority of students visit the Junker Center on a weekly (35%) or daily (32.4%) basis. Of the survey respondents, 12% were involved in a varsity sport and over one-third (36.5%) report participating in intramural sports.

37. How often do you visit the Junker Center?

Answer Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Blank 7 .6 .6 .6Daily 388 32.4 32.4 33.0Monthly 183 15.3 15.3 48.3Never 200 16.7 16.7 65.0Weekly 419 35.0 35.0 100.0Total 1197 100 100

38. Are you involved in a varsity sport?

Answer Frequency Percent Valid Percent{Percent

Cumulative Percent

Blank 8 .7 .7 .7No 1047 87.5 87.5 88.1Yes 142 11.9 11.9 100.0Total 1197 100.0 100.0

39. Do you participate in Intramural Sports?

Answer Frequency Percent CumulativePercent

Blank 8 .7 .7No 752 62.8 63.5Yes 437 36.5 100.0Total 1197 100.0 100.0

Question 40 includes student written comments and is included in Appendix 4.

Section V: General Questions

41. The funds generated by the facility fee can be used for smaller projects or saved for larger projects. In general, how do you feel the facility fee should be spent?

Answer Frequency PercentCumulative

PercentBlank 15 1.3 1.3Save as much money as possible for future large- scale projects.

229 19.1 20.4

Spend all the money each year.

103 8.6 29.0

Spend part of the money, but save some for future projects.

850 71.0 100.0

Total 1197 100.0 100.0

42. Where do you currently live?

Place Frequency Percent CumulativePercent

Blank 3 .3 .3In an on-campus residence hall or apartment

577 48.2 48.5

Off-campus house or apartment I rent

288 24.1 72.5

Off-campus with other family (ie partner, children)

76 6.3 78.9

Off-campus with parents

151 12.6 91.5

University Gate Apartments

102 8.5 100

Total 1197 100 100

Recommendations After combining each chart pertaining to students’ sense of importance for improvement, the following chart indicates the nine elements that emerged as the most important.

Ranking of All Elements by Importance

Radio Station 60%Junker Center Gym 60%DVD Kiosk 68%Jageman Fitness Room 68%Game Room 70%Copy Center 75%Additional Lounge Space 75%Renovation of Reed 117 85%Convenience Store 87%

Keeping in mind that 71% of the students favor spending part of the Student Facility Fee funds now and saving some for larger future projects, the Penn State Behrend Student Facility Fee Committee makes the following recommendations to the Chancellor for the use of student funds:

The committee requests that a feasibility study be conducted regarding the construction of new space or reallocation of existing space for the creation of a convenience store on campus. The study committee, chaired by the director of Student Affairs, should include student representation appointed by the Student Government Association and representatives from Student Affairs, Housing and Food Services, Operations, the Office of Physical Plant and any other parties who may contribute to the development of the study. The feasibility study should be completed no later than the end of the first semester of the 2009-10 academic year. The study will be received by the Facility Fee committee for consideration of future funding.

The committee recommends that the college proceed with the renovation of Reed 117 and the lounge space on the first floor of the Reed Union Building as outlined in a feasibility study conducted by the Student Government Association and the Division of Student Affairs during the Fall 2008 semester. A project team should be established with student representation appointed

by the Student Government Association and representatives of the Division of Student Affairs, Operations, Maintenance and Operations, Office Physical Plant, and others as appropriate. The project should be completed no later than the beginning of the Fall 2010 semester with the majority of construction anticipated to be conducted at the end of the Spring 2010 semester.

The committee recommends that a study group be appointed and include the Student Government Association, the Division of Student Affairs, and the Copy and Multimedia Center. The group is charged with exploring potential services along with space needs for adding a copy center to the Reed Union Building. The study should be completed no later than the end of the first semester of the 2009-10 academic year. The study will be received by the Facility Fee committee for consideration of future funding.

The committee recommends that the college continues to investigate the possibility of renovating the ground floor of Lawrence Hall for the establishment of a game room. Housing and Food Services, along with Residence Life, are currently evaluating the space for student use.

The committee requests that a feasibility study be conducted regarding the construction of new space or reallocation of existing space for the creation of additional work-out space similar to that offered in the Jageman Fitness Room. The study committee should include student representation appointed by the Student Government Association and Student Athletic Advisory Council, representatives from Athletics, Student Affairs, Operations, the Office of Physical Plant and any other parties who may contribute to the development of the study. The feasibility study should be completed no later than February 12, 2010. The study will be received by the Facility Fee committee for consideration of future funding.

