Board Meeting

By Julia Sanchez,2014-06-17 23:43
9 views 0
Board Meeting ...


    Board Meeting

    Monday April 27, 2009

    CSI Board Room

    6:00 p.m. 8:00 p.m.

1) Attendance……………………………………Secretary 1 Minutes

C. Graves, S. Sonser, C.Carson, M. Canning, M.Lukas, J. Radcliffe, S. Carmichael, S.

    Darvasi, R. Stanciu , Avis Maher (New Board: Kristen Carmicheal, Ciara Byrne, Taryn

    Schmidt, Lisa Jackson, Mario Anglin)

Chair: R. Stanciu

Recorder: C. Carson

Regrets: Amanda Black, Maria Fermin

2) Set Time to Adjourn………………………….Chairperson 1 Minutes

Motion: To set time to adjourn for 8:00pm

    Forward: Sheena S.

    Seconded: Melissa C.

    Motion: Carried

3) Approval of Agenda………………………….Chairperson 1 Minutes

Motion: to revise agenda for Technology Fee for Avis Maher to speak on behalf of Ernie

    Falkner. Change Consent Minutes instead of Agenda.

    Forward: Sarah C.

    Seconded: Matt L.

    Motion: Carried

4) Approval of Consent Minutes………………...Chairperson 1 Minutes

Motion: to approve consent to agenda.

    Forward: Josalyn

    Seconded: Melissa

    Motion: Carried


5) Discussion and Decisions

    a) Technology Fee………….………………….………Avis Maher 30 minutes

Discussion: Avis Maher, Conestoga College, VP Finance

    Document: Technology Ancillary Fee Analysis: Basic vs. Enhanced Services Chart: Technology Ancillary Fee

    I want to go over this document which there is three points I want to outline. First

    this is a budget that looks over the 2010 technology fee. As required by the government of Ontario, the ministry has requested that Conestoga College and Conestoga Students Inc have an agreement on what is considered basic and enhanced services for our Technology Fee. If you look at the second column of the document, it outlines the expenses the college will spend, which is currently an estimated guess. It looks at the college administration, which is needed to run the college and technology services. When looking at the basic administration costs, it is all student related and what enhances academic delivery. The college has come up with its best guess about what the cost will be. The college has gone through the IT staff salaries, the college does normal classrooms which is basic and open access labs are considered enhanced wages. The open access labs is considered enhanced, for the students area able to use the labs as they need them. Due to students not required to have laptops and the cost of the PC and maintenance associated with it, there is a cost in the enhanced budget for the technology fee. As you will notice, there is a Lost Revenue section of around $700,000.00 dollars, this is considered enhanced as this is money the college is loosing as its dedicating space for which the college could be making off the increase in students and the cost of the space. There could be more classrooms run through those open access labs, but instead are left open for the students. It is all the opportunity costs that is lost with open access labs. If your look at workstations, that is a small cost but with the survey it was asked that we have a hygiene station for students in the labs. Some of it is open access some is not, therefore some is enhanced and the other is not.

     Second if you look at the 11/4 ratio, this ratio is the amount of time that classrooms are used by the college for teaching, and the other amount is used by students when the labs are open. The other cost of $100850.00, is 350 PCs are in open labs and 3262 are in college classrooms (including staff computers). the 11% is considered enhanced PC due to the 350 PCs in open access labs. All of the following are considered in that percentage is where do the staff spend hours, what are the hours the classroom is available, and how many PCs are in the classroom. The DVP’s are considered enhanced as it enhances the learning experiences and is no necessary to have to learn at the college. Also the refresh rate at our college is every 4 years instead of 6 years. The 6 years is considered basic while enhanced is 4 years.


     If we also look at the growth the college is going to have, 11.5% will significantly

    help out with the fees and covering of costs. It will result in an estimate of $1.9 million

    dollars. This is only a possible grown, very aggressive, but it would be good for cost

    coverage for the technology enhancements.

     Finally, the last piece of the agreement, once Conestoga Students Inc. is satisfied

    with the agreement, we can move forward to the next step and update the outdated

    agreement from 2006. It will be different, as the updates will be shown according to

    ministry guidelines.

Josalyn: The 11 to 4 ratio, sometimes the classrooms are locked, so we need to ensure


    Sheena: By creating the new agreement, we will not see the itemized details of where the

    money is going.

    Avis: When the agreement is made, then we will do a similar document (chart:

    Technology Ancillary Fee).

    Matt: Are we working in this year already?

    Avis: Yes, our year end is March, therefore we are currently working in this budget.

    Matt: Can we negotiate with the DVPs, can we look at it as not enhanced.

    Avis: We can look at it yes.

    Josalyn/Sheena: We would like a line for line of what the fee is paying.

    Avis: It does show what the details, salaries, PCs, software.

    Sheena: We need something that will be good for the students, its confusing for the


    Avis: What would that budget look like?

    Sheena: We want a line for line of exactly what the students are paying for.

    Avis: That’s what it shows.

    Sheena: The students will not understand this, we need to show it in more detail.

    Avis: We can add a 4

    th column to show college and students paying, on November when

    we get the count we can do that, as it’s the reporting of the student count for enrolment

    We have to change the way we are thinking, as its what the student government wants, so

    thits taken hours to make, but we can change so it has a 4 column, we will also look at the

    DVP items, we will look at the review in reporting

    Sheena: If there is anything that we need negotiating, then we will send them (board)

    your way

    Avis: Yes that’s fine.

    Sheena: We need to know what the students pay, we know the college pays for it more.

