November 29th, 2011
Attendance: Diane Belz, Bruce Deakyne, Colin Finch, Spencer Graham, George Hoey, Tim Jorgensen, Cheryl Kent, Nicole LaRocque, Steve Najera, Patricio Nieto, Sam Rhoades, Blake Royal, Alex Voigt, IFC Representatives
- Call to Order: 5:39pm
- Approval of Minutes and Introductions
- Mr. Nieto motions to approve the minutes from the meeting on November 15, 2011. Mr. Rhoades seconded the motion. Motion passes 6-0-0.
- CUSG Report
- Mr. Deakyne: Andrew will not be here tonight, we are not sure where we stand with a CUSG representative for the Recreation Center. We will talk with executives about when new representatives will be assigned.
- A 4-20 forum is being held tomorrow from 6-8pm in the Visual Arts complex in room 1B20. The CUSG execs are working with administration to move 4-20 off campus this year.
- Program Area Liaison Reports
- Mr. Royal: I met with Francisco Rodriguez. We talked about his space during renovations because he needs new and more space and equipment.
- Ms. Kent: You should all get with your program area before budget to help with discussions.
- Executive Team Reports
- Mr. Najera: We are in the final stages of the selection process of the Facility and Event Manager position. We interviewed two people and have two more to go. We hope to have a decision made in two weeks. Things are chugging along in the facility.
- Mr. Jorgensen: Intramurals are in tournament play. They are talking about ways to generate income. The Outdoor Program is close to running their avalanche program. The climbing competition was successful this year. Clubs time is being consumed by travel and spending time with new software programs. Overall things are going great with programs. They are mostly concerned with budget cut scenarios.
- Ms. LaRocque: We are just going with the budget, exploring our opportunities, handling final week frenzies (free classes), and finalizing spring programming. I will be here more often as program changes occur.
- “Well-you” challenge is a wellness awareness campaign in the spring. We are exploring what that will look like.
- The grant and CU vs. CSU competition: We are in collaboration with other areas on campus to find sustainable impacts on the campus in meeting our goals. The deadline is early February. We will know late spring or early summer if we have been awarded the grant.
d. Ms. Belz: Getting ready to roll for spring. Things are looking good for outside events this summer.
iv. Chair’s Report
- Mr. Deakyne: My two chief concerns about the IFC proposal are the two rentals per month policy that the subcommittee put together last year. We have had some contention with student groups wanting to rent more. We decided to not give them an option to pay an additional fee. If we allow the IFC to rent, we are going against this decision because they will be using the facility more than twice a month. The other concern is what we are going to do with other groups that want to do a rental similar to what the IFC intends to do. We also don’t want to lose intramural participation. We could possibly go into executive session at the end of the night to make a final decision
- Director’s Report
- Ms. Kent:
- The IFC is not a recognized university student group
- Intramural doesn’t offer leagues catering to any student group. We would be giving IFC privileges that other groups don’t have.
- Ms. Kent: The State of the University System Address is tomorrow at the UMC.
- Ms. Kent: We have Town Hall coming up where we will talk about Buff up the rec.
- Ms. Kent: We set up a meeting with Athletics where we can talk about joint development and partnership around campus and where we can find tradeoffs during reconstruction.
- Ms. Kent: The Student Affairs Director’s meet December 20th. There we can learn about budget impacts for student affairs. We will try to work more strategically with boards in a coordinated manner. We will be reviewing, as a staff, the organization structure of the unit. There has been a lot of talk about program plans for the new facility and the best use of our resources. We want to come to this group with proposals for review.
- New Business
- Instruction program and personal training fee increase
- Ms. LaRocque (Presenting on increasing fees for activity and personal training): This came from an observation of min max head count and the fact that we are not covering our costs for budget. I started to benchmark what other areas are doing as far as costs. I am proposing an increase in 99% of our areas for Spring programming.
- Lifeguard training and first aid CPR/AED prices have increased for certification cards. We have to pass that cost on.
- Price per contact hour model shows variations.
- Increase in personal training fees.
- Looking at Marketing, competition, and services challenges. Research new opportunities and getting people excited about what we have to offer. The other part of this is the ebb and flow of industry and market, what classes are in and what classes are out.
ii. Mr. Rhoades motions to approve Fitness and Wellness Program fee increases across the board, Mr. Strang seconds the motion, motion passes 6-0-0.
- Budget preview
- Mr. Deakyne: Budgets requesting a 3% cut where we observe our unduckables. They are requesting 0% where they give us money to cover unduckables. We will have two meetings per week for 2 or 3 weeks in a row. We will make adjustments and then will vote on a final budget. We will then bring this to finance board and then go to legislative council. Again, please talk to program areas about where we can make adjustments.
