Present: Lorraine Acker, Eileen Daniel, Michael Harrison, Crystal Hallenbeck-McPhall – Co-chair, Rachael Killion, Susan Lowey, Teresa Major, Logan Rath – Co-chair, Lisa Robusto-Mack, Rongkun Shen
Regrets: Qudus Bawa-Allah, Seth Johnston, Nicole Parkison
Guests: Darson Rhodes, Eric Monier, Brittany Narburgh
Welcome and Introductions
Dr. Hallenbeck-McPhall kicked off the meeting by introducing the guests; Dr. Darson Rhodes and Dr. Eric Monier. Both are present to aid in the discussion of course fees. Also present was Brittany Narbugh, Financial Analyst in Budgeting. Brittany is learning the fee process and has been assisting in collecting and analyzing related data. Dr. Hallenbeck-McPhall then reminded the committee of its role in the course fee process and that after conversation, there would be a vote to either endorse or not endorse presented fees.
Fall 2025/Spring 2026 Course Fee Request Review
Ms. Killion led the discussion on Fall 2025 and Spring 2026 course fee requests. The Bloomberg fee removals were discussed first. Related courses are still being offered, but the utilization of the Bloomberg terminals is ending. This has resulted in a request to remove all Bloomberg fees (impacts three courses total). Dr. Rhodes shared further context on the removal request. One of the main issues is that some of the courses assessing these fees have online sections and students cannot access the terminals virtually. The School of Business and Management (SOBAM) tried to work with the vendor to gain virtual access, but this ended up not being a possibility without additional cost. This cost is not feasible for SOBAM, as the fees currently do not bring in enough funds to support the existing costs. The plan is to eliminate all terminals as of the fall 2025 semester. Dr. Daniel asked what the cost of Bloomberg was, and Dr. Rhodes responded $30,000 annually. In response, Dr. Daniel asked if alternative funding has ever been sought (ex. Grants) for this program. Her question surrounded the thought that these terminals must be an integral part of a business education. Dr. Rhodes responded by saying the thoughts on the benefits of these terminals to a business education vary. Some courses were only using them for extra credit assignments. SOBAM has investigated alternatives, such as Trading View, but this comes with mixed feelings too. One benefit is that a Trade View agreement can be entered into for free. Dr. Rhodes added that SOBAM has Foundation dollars, which can be used to fund Bloomberg, but with only 80 finance majors, this may not be the best use of these funds. Dr. Hallenbeck-McPhall thanked Dr. Rhodes for her time and for sharing this valuable information.
Dr. Monier was introduced next. Physics, the department Dr. Monier chairs, is requesting a $10 fee to be added to PHS 260 - World of Energy. This is a new course. Dr. Monier elaborated that this course was created to satisfy the engineering standards for early childhood and childhood education majors. It is a course that was requested by the Education Department. Within the course, students build and test items, such as a bridge and rockets. This year the Physics department is covering the cost of all needed materials, but going forward this will not be possible. The requested fee will be used to fund this ongoing need, which satisfies the state engineering education standards. The Committee did not have any questions and Dr. Monier was thanked for his time.
Dr. Hallenbeck-McPhall reminded the Committee of the rubric and rubric review process that was used last year to vet course fees. She then asked the committee if instead of sending the rubric out via email, if it could be used to facilitate a group conversation regarding recommendations. The fees would then go to JPBC’s next meeting, followed by Cabinet for approval. The Committee agreed to this process. Ms. Killion led the conversation. The Physics fee request was addressed via the rubric questions. Some questions that arose: Being that the course was requested by the Education Department, could they support the cost? (Answer – likely not and since this course is being offered by Physics, a Physics course fee is appropriate) Are there grant opportunities for this, as engineering is a growing field? (Answer – TBD). Dr. Acker raised concerns about future growing costs for this program. Dr. Daniel responded that $10 is not a huge fee, but could mean a lot for educational opportunities. She felt that any increases could be addressed as presented. Dr. Rath agreed that it was likely costs could rise but was still in favor of the fee. He felt it would improve the student experience. Dr. Shen also was in agreement with the fee as it covers the cost of consumables, as we do for other departments like Biology and Chemistry.
After discussion, a vote was called by Dr. Hallenbeck-McPhall. Responses included endorse, not endorse, and abstain. Results were as follows:
- Voting Results: 9 – Endorse; 1 – Not Endorse; 0 – Abstain
Ms. Major shared Dr. Acker’s earlier concern regarding potential increases to course fees. With many changes going on in the world, such as tariffs, she believes a large majority of fees may not cover what they were intended to cover. She foresees many future requests for increases coming to the Committee. Ms. Killion confirmed that she has already had initial conversations with departments regarding these concerns and potential increases.
Dr. Hallenbeck-McPhall re-addressed the Bloomberg fee and shared a concern about two of the fees just being added last year that never came to fruition. This is positive for students, but a lot of work on the back-end. Dr. Acker questioned the fact that online students were taking the related courses and asked if they received refunds. Ms. Major shared the concern and questioned how this fact got missed when we approved the fee. Ms. Killion shared that the fees for the online courses were approved with the understanding that these students could come to campus to use the terminals if needed. The two courses in question from the previous year were to result in Bloomberg Certification for participating students, but neither course ran this year. She did mention that there could be an issue with students in section 325, which did run. Dr. Rath asked about how we could get these students their money back. Dr. Hallenbeck-McPhall suggested we start with Registration and Records to confirm the students enrolled and that the course was online. If confirmed online, she agreed that the students should be refunded. Ms. Major and Ms. Killion added that the SOBAM professors may need to be consulted to see if these students did in fact use the terminals.
