- Get Involved
- • Student Involvement Network
- • Fraternity & Sorority Involvement
- • UC Game Room
- • Tunnel of Oppression
- • Griz Lead
- • Student Involvement Guide
UC Board Minutes
UC Board Minutes
December 2, 2013
Neil Bennett, Jeremy Verhasselt, Claire Chandler, Liz Roosa Millar, Samantha Hines
Paige Ferro unfortunately has too many other commitments, and will not be able to serve this semester. The Board will be searching for a new Student At Large.
General Advertising Guidelines Revision: “Free standing” needs to be altered so that it becomes clear whether or not people would be allowed to advertise (such as in a costume) in the main walkways or entrances. “Entrances” also needs to be clarified. The rationale behind the policy change is accessibility. The UC would like to remove as many barriers as possible to the flow of traffic. Liz will work with the UC tenants to make sure everyone is in compliance.
Monday, Nov. 18, 2013
Claire Chandler, Andy Mikkola, Neil Bennett, Liz Roosa Millar, Michelle Jensen, Jeremy Verhasselt
Proposed UC policy, 11.18.13
The use of electronic cigarettes or other breathable vapor devices that have the appearance of smoking are not allowed in the UC.
Why has the UC proposed banning electronic cigarettes? What events or incidents happened (if any) that that prompted attention on the matter?
The rationale stems from the intent of the campus Tobacco Free Policy to provide a healthier environment. A couple of members of the UM Tobacco Taskforce have indicated that the intent of the policy was to also include electronic cigarettes since they are not an FDA approved method of tobacco secession. As a new product electronic cigarettes have seen huge increases in sales because of tobacco bans. However, the ingredients are not regulated and have not been tested for safety or long term effects. Electronic cigarette marketing is now targeting children with non-nicotine candy flavoring. The actual wording of the campus policy neglected to clarify the status of electronic cigarettes so the task force has indicated that they were going to propose a revision to specifically address electronic cigarettes within the policy.
Inside the UC we have had individuals use electronic cigarettes. That has prompted questions from other guests and our staff who thought electronic cigarettes was included in the "ban". Although I have not talked with any of those users directly, our staff indicates that a couple individuals were specifically using the flaw in the policy to make a statement against the policy. Rather than wait for a campus revision, the UC can quickly clarify the status of electronic cigarettes within the UC.
What challenges do you foresee after the UC board approves the decision to ban E-cigarettes? (Given that it passes).
I do not foresee any particular challenges. Changing a habit takes time. As it is there is not total compliance with the tobacco policy even within the buildings. For most people, just telling them of our policies almost always brings a favorable response. Over time the others will accept the idea that tobacco/nicotine use is undesirable, even unacceptable, as well as being unhealthy.
One thing for the Board to investigate this year is the actual physical location of all the UC Poster Boards. Also up for debate is who can post what, when, why, and how much? We currently don’t charge anyone to post in the UC. Should we charge? And if so, who do we charge and how much do we charge?
Members Present: Michelle Jensen, Shelbi Dantic, Marlene Hendrickson, Devin Carpenter, Sean Schilke, Neil Bennett, Liz Roosa Millar
Members Absent: Taymee Brandon and Brian Larson
Percent Night Update:
Dining Services has mentioned that the vendors want to have control over what student groups are allowed to participate in the Percent Night program. Some vendors do not want to support student groups with different values/missions than their own. Liz and Shelbi will talk to UDS because it seems not only legal, but bad ethically. They may suggest having the conversation about the vendor sitting out if the particular student group doesn't meet the vendor's requirements, whatever they are. Shelby mentioned that the groups participating will be vetted before a selection group to see who may turn out the most people. The vendors may choose to opt out anyway; they could always put up a sign saying that they are not participating. Students from those “questionable” groups are already eating at those vendors anyway. Shelbi asked the question of the Board ... if the vendor will discriminate against one group, would they be allowed to participate in other Percent Nights with other student groups? The majority of the Board felt the answer should be ‘no’. Who will vet the Percent Night student group proposals? The UC Board would.
