Childcare Committee

Cornell Childcare Committee Meeting
B12 Day Hall
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
12:00 — 1:30 p.m.
Minutes

I. Welcome.

1. Attendees: Brenda Marston, Rachel, Elizabeth S, Mark Jasinski, Amy Richter*, Abe S., KC Rose, Yael L, Amy O., Michelle Artibee, and Cassie Joseph. * Minutes Recorder
2. Guests: Ari Epstein
3. Ari will be stopping by to talk about membership later in the meeting. Introductions of new and continuing members.

II. Update on grant programs and the CCCC tuition increase (Michelle, 12:05–12:15)

1. Cornell Childcare Center increase of 4% will stay intact after the OHR analysis of budget. OHR is encouraging people to couple expenses and apply for hardship grants for a 5% overall increase of expenses.
2. Childcare grant is seeing no increase in funds but they are now being mandated to stay within budget. They have gone over budget each year and people have been signing off of this. This means that ~$260000 will not be covered for faculty staff. Student childcare grant budget has been at $150000 and they have gone over by $90000 last year Correction From Michelle Artibee: ‘Initial reporting of this amount was incorrect. The “over budget” amount is $60,000, not $90,000.’ Michelle is extremely concerned about this affect on students. The committee that determines eligibility and guidelines will be evaluating parameters. The graduate school is no longer able to cover the overage amount of the grant. Abe brought up questions about budget determinations and bring forward the impact of cuts to this program to the graduate school. Question from Rachel about when this will be determined for fall. A separate committee will be meeting early June and the deadline will be in September. They are also exploring ways to have two grant deadlines for students: one earlier than usual to guarantee that students could receive funding sooner than usual (October), and one for students who do not know their care plans so early and can apply by the usual deadline (mid-September).

III. Membership

1. Ari talked about committee membership when the committee transitioned from being an HR to assembly committee. They maintain the website http://assembly.cornell.edu/Childcare/. OA updated our membership list. There are only 2 faculty representatives on the committee and Lisa Nishii has been removed from membership (attending the family services committee). Rachel (UG ‘ex-officio’ member) was encouraged by Ari to apply.
2. Yael brought up the two open Presidential appointments and the discussion about our committee’s membership that Lynette had at the Family Services Committee meeting. Lynette announced there that Laurie Miller will be appointed and start in the fall. At the FSC meeting, Lynette brought up her desire for our committee’s second position to be filled by someone who could address children with special needs. Mark J. brought up his own qualifications in representing families with special needs kids in the community (special education certification, his office evaluates pre-K special ed needs, and he is a parent of an autistic child). Brenda reported that Lynette had just agreed to the committee’s request that Elizabeth be moved to one of the open voting presidential spots. Brenda recommended bringing in specialists as needed when specific topics are discussed, and is glad to have Elizabeth & her broad expertise at meetings regularly, and soon to be a voting member. The committee really needs another voting member who attends and contributes regularly.

Yael continued the conversation about having someone that specialized and what our needs as a committee are. Rachel brought up whether we could add more representation of staff and students. The composition represents a general population representation.

1. Abe asked about Harry Evans. His term is up in June and then KC will be officially be appointed. We can have up to three ex-officio non-voting members appointed by the president.

IV. Committee proposal for child care grant algorithm (Yael, Start at 12:40)

1. Amy R, Amy O, Yael and Brenda met last week to talk about algorithm and Yael and Mark J met separately. Yael presented the summary of these two meetings. The central theme is how to do we help the most vulnerable. 1st recommendation is to cap it at $100k. Abe question doing a percentage based system. Abe asked about the legality of capping this at a lower amount in relation to its use of benefits pool money. Michelle indicated that this would be checked. Yael continued to bring up that this is one of the best times for the higher income earners realize that this program needs to benefit the most needy. Elizabeth echoed these sentiments in that it was originally rolled out to be as inclusive as possible. Rachel brought up an actual number for each category. Talk about % and caps by income category. Talked about the choice of care and pushing people towards cost of care. Rachel brought up that people look for the most expensive care that they can afford not the cheapest care. Mark J asked about consensus of cap and it was echoed that the UA even supported a cap of the funds. WDELQ will communicate the committee recommendations to Betsy Shrier, Mary Opperman and OHR. Abe suggested that offering funds only to the 100–150k category if there are funds left in the budget. Talked about ordering based on income but Michelle brought up the account for ‘other factors’ i.e. # children, single parents etc. Amy R brought up the opportunities for percentage of income and some of the similar caveats. Abe asked “Is there a ‘need index’?” This brought up the question about what to factor in on the index and getting into personal decisions. Mark J brought up the fact that what ever decision is made needs to be clearly communicated. Michelle would like to make this algorithm available as soon as possible and suggested that it be put forward in Resolution format from the committee. The only people who get over 5k are with the CCCC supplemental grant.
2. Michelle suggested that 1 or 2 people be appointed to go through the student childcare grant.
3. Brenda brought up time constraint of voting on resolutions so it was brought up that we would pass motions in the meeting to pass on.
4. Motion 1 by Mark J, 2nd by Brenda: The childcare grant eligibility be capped at 100k for the 2010 childcare grant.
   1. Michelle brought up that the hardship grant doesn’t have a cap but other factors are being evaluated.
   2. The discussion brought up that