University of Colorado at Boulder
CU: Home A to Z map

Meeting Minutes


November 15, 2011


Attendance: Diane Belz, Bruce Deakyne, Colin Finch, Tyler Goering, Spencer Graham, Tim Jorgensen, Cheryl Kent, Nan Lu, Steve Najera, Patricio Nieto, Sam Rhoades, Blake Royal, Zack Strang, Intra Fraternity Council Representatives

  1. Call to Order: 5:30
    1. Mr. Nieto motioned to approve minutes with a spelling change from the meeting on November 1, 2011. Mr. Graham Seconds this motion. Minutes approved 7-0-0
  2. Facility Requests
    1. Paralympics
      1. Ms. Belz: The Council for Inclusion, Leadership, and Advocacy (CILA) has made the Paralympic request in the past and due to changes in student leadership, the person stepping up is getting caught up on past events and how the group runs. This year the ROTC will be involved. The event will include an informational component involving able bodied people partaking in Paralympic activities (empathy activities.) Paralympics will be present, but the event will be sponsored by student groups. The date CILA is looking at is Saturday, February 11th. They would be using the General Gym, three lanes in pool, the Mat Room, and the Conference Rooms. They are looking for approval of the space and also for waved fees. The total cost is $504 (give or take) and the event will take place from 8am to 4pm. CILA and ROTC will make this a larger event than it was last year.
        1. They will do all the set ups necessary for the event to take place, we (recreation staff) didn’t do much as far as setups go last year.
          1. Mr. Deakyne: This event will involve outside guests coming in resulting in a loss of student space, we have to keep in mind that we are setting a precedent and giving it for free could open doors for other groups that are in similar circumstances.
          2. Mr. Graham: If you break the fee once, you will be expected to do it for all groups. Rules in place or a reason.

     2. Mr. Strang: Motion to approve CILA’s request on February 11th with policy fee. Motion seconded by Mr. Graham. Motion passed 7-0-0.

    1. IFC Basketball Proposal

1. Pre Questions:

      1. Ms. Kent: Any event going past our normal hours is expensive; we have to keep this in mind for events that want to do this.
      2. Mr. Jorgensen: They are coming in with an assumption that we can provide staffing, which is difficult to guarantee for after hours. What is their plan B if we can’t staff it? Same thing with overtime for all extra staffing.
      3. Mr. Finch: Conflict of interest: Fraternity men on Student Government.

2. Intra Fraternity Council (IFC) Presentation:

        1. The IFC approached the Recreation center before summer with hopes to gain a relationship for this event. The IFC enters as 3rd party renter to provide Greek males with an opportunity to compete in a late night hour basketball league to not interfere with current operations. We would like to work with the recreation center to turn this league into a philanthropic endeavor. Tournament play could be used as an event to benefit the campus in some capacity. We want this league to be beneficial to both parties. We are coming in as middle man and want to approach this in the right way.
        2. Rob IFC president: Fraternity men don’t get much interaction (between fraternities.) We want to foster more interaction and more sportsmanship on campus because we are students of the University. We are willing to pay for security and have the ability to handle infractions through a speedy judicial process. 
        3. Harry director of IFC athletics: We want to establish a mutual philanthropy with the recreation center and IFC to turn back to the campus. Revenues through sponsors, fees etc. will work together to benefit the campus. I will be present at every event and am the liaison for the IFC.
        4. Chris Marshall director of Greek Affairs: Greek men like the idea of a philanthropy event. This could open doors for a relationship between the IFC and the CU campus. Great opportunity to see Fraternity men compete in a way that benefits the campus.
        5. Nick McCarter: We are open to working with the Recreation Center. We don’t want to take away from activities that are here now. 

B. Rec Board Questions:
Q: Mr. Finch: A big confusion is what the CUSG, IFC relationship looks like.
A: IFC: 3 members are a part of CUSG, we have a great relationship and wanted an intermediary relationship. We wrote this proposal together, and this has been mentioned to legislative council members, so there shouldn’t be any problems there.
Q: Ms. Kent: Colin’s point is well taken in that there are some strings and ties in this convo about “I” and “we” with CUSG and IFC. These strings make it difficult to say no, if we were to. Our fears are not unfounded. How do you propose, as student leaders, to attend to that? Talk to us about how you will deal with this in terms of fairness.
A: IFC: We have no intentions of coercing. This would create a void. We would like to work with you on this. We have no intention of using CUSG to leverage this. We wanted them as an intermediary, not as coercion. We would like to meet regularly and as a pilot league, this whole thing is very flexible.
A: We have a specific process for a reason. We do not want to strong arm anybody. We think this can benefit the university and want to build a relationship with the recreation center.
A: Mr. Goering: (addressing Mr. Finch’s and Ms. Kent’s point) I would lend my support to this as a member of a fraternity, because Greek life is a large part of the student body. Either way from a CUSG or a fraternity standpoint, I see it benefitting both ways.
Q: Mr. Strang: A lot of our referees are fraternity men. I see problems arising there about the fairness in us assigning referees to games. How do you plan to address this?
A: IFC: That comes down to making viable solutions; we are willing to hire our own refs, if concerns arise. We want to make this as easy as possible. We are more inexperienced and were hoping to have you as a resource, and referees are something that we definitely need to hammer out in more depth.
Q: Mr. Deakyne: A chief concern about referees is the fact that we have student refs, after hours facility use makes it hard to find staffing for these events.
A: IFC: We could increase the incentive for working that would be paid for on our end.
Q: Mr. Finch: Segregation of fraternities from other students on campus is another concern. Allowing this segregation opens the door for other groups to want to do something similar. This is part of the reason for our Recreation Intramurals league. The goal and idea of intramural is integration which will not happen through this. Could this event be taking away from our intramural program?
A: IFC: We already do this where we compete against each other in Recreation Intramurals. We have been in these leagues and it is just not the same. There is a different atmosphere that takes away from what we want. We want something for these men to look forward to and through philanthropy we are integrating all students because benefits are going back to the students as a whole.
Q: Mr. Deakyne: What makes you unique from other groups on campus? When they find out that we have accommodated you, we will have requests similar to yours from other groups.   
Q: Ms. Belz: We don’t have 4 courts for basketball as your proposal says, we only have 3. You could use the mini court upstairs, but that could cause conflict.
A: We will change that to 3 courts.
Q: Preferred day of the week/start date?
A: ASAP and flexible for the day.

Final remarks: It is a pilot league and we are willing to work with you guys, and we are very flexible. We want to make this league a model.

  1. CUSG Report
  2. Program Area Liaison Reports
  3. Executive Team Reports
  4. Chair’s Report
  5. Director’s Report
  6. Old Business
  7. New Business
  8. Buff Up The Rec
  9. Announcements
  10. Adjournment: 6:17
    1. Mr. Strang Motions to adjourn. Motion is seconded by Mr. Rhoades. approved 7-0-0.