Bulletin Board Work Group:
The work group has been working on cataloguing the posting areas around the UC. The group realized that this topic feeds into the Branding Project, related to signing in the building, and has made this into a bigger task. They have met three times and now have a strategy. Implementation for improvements would depend on different issues, such as price. They are also looking at alternative posting places, and the policies and procedures for all areas; some posting areas have waiting lists. We have a good inventory and good ideas of what to add. They have considered things like: In the ASUM area, replace the tiny display case with digital signage - the UC would be glad to purchase that, focusing on ASUM topics. The UC sees the need, as the bulletin board info needs to be changing often. There are politics involved, especially involving the processes of how groups/departments/advertisers acquire the spaces, etc. Some of our boards are not ADA compliant. Some of the older boards stick way out, and do not meet ADA standards; they are low hanging fruits, they can be targeted immediately for replacement. They've talked about the importance of re-purposing the stained glass from the old display cases; art of some kind. The group will come up with 'the process' and will present to the Board. Marlene suggested allowing ASUM to filter the information and requests for ads for the items going onto the displays in their area. The work group is talking about who will be responsible for each informational area; distribute the authority where it needs to go. The question was asked…who reviews the posting for content? For items that The Source posts, they review content. For everything else, it's just reviewed informally as people see it. Timeline: there are four more meetings for the work group, but for the Board, it may mean a presentation later in the spring semester. The work group will still need to identify funding sources.
ASUM Resolution - REDBOX:
ASUM passed a resolution that the UC should look into getting a Redbox. Shelbi looked into it herself. Redbox said that the UC would need 15,000 people per day to qualify for an installation. For seemingly low volume locations such Walgreens, Redbox counts the people passing by on the nearby streets, such as Brooks. Liz said that, on behalf of the UC, for all those reasons AND the fact that they do not make money from her research. The expenses are too great for the revenue. Question: is there any chance we could approach a video retailer to take up leasing the vacant space. Some thought that it's a dying industry and may not make fiscal sense. The residence halls have their own movie check out service. We would need to ask students if they would want it. Question: what would it cost the UC for the expenses of having something like the Redbox? Would it just be electricity? The UC would also have to deal with vandalism. A university in Washington told Liz that they had only received about $60 per year in revenue from Redbox! While it's not always about making money, we would hope to at least break-even. We would assume Redbox would look at a year-round analysis; academic semesters being far busier in the building than during breaks. Question: if ASUM really wanted this, could they could take on the responsibility and the UC could just provide the space? We could certainly look into alternatives. Liz hasn't been approached by the author of the resolution yet. Shelbi already told ASUM about the findings.
Approval of Minutes:
Devin Carpenter and Marlene Hendrickson name correction, and Michelle Jensen is missing. Minutes were approved, with changes.
Priorities for the Year:
Bulletin Board Work Group, Percent Night
Funding Energy Efficiency Projects:
We will need to talk about how to fund the projects proposed by McKinstry: existing plant fund balances, loans, fee increase, etc.? Liz will have Jennifer McMillan come to a future UC Board meeting to talk about the different funds in UC and how they work, what's available. McKinstry was hired to do an investment-grade audit of the Grizzly Pool, Campus Rec, and the UC. It was asked if the vestibules enclosure project was still on the list. The UC took it off because of the low payback/energy savings return. Did the UC look at the floor leaks with this audit? McKinstry did not consider it because it's not necessarily an energy savings project. If the glycol loop goes, the UC will need to just take care of it; the only heat source would be from bodies, and from tenants' open doors. Question: What would happen to the temperature in the UC Atrium if the glycol loop breaks? We would need to put in a temporary heating solution. If the glycol loop goes, the Atrium does not have its own hvac/heat source. Finding the leak in the loop would be incredibly difficult. It is an efficient system, if there are no leaks. The canopy is the inefficient feature of the atrium. McKinstry wants to reduce the glass part and put more opaque coverings on the roof, but that may not work because the lack of light would affect the plants. When we are up for a new bond, we'd go for a new canopy, west entrance and glycol loop. ASUM just passed a resolution to increase energy efficiency in buildings. It is very expensive for buildings to become LEED certified. KRELF could be sought, but the funding is only about $12-15k. The numbers McKinstry gave us was $500k to just replace the roof; it is a 20,000 sq ft roof; less if they just resurfaced it. If they did a green roof it would be an additional $200k. It's surprising expensive but we question the accuracy of McKinstry's numbers. Questions: Are there any small projects that can be identified for the KRELF funding? Can the bulletin boards be LEED certified? They would have to be electronic.