- Schedule next semester
- Mr. Deakyne: Meetings will vary throughout the week for budgeting. Tuesdays and Thursdays, times may vary.
- Vice-chair nominations
- Mr. Deakyne: Zack is studying abroad next semester. We are looking for a new Vice-chair and other open positions as we have a lot of people leaving in the near future.
- Mr. Finch: Executive session is advised for the future of the board.
- Mr. Deakyne: A meeting will be held next week. Check emails for meeting time.
- Old Business
- IFC proposal discussion
- IFC: One thing that was missing from our original proposal were our Judicial Bi-laws.
- (Addressing what makes IFC different): The IFC is not a student group, we are a third party not for profit organization, and we are looking for a 3rd party agreement. We also have our own judicial processes. We are very flexible and want you to know that you have a say in how this league will run. We also want to give back to the campus and do more for the students at large.
- (Addressing segregation): We are operating after hours, so we will not be infringing on other facility use.
- (Addressing why CUSG is involved in this process): This goes back to the fact that we are a 3rd party group. We do not want this to take away from the fact that profits will be going back to the campus.
Mr. Deakyne: We reduced hours last year, if we do approve this proposal, we will have to come up with a way to determine which utilities are being used after hours so we don’t lose money in things that you wouldn’t think about immediately. There are a lot of those little things to keep in mind. We also have a policy of a minimum of two rentals per month per student group. It seems backward that a non-student group can get this at an unlimited rate while student groups can’t. As a board, we need to figure out whether we want to change this completely, or whether we will make a special exception for the IFC if this proposal is passed.
Ms. Belz: You are trying to get a 25% discount as a student group, now you are saying you are an outside agency. If this is the case, I would require a full outside group rental procedure. This doesn’t work. They are conflicting ideas.
Question: Mr. Finch: When outside groups come in asking for the same thing, what do we tell them?
Answer: IFC: I think you need to approach it as a pilot program one where we see how things play out and evaluate things as the league is running. We have to be a third party, so we are in a unique “hybrid” situation where we are students of the university but are also a non-student group (not recognized by the university.)
Ms. Kent: We as a department try not to implement programs that will compete with current programs (intramural and fitness.) The only reason we are looking at this is because you are students.
Mr. Deakyne: This could be a great opportunity for student development and seeing what it looks like to start a league like this.
Question: Ms. Voigt: Why only fraternities? Why can’t you play intramurals and have fraternity teams?
Answer: IFC: It’s not the same. We want fraternity vs. fraternity competition. We want to foster healthy regular competition and play.
Mr. Nieto: Why not make a special intramural group for fraternities?
Mr. Jorgensen: The idea of intramurals in inclusion—what does this do to the core program and ideals of intramurals?
Mr. Deakyne: I would need to see three things if I were on board with this pilot league:
1. In trial period, if we see a dip from normal intramural numbers, we would have to deem it in competition with our programs, so we would have to see its effect on our current programs.
2. We would have to look at a decrease in discount to make it clear that you are an outside group. We would adjust through negotiation.
3. Judicial: drawing clear lines and having a termination clause.
Also, the state of affairs of the facility is up in the air due to renovation. So we can’t guarantee how long this pilot league will operate.
Mr. Hoey: This “hybrid” situation is bringing up questions from us as a board and our principles. It is opening doors to how things could go and opening doors for how we could reshape our thoughts on how things are run. If we can go forward with this, how do we best see this happening? This allows us to think more creatively about our future.
Mr. Strang: I’m interested in seeing the specifics of the pilot league.
Ms. Kent: I would suggest splitting the issues. Approve this as two different things, a concept as one and then a proposal as another.
Mr. Rhoades motions for executive session. Mr. Royal seconds the motion. Motion passes 6-0-0.
Post Executive Minutes:
Attendance: Mr. Deakyne, Mr. Strang, Mr. Royal, Ms. Voigt, Mr. Hoey, Mr. Finch, Mr. Rhoades, Rob Olson, Harry Mieczko
- Moved out of executive session at 9:03pm
a. Mr. Royal moves to approve the concept of the proposal to be negotiated on contractual agreement that must return to the board for approval. Mr. Strang seconds.
b. Mr. Royal makes a friendly amendment to stipulate that the board views the proposal as an external entity and must therefore pay 100% of rack rate.
Mr. Deakyne explains the reasoning of the 100% rack rate to Rob Olson and Harry; as IFC would be exempt from the policy of a maximum of two rentals per month, they must be treated as an outside group, which is not entitled to a discount.
c. Motion fails: 2-3-1
Mr. Rhoades motions to adjourn. Mr. Finch seconds. Meeting Adjourned at 9:12pm