Dr. Hallenbeck-McPhall supported Dr. Acker’s earlier points about cost of attendance and encouraged the Committee to continue with due diligence when reviewing fees and providing feedback.
March 7, 2025, Meeting Summary
Members were asked to review the meeting summary from the March 7, 2025, meeting. Any comments, edits or suggestions should be sent to Dr. Hallenbeck-McPhall by April 11, 2025.
Updates to the Committee
- Course Fee Financial Hardship Waiver – The Course Fee Financial Hardship Waiver MachForm has been updated and moved to the Financial Aid website. Dr. Willis created a new navigation for this page. This was displayed for the Committee. Committee members were asked to share this with students who inquire and were thanked for their assistance in making these updates.
- JPBC & BSG – Broad-Based Fee Presentations – The Broad-Based Fee presentations to both JPBC and BSG took place last week and the feeling was that everything went well. Most questions asked were not about specific dollar amounts, but rather just curiosity about services, etc. These presentations will help guide the JPBC subcommittee’s work. Dr. Hallenbeck-McPhall shared her appreciation for the BSG students for being respectful as presentations were shared. It is a long evening for them, and the Committee was encouraged to think about how we can change this process. What would be most valuable for the students to hear? Dr. Hallenbeck-McPhall is working to gather some feedback from both BSG and fee managers. She would like to revisit this topic next year with the Committee. She mentioned some feedback from the JPBC subcommittee’s benchmarking exercise with other SUNYs. It seemed that Brockport was pretty comprehensive in our student consultation process as compared to peers. One campus had an open forum about fees. Another had some sort of listserv.
- JPBC Broad-Based Fee Working Group – The benchmarking exercise with other SUNYs has taken place. The largest takeaway was that we were very similar to our peers when it comes to fee budgets. Most operate in deficits, and they have become accepted because services must be offered to students. One campus mentioned that just because an account is deficit, decisions must not only fix the deficit, but must look broader to the university as a whole. Dr. Hallenbeck-McPhall shared a feeling that these findings may lead to further projects and conversations on our campus. Dr. Acker asked which SUNYs were on the call. It was Fredonia, Buffalo State, Cortland, and Geneseo.
Ms. Major brought up concerns regarding raising the hold threshold and the impacts this decision has had on fee budgets. Her office has experienced many calls inquiring why IFR account balances were lower than expected. Dr. Hallenbeck-McPhall supported the sentiment and stated we needed to support a deeper look into the impacts of this change.
Dr. Hallenbeck-McPhall shared that not all schools on the call treated fee assessment differently for online students. She suggested that our campus re-review our fee assessment rules. Dr. Acker mentioned that it is important to consider the financial situation of the campuses when looking at this data. Dr. Hallenbeck-McPhall agreed. She shared that some campuses do not use the full fee amount SUNY allots when increasing fees. Some on the Committee found this very interesting.
Broad-Based Fee - FY26/26 Budget Discussion & Vote
Dr. Hallenbeck-McPhall called a vote on the FY25/26 Broad-Based Fee requests. Vote responses included endorse, not endorse, or abstain. A chart of the Broad-Based Fee budgets and requests was shared. Below is a summary of the vote:
Campus Recreation (Student Recreation Fee):
- Requesting a fee increase of $10 for 2025-26 (+11.9% increase)
Endorse - 9, Not Endorse - 0, Abstain - 1
Brockport ITS (Technology Fee):
- Requesting a fee increase of $6 for 2025-26 (+1.5% increase)
Endorse - 7, Not Endorse - 2, Abstain - 1
Hazen Center for Integrated Care - Health, Counseling and Health Promotion and Prevention Services (Student Health Fee):
- Requesting a fee increase of $18 for 2025-26 (+4.8% increase)
Endorse - 9, Not Endorse - 0, Abstain - 1
Intercollegiate Athletics (Athletic Fee):
- Requesting a fee increase of $20 for 2025-26 (+4.0% increase)
Endorse - 5, Not Endorse - 4, Abstain - 1
Transportation Services (Transportation Fee):
- Requesting a fee increase of $10 for 2025-26 (+18.5% increase)
Endorse - 9, Not Endorse - 0, Abstain - 1
Career Design Center (Career Services Fee):
- No fee increase requested for 2025-26
Endorse - NA, Not Endorse - NA, Abstain - NA
Dr. Hallenbeck-McPhall explained that next steps are for these fees to be reviewed by both JPBC and President’s Cabinet. From here, SUNY will provide guidance and the allowance for Broad-Based Fee increases and we will submit accordingly.
Current University Fee Policy – Review
The meeting was nearing end, so Dr. Hallenbeck-McPhall briefly spoke on the fee policy changes. All changes discussed at the last meeting were incorporated. She asked the Committee to re-review and to let her know if anything was missed. The revised policy was also shared with the JPBC working group.
CBRFC Membership Roster Review
Dr. Hallenbeck-McPhall included a document with the meeting materials, which summarizes all the changes to membership that were discussed at the last meeting. This includes adding the option to assign a delegate to some roles. She also added some notes for consideration at the bottom of the page. She asked for feedback to these changes be emailed to her.
Other Items from the Committee
None at this time.
CHM