Question: should the UC hire a person to write grants for the UC?
We actually do have a temporary employee currently exploring grant opportunities for the UC. Kristina is finding that the grants applicable to our needs are not released right now. They are mostly about water; aquifer purity and such. We may seek out a professor who is doing research work on water and partner with them; would be a great collaborative research project. It's hard as a higher ed institute to get money for a green roof, but it may be more doable to partner with a professor doing a research project. Kristina is also putting together funding priorities for the UC; in case there are any donors looking to give money, they have a list of what projects to fund. It will be very helpful as we set our priorities. The green roof would also be a rentable space and could produce revenue.
UC Board group photo!
Shelbi handed out a list of committees that have openings or do not have any student members. She asked if the Board could help get the word out about them.
Non-Traditional Bathrooms: Devin is doing a research project about non-traditional bathrooms. He wants to see if there is a need for more gender neutral bathrooms. He is seeing if other universities have multi-stall, gender neutral bathrooms. He will have more information. Liz put the UC on the safe2pee.org web site. The bathrooms in the UC by ASUM Legal Counsel have been turned into gender neutral bathrooms.
Next meeting is the 24th at 2:30pm.
Members present: Liz Roosa Millar, Shelbi Dantic, Marlene Hendricks, Devon Carpenter, Taymee Brandon, Brian Larson
Members absent: Neil Bennett, Sean Schilke
Approval of November minutes: unanimous
South entrance bike rack request from ASUM Transportation (R. Strobel):
After having looked around the UC, Shelbi would like to have the racks added to the West entrance instead. That way Transportation could add more of the lollipop stands, and/or more high capacity bike racks. There had never been approval to add racks to the South side, but if they're added on the West, it won't be a fire response hindrance.
Roger: it is possible to add racks to the South, but the number of spots available is very limited. His opinion is that we should maintain the esthetics of the South side, and we should also maintain the esthetics of the West side during the installation. Half the slab on the south side is sinking, so even though it is possible to put bike racks there, it is inadvisable. Roger feels that bike racks will be a substantial investment, but it can be landscaped to look very nice, even from the Oval.
Marlene likes the idea of making a “bike hub” so that safety is maintained. There could be adequate traffic and light to keep students safe so they’re not at risk of being isolated. Devin suggested putting up signs on the west side directing people to the North parking racks.
Shelbi brought it to the board’s attention that Transportation would like to build a building for bikes, but they’ll have to include a bathroom, so it would be a significant investment.
Liz clarified that we have the authority to deny building anything on the South side, and we can recommend they move their attention to the West side.
Shelbi called a vote for increasing bike parking on the West and saying no on the South: Marlene seconded, Brian moved in favor. Unanimous consent. Shelbi will draft a memo to Transportation letting them know.
UC Potty Press/Stall Stories conversation (R. Strobel):
History—often been requested by various groups on campus as well as off campus entities. Recently, a senator asked if they could promote various campus happenings. The frames would need to be able to withstand the high-pressure washing that custodians do when they clean. This would not be a source of revenue, just internal communication. Liz suggested that rather than having them on the doors, maybe they could be somewhere like above the paper towel dispenser so that they'd be out of the way of the sprayers. Brian offered the info that his wife is a framer so he’d be willing to get names of wholesalers that can provide frames. Devin had done research when he proposed this topic earlier, and all the campuses he spoke to said they had very positive reactions. Devin also suggested laminating the paper that would go in so that they'd be water-proof. The initial expense would need to be discovered, and then maintenance costs would need to be considered.
Roger: he’s very against the concept because he feels it encourages vandalism. In talking to people who clean and maintain restrooms, he has heard many negative things.
Shelbi: there is definitely a need for places for students to post things, but it sounds like because of the high pressure washing, potty press would not be a good use of our time. It would be better to investigate other options, such as the bulletin boards in the UC. Brian agrees that those are excellent points. He would like to just add that that form of advertising exists because it’s very effective. Marlene agrees. Brian suggests using the elevator as a space for advertising.
Liz asked the group if anyone would like continued exploration of the potty press. It was agreed that other venues would be better.
Bulletin Board Work Group:
met for the first time. Group will have recommendations for the board hopefully early this spring semester.
Next semester meeting times (discussion):
Shelbi will send out a Doodle poll for next semester meeting times. Brian has Friday free
Photos, bios, ways to highlight the Board better:
next semester board members’ photos and bios will be added to the UC website. Members were asked to write a short bio. The point is to recognize board members for their service, and also to let students know more about the board and ways to get involved. Liz also asked for suggestions of other physical places to display the pictures. Michelle suggested going to other meetings and introducing the board members—ie ASUM and Cabinet meetings. Marlene suggested the third floor as a possible space. She also suggested Peechakucha as an option for display.
Tech Lounge updates (Liz):
Grand opening held December 5th. Was all day, but there was ice cream for cabinet members and committee members. Still some small tweaks, but we are very close to completion. From things that have been said, it sounds like this space will be a model for other spaces across campus!
Percent Night update (Shelbi):
Donna has approved percent night! They're talking to vendors now, and the board’s charge is to choose which group will get to utilize percent night. UDS will not allow meal plans to be used for paying. Shelbi is going to work on an application process proposal to bring back to the board. Brian suggested asking the bookstore to stuff their bags with an advertisement for it letting students know that it’s coming and how they can get involved.
ASUM has approved $60,000 to remodel the offices. A spatial consultant will come in over break to tell them what they can get with $60,000 and also what they could do with a limitless budget so that they can compare. Shelbi will have more updates in January.
We're working w/McKinstry on conservation measures and they put an estimate together for replacing the west roof with a green roof that would be accessible to the public. The estimate is pretty high, so the next step for the UC is to see if it’s possible to raise the funds and if it’s possible to make it green. Liz has asked Kristina Swanson to look into writing a grant to get the extra $200,000 that is estimated for the cost of the green roof. It is estimated to cost $500,000 just to replace the roof.
Update on vacancy:
a few people have expressed interest, but nothing solid yet.
Devin volunteered to serve on the Drugs, Alcohol and Tobacco committee with Shelbi.
Members present: Shelbi Dantic, Liz Roosa Millar, Marlene Hendrickson, Michelle Jensen, Sean Schilke
Absent/Excused: Neil Bennett, Brian Larson, Devin Carpenter, Taymee Brandon
Also Present: Topher Williams and Becca Boslough from ASUM Transportation
Minutes approved from the 10/21/11 meeting
Drug/Alcohol Advisory Committee:
This is the steering committee for campus policy, they advise the president, and they also formed the tobacco task force. So far the meeting times are unannounced, but a UC Board member needs to sit on this committee.
ASUM Transportation Bike Racks:
ASUM Transportation proposes adding “Quick Stop” bike racks to the south entrance of the UC. The problem is that existing bike racks located around the building are always full, and people leave their bikes there all day or several days at a time. ASUM Transportation would cover the cost of the rack, but some planters need to be moved and the UC needs to be sure that the new racks would not block emergency access to the building.
Marlene offered the background information that single bike stands were approved several years ago for that area, but for some reason they were never installed.
Liz had the concern that the south entrance area may one day be used as an outdoor seating area. Topher clarified that the bike rack will be bolted to the cement, making them movable when necessary. He also suggested that another area could be utilized for the bike rack, the south side was just the most readily accessible place when the idea was discussed.
Liz suggested looking into an automatic, solar-powered system like the one on the Washington State campus, but it may turn out to be too cost prohibitive. Liz and Roger Strobel will investigate how much space is available surrounding the UC.
The UC Board can vote on this issue at the next meeting.
Bulletin Boards in the UC:
There is currently no process or guidelines for bulletin board use in the UC. Liz has put together a UC work group to gather history and background information about the various bulletin boards in the UC, but she would like the UC Board to be involved in setting policies for awarding/transferring/sharing boards. She would also like the display cases in the Commons to be included in the discussion.
Marlene would like the boards to be consistent so that people can learn where specific information will always be posted and updated. She also suggested developing an App in addition to bulletin boards so that information can be more widely spread.
Liz would also like to explore a magnetic dry-erase wall so that people can post flyers, as well as write messages.
Grad Student Position on the UC Board:
Liz proposed that for next year’s board a graduate student should be given a position.
Shelbi raised the issue that it is often hard to get graduate students involved, but Liz would like the grad students to know that they would have an opportunity to have their voices heard. That might motivate them to get involved.
Campus Court Vacancy:
It has been advertised in the Missoulian, as well as other local publications.
Percent Night Update:
UDS Director Mark LoParco has requested that Shelbi draft an official proposal. Shelbi will also be meeting with Mark, Jen Gurski and Vice President Branch regarding this idea.
The UC would be willing to cover some of the marketing costs associated with this program, pending Student Involvement Network (SIN) approval, as it will be an excellent opportunity for collaboration between the SIN and the ASUM student groups.
Sean mentioned that it might be better if the student groups themselves advertise for their own events.
Next meeting date and time: December 9th, 12:30-2:00 in UC 216
Members present: Shelbi Dantic, Neil Bennett, Devin Carpenter, Sean Schilke, Taymee Brandon, Marlene Hendrickson, Michelle Jensen, Liz Roosa Millar
Absent/excused: Brian Larson
Introductions of 2011-2012 UC Board
- Shelbi Dantic, Chair (ASUM Senator)
- Neil Bennett (ASUM Senator)
- Devin Carpenter (Student-at-large)
- Sean Schilke (Student-at-large)
- Taymee Brandon (Student-at-large)
- Brian Larson (Faculty Rep)
- Marlene Hendrickson (Staff Rep)
- Michelle Jensen (Administration Rep)
- Liz Roosa Millar (Ex Officio)
- Director’s updates (current UC organizational chart)
Liz discussed personnel changes in UC and will share org chart with the Board electronically. Liz asked Board if it’s okay to send all materials electronically rather than supply printed copies, the Board agreed and said they would manage the documents how it suits them (folder, binder, etc.) rather than the UC supply the binders.
Action Items, Updates, and Discussion Topics
Shelbi proposed a bylaw change, adding a UC student employee as an ex-officio/non-voting member; she will propose the resolution at the next ASUM senate meeting
Tech Lounge Designation as student, faculty, staff, and authorized user only: After discussion, the Board unanimously approved designating the new Tech Lounge/former Study Lounge as a non-public space; only current students, faculty, staff, and authorized users will be allowed to access the space. The UC will create appropriate signage and implement as a policy (Liz will draft and share later).
Shelbi shared her idea to hold “percent nights” in the UC as a way for recognized ASUM clubs and organizations to raise money; the Board discussed and supported the idea; Shelbi will keep working on the details.
Liz shared the UC's strategic plan with the new members and will send the full version via for their review
Financial Plan – Entrepreneurial:
Liz explained the need for coming up with financial strategies for funding the strategic initiatives and asked for the Boards help on creating it; the plan will emulate a “capital campaign” and include naming opportunities, endowments, sponsorship, etc. Liz is working with Curtis Cox from the Foundation to determine a template and explore best practices for fundraising for college unions.
Next meeting: November 4, 2011
Neil is unable to attend, so photos will be taken at December 9th meeting. Please prepare a short bio for the ASUM and UC web sites (will accompany photo).
Approved: October 21, 2011
Members present: Liz Roosa Millar (UC Director, Ex Officio), Shelbi Dantic (ASUM Senator, Board Chair), Brian Larson (Faculty Representative), Marlene Hendrickson (Staff Representative), Sean Schilke (Student-at-Large), Jessica Shontz (as note taker)
Members not present: Austin James (ASUM Senator), Bill Muse (Administrative Representative), 2 Students-at-Large (TBD)
Future meeting times changed to 12:30 to 2:00
Two students-at-large still need to be appointed
University Center Strategic Plan
Full University Center strategic plan is available for discussion (shared with Board via email before meeting)
Tech lounge access:
faculty/staff/students only? Would this include the meeting rooms?
sponsored theater seats? Rooms named after benefactors? We should use the UM Foundation naming plan as guidelines (Liz will check into). What would those proceeds be used for? How much would people have to donate to get a room, chair, theater or building named after them?
