|
|
 |
 |
|
|
TUITION POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE RECORD OF MEETING Department of Higher Education Hartford, CT December 17, 2002
Members Present: W. Bevacqua, K. Guay, P. Halvorson, W. Johnson, L. McHugh, M. Meotti, A. Vertefeuille, D. Yoia, L. Zollo
1. Call to Order
Chairman Meotti called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m.
2. Acceptance of November 22, 2002 Minutes
On a motion made by A. Vertefeuille, seconded by L. Zollo, the Committee unanimously voted to approve the minutes of the November 22, 2002 meeting with one correction made to President Austin’s title.
3. Chairman’s Report
Chairman Meotti recapped the second meeting which took place on November 22nd in which unit presentations were given by the four Chief Executive Officers.
4. Review of Current and Proposed Tuition and Fee Schedules
M. Johnson presented tuition and fee schedules for the University of Connecticut (UConn), Connecticut State University (CSU) and the Community-Technical College System (CTC System) including definitions for some miscellaneous fees. The fees that are charged, particularly the university general fee, are very different in definition from unit to unit. Tuition amounts are consistent across all campuses at each of the constituent unit systems, but fees vary by institution. Under the Board of Governors’ tuition policy, proposed FY 2004 tuition and fees will be brought to the Board in January or February for review and recommendation. M. Johnson reported that all of the constituent units are considering significant tuition and fee increases for next year. In the case of the CTC System, its Board of Trustees just acted the day before to allow the Chancellor to make an adjustment for the spring semester of this year as well as change their course and fee schedule for next year. She further reviewed the impact of general fund reductions on tuition and fee increases in terms of percentages which varied by constituent unit due to the difference in base tuitions. It was noted that, at this point, there are no direct state appropriations that go to room and board except for financial aid that goes directly to individual students.
K. Guay noted that there should be reductions on the expenditure side as well. She added that there needs to be a balanced approach on both expenditure and revenue sides.
L. McHugh stated that as long as there is a scholarship set aside with the dollars raised, CSU should have the ability to raise tuition. Otherwise they will be crippled and have to take fewer students. K. Krapek added that students attending CSU have a bargain amongst their peer group.
5. Examination of State Funding Effort
M. Johnson reviewed national indicators on state funding efforts. Connecticut ranks high in funding per FTE students and low with state appropriations of state tax funds compared to the rest of the country. She shared state and student share of E&G costs and comparison growth in cost per student for FY 2002. Both UConn and CSU spend more than their peers in terms on a per student basis.
7. Report on Student Financial Aid Packaging
John Siegrist, Director, Student Financial Aid, Department of Higher Education, reported that in Connecticut, 87 percent of need-based student financial aid appropriations are campus-based as opposed to centrally-based. Those dollars are appropriated to the Department of Higher Education and then allocated to Connecticut’s public and private colleges who make awards to students in accordance with their own institutional financial aid policies. He reviewed the process of determining eligibility for need-based financial aid, a sample calculation of cost of attendance and examples of financial aid packaging policies in Connecticut. Each of the public college systems in Connecticut have different student financial aid package policies. Financial aid packages are different among Connecticut State Universities but are consistent among the Connecticut Community Colleges. UConn administers all student financial aid packages at the Storrs campus. There was some discussion regarding income redistribution under the Board of Governor’s tuition policy and the concern over student indebtedness.
6. Report on Expected Demographic Profiles
M. Johnson reviewed preliminary demographic profile projections (town and median household income). She reviewed what the impact of the State Department of Education’s high school graduation projections could have on Connecticut’s public higher education. She reviewed municipalities with the largest number of children under 18 years and the median household income in those areas. She noted that within the State of Connecticut lie two Connecticuts, Fairfield County and the rest of Connecticut, in terms of ability to pay for college. She reviewed where the people are likely to depend on Connecticut’s public higher education system.
9. Future Meeting Schedule and Other Issues
M. Meotti reported that a proposed scope of work and 2003 meeting schedule will be presented in January.
10. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary K. Johnson Secretary
/lml
|