The committee recognizes that students are interested in the establishment of the radio station on campus. It is also understood that such a station would require significant support from the curriculum. The committee recommends that a study group be appointed to review the plans developed by the Communication faculty and the associate dean of Undergraduate Education. The study group should include student representation appointed by the Student Government Association, along with representatives from the Division of Student Affairs. The study group should be completed no later than February 12, 2010. The study will be received by the Facility Fee committee for consideration of future funding.

Student Facility Fee members not mentioned by function are encouraged to participate in any of the above study or project groups.

The committee recommends that the Student Facility Fee Survey be conducted in the Spring 2011 semester to re-evaluate student perceptions of the quality of non-academic space on campus.

The committee recognizes that Penn State Behrend is in a constant state of change. The growth in the student body over the past 5 years is reflective of the standards of high-quality the college demands. The Student Facility Fee committee has established the above priorities in the spirit of creating high-quality, high-impact space for use by students. It is in the spirit of continuous improvement that the committee submits this report.

Concerns

1. During the question and answer period after the Student Life Committee report at the April 30th Faculty Council meeting, Dr. Rob Speel asked about the charges that were not completed in 2007-08. These charges included negotiating with businesses to locate within walking distance of the campus. This concern was discussed by the current committee at the first Student Life Committee Meeting in October 2009. At that time the economists on the committee insisted that sound economic theory would say that the free market will develop as it will and that trying to intervene and persuade business to move into the area is futile. In further discussion with Dr. Speel, he noted that this is a point on which social scientists and economist strongly disagree. Dr. Speel advocated active intervention in the economic situations and corroborated his position by noting that when University Gate Apartments were being built he personally talked to the owner and urged him to include a food business on the premises. Because of Dr. Speel’s initiative, we now enjoy Hungry Howies across Station Road from our campus entrance. The 2010-11 Student Life Committee may want to review this concern.

Further discussion with Dr. Ken Miller provided more information which may also be of interest to the 2010-11 Student Life Committee. Penn State Behrend owns two pieces of property on the west side (campus side) of Station Road. These Peterman and Gallagher properties could be potential sites for businesses to serve student needs. Harborcreek owns property on Station Road next door to Country Fair and on Hannon Road behind Country Fair. Harborcreek commissioners are agreeable to changing zoning regulations so that other businesses could locate in these areas.

2. What degree of engagement constitutes committee membership? Does attendance at one or two meetings? Does talking with another subcommittee member, and then letting that member do the ground work and write the subcommittee report including one’s name constitute a level of involvement that deserves inclusion on a second or fourth year review?

3. During the first semester there was no one time that all our eight faculty members could meet. In fact, no matter when the meeting was scheduled

two members would be absent most of the time. Adding student representatives and an ex officio member from our Student Affairs office made the situation highly frustrating. Would there be any way the there could be shorter classes on two Fridays a month to provide a common hour for meetings to be scheduled. Perhaps a Tuesday or Thursday would be better since ten minutes less class time would be less disruptive to a seventy-five minute class than to a fifty minute class.

Appendix B SUGGESTED CHARGES for the STUDENT LIFE COMMITTEE

2010-2011

To consult with SGA and Students Affairs on the smoking situation on campus, and to propose a plan for moving toward a smoke-free campus.Comments: the SGA President elect, Stephen Burger is interested in this challenge. Nonsmokers dislike have to walk through a smog of smoke to enter buildings between classes. Faculty members, maintenance staff, and housekeeping find the littering of entrances and the overflowing of small debris containers with cigarette butts highly distasteful.

To assist Ann Quinn and the Greener Behrend task force in planning and implementing programs to implement key principles of sustainability.Comments: One major issue in classrooms that are not on a timer is lights. For example the lights in the classrooms in Kochel are often on from Friday afternoon until after the maintenance staff finishes cleaning on Sunday evening. Then at least all the hall lights are on for two additional hours before the staff and students arrive for their 8:00 A.M. activities. When the projectors are left on bulbs that cost approximately $180-200 are being wasted. The time limits for the lights and projectors could also be reduced. Mike Lindner (6182) and Trudi Carter (6353) could offer suggestions for how sustainability practices could be implemented in our dining areas. Perhaps reusable mugs of the same size as the paper cups could be given to first year students during orientation to use in the dining hall and Bruno’s, and a discount could be given to students who use these mugs. The mugs could be replaced as needed. Randy Geering is currently thinking of suggestions for sustainability practices for our dining areas even though he is in a different position at the present time (6000). Ann Quinn (6544).

3. TO CONSIDER REVIEWING, REVISITING and REVITALIZING the WORK of the Student Life Committee in 2007-08 to

NEGOTIATE with FOOD FRANCHIZES to LOCATE within WALKING DISTANCE of the CAMPUS.Comments: An in-depth study and survey supervised by Mary Beth Pinto calculated student body choices for fast food franchises. A copy of this report will be forwarded to Sarah Whitney, the next chair of the Student Life Committee.