Financial plan to complement the strategic plan
Percent Nights as a fundraiser:
student groups or non profit groups would get a percentage of proceeds from UC entities such as Pizza Hut or Jus Chill’n during certain times. How do we choose student groups and non profits?
Making the UC the center of campus at night:
proposed strategies--produce programs and services to get people in the building. This will probably revolve around services extending their hours. Experiment with having open mic in the atrium, interactive game tournaments in the Commons, etc.
For the next meeting:
new UC organizational chart, new programming processes, directional changes in the UC.
Elevating the visibility of the UC board—strategies like posting minutes and pictures of the board online, dedicating a room to pictures of the board, etc.
Shelbi will maintain office hours in the UC Admin Office for easier/more efficient student access
Next meeting date/time:
ASUM Bylaws Excerpt
Excerpt from ASUM Bylaws pertaining to UC Board for discussion at 10.21.11 meeting
Article IV - COMMITTEES AND BOARDS
Section 1. General
Each committee shall have general jurisdiction over its assigned function.
Members of all boards and committees shall be appointed at the beginning of Fall Semester, although additional appointments may be made at any time.
Each standing committee and board, as enumerated in the Constitution and/or Bylaws, shall have the option to adopt rules of procedure for its own actions, as an aid to the Constitution and Bylaws, and shall be applicable only to the committee or board that adopts them. Individual rules of procedure shall have no effect when being considered by the Senate, unless the Senate has also adopted the rule or procedure.
Any committee member absent from three (3) or more meetings of one committee per semester without an excuse from either the committee chair or the Vice President shall be deemed to have resigned from that committee or board.
The Senate may remove the chair or member of any committee by a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote.
The President may establish new committees upon simple majority approval of the Senate.
All chairs and members of committees and boards shall be recommended by the President, in consultation with the Vice President, and confirmed by the Senate by a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote.
A quorum for all committee meetings shall be defined as a simple majority of the members of that committee currently holding positions on that committee.
Committee Chairs are responsible for setting the order of business and running their committee meetings. Unless their vote is needed to maintain a quorum, or is otherwise precluded in ASUM policies, committee chairs may vote only in case of a tie.
All approved actions of the University Center Board , Relations and Affairs, Student Political Action, and Board on Budget and Finance may be forwarded to the next ASUM Senate meeting as a seconded motion, a seconded motion meaning that a resolution need not be submitted under New Business and after one week be debated under Old Business.
All ASUM committees shall meet at least once every four weeks of the academic year unless exempted by the Vice-President. The chair of the committee is responsible for contacting members of the committee, establishing a meeting time and location. The only committee exceptions to this are Constitutional Review Board, Elections Committee, Personnel Supervision Committee, and Interview Committee, which shall meet on an "as needed" basis.
Section 10. University Center Board
University Center Board shall consist of nine (9) members; three (3) members who shall be subject to appointment by the President of the University, each serving three-year rotating terms, and five (5) members who shall be recommended for appointment by the ASUM President, subject to a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the Senate. Of the five (5) Board members appointed by ASUM, two (2) shall be ASUM Senators serving one-year terms. The three student-at-large positions shall serve two-year rotating terms. The University Center Director or his/her designee shall serve as an ex-officio non-voting member of the UC Board. An ASUM Senator shall chair the Committee.
A quorum shall normally consist of five (5) members of the Board.
The Chair shall act for the Board in its absence, subject to its review.
Special meetings may be called by the Chair or by two (2) or more members.
Duties and functions of University Center Board shall include:
To provide advice and oversight about University Center policies, activities, and staffing;
Annually review, according to the UC Board Strategic Planning Budget Guidelines, the University Center budgets and fees, including, but not limited to, the Annual Operating Budget, Auxiliary Capital Fund, and UC Repair and Replacement account;
University Center budgets shall consist of the three years' previous actual figures with itemized line items for each expense and revenue.
University Center budgets shall also include proposed figures of the current academic year.
University Center budgets shall also contain the proposed figures of the upcoming academic year.
The University Center Board shall receive the budgets by December 1 for adequate time to analyze the budget.
Ensure that student, faculty, and staff interests are considered in deciding policies and other administrative matters involving the UC by helping the UC Administration to decide on these matters;
In consultation with the UC Administration, develop long-range planning goals and funding sources for UC development and use.