    Chris G: We need to agree with what is enhanced and not enhanced, the written

    agreement is saying we agree what is enhanced and basic, you need to tell them if you

    don’t like what you see, ie DVP.

    Matt: We do not consider a DVP as a enhancement, professors demand that we use it in

    our presentation.


Sheena will ask:

    Sheena: Would they have made that economic investment of 125 DVPs if it wasn’t

    considered enhanced?

Melissa: What will happen down the road when the refresh rate is 4 years, who will pay

    for that?

    Chris G: At the beginning CSI stated DVPs as enhanced, therefore that’s what they included it as. Is there a basic classroom expectation, is it basic or enhanced (DVP)

    We need to look at what we want in the enhancement fee, what is considered basic now

    and what is enhanced.

Matt: If you look at the difference, there is only a $600,000 difference between what we

    pay and what they pay, so really we are paying for more then they are saying.

    And the $700,000 is not considered a loss, that’s potential, that’s not a actual number as

    its not a real thing.

    Chris G: That’s the potential increase the students attending the college, therefore it’s a

    loss but its not a real loss as its not real money.

    Sheena: They are putting the cost per hour on the cost for lost revenue in the classroom

    for open lab.

    Melissa: The lost revenue based on the whole day, therefore not the 11/4 ratio.

Wouldn’t want to be included in Tech Fee:

    - DVP’s- can be enhanced but not paid in Tech Fee- should be in basic

    - Lost Revenue

    - Classroom Hygiene, for classroom, open labs they can be enhanced

    - Revisit the classroom ratio 11/4

    - Software cost maintenance used by all college users, should be by person counts,

    not by PC ratio

What we do want, that isn’t included:

    - Give the LRC more laptops for students, as there is a lot of students that use them,

    they are fully loaded in software

    - Tablet PCs- with AutoCAD students, specific programs

    - Access software programs from home

    - Increase disk space (G-Drive)

    - Help with waterloo campus, self serve

    - We need a larger allowance, current 10000, we need more

    - We don’t get serviced (CSI Office), we need new computers

    - Another MAC lab

    - Cellular phone repeaters

    - Entire school wireless, E-wing, low signal


    b) Conestoga Students Inc. Budget………C.Graves & Matt Lukas 20 minutes

Document: 2009/2010 Budget for Conestoga Students Inc.

    Discussion: Christopher Graves

    We made the additions that was requested from the last meeting to the budget.

    Year to date, we added the 2007/2008 year. We are expected for increase in student population by 4%. Under 2008/2009, the new sanctuary and Tim Horton’s money will be

    added, Chartwells we just received so its not present in budget yet. We are budgeting conservatively, we are not relying on the money that may or may not show up this upcoming year. We got approved for our work study money, the college has helped us accomplish that. The technology fee is still $10,000.00, we can request more from the college, but we left it at the $10,000.00 just as that’s the guaranteed amount, unless you ask for more. Increase in the welcome back budget, to do a variety of SWAG throughout the year, allowing us more leverage in the area of awareness. Kept the current budget for the PEO at $1000.00 even though only $300.00 was spent, its just incase we want to go into Waterloo Campus. There is a increase in Board Office Furniture as we want to redo the desks. Administration costs are 18%, which is very reasonable, as we are not a charity. Accounting and audit, we are going to be going to the market for a new insurance company, we want them to be more community partners.

    Sheena: We need room, an increase wages, so we have more room for 2 events and 1 web designer.

    Matt: We may want to contract out our website.

    Chris G: We are looking at MinAris, there will just be a cost to it.

    Sheena: Will it be in the same line for costs (Administration Cost).

    Chris G: We could be added for a line for contracting.

    Motion: Approval of budget pending with the following changes of Tech and line for possible contracting (website)

    Forward: Matt

    Seconded: Josalyn

    Motion: Carried


    This is not a audited statement, it just takes a look at the past four years. We can look at where our money has been allocated. Moving forward, we will have this every year, with the next year we will have 3 years of good recording to look at. It will allow us to look at our business and take services away if we are loosing money and enhance what we are making money in.

    c) Health and Wellness Student Referendum………Sheena Sonser 20 minutes



    Sheena: Part of our strategic plan, we wanted to add a health and wellness centre. We are partnering with the college to achieve our goals. We would like permission from you the board to go to referendum to get the needed funding through the fees to make the Health and Wellness Centre a real thing. We will be working through the summer to create this referendum.

Matt: Can we get a pharmaceutical company to partner with us?

    Sheena: We defiantly will consider it, as the college wants to look into it as well, for students to learn etc.

    Chris G: We can put different projects to them, Pharmaceuticals, health and wellness, in alliance with college.

Motion: to plan over the summer months a referendum campaign.

    Forward: Melissa

    Seconded: Sarah D.

    Motion: Carried

    d) College Student Alliance Position……………….Sheena Sonser 20 minutes


    Sheena: I would like the opportunity to go for a executive position on College Student Alliance. I would be able to be on the forefront of the post secondary education realm and it would benefit Conestoga Students Inc. and College Student Alliance member. Please make a decision today.

Motion: to support Sheena in her endeavour to run for CSA position.

    Forwarded: Matt

    Seconded: Melissa

    Motion: Carried

    e) Chair Position……………………………………Sheena Sonser 10 minutes

    Motion: to elect Matt Lukas at chair for Conestoga Students Inc. 2009/2010 term. Forward: Josalyn

    Seconded: Sarah D.

    Motion: Carried

6) Set Next Meeting

Incoming to be determined


7) Adjournment

Motion: to adjourn meeting at 7:45pm

    Forward: Chris C.

    Seconded: Sheena

    Motion: Carried

Report this document

For any questions or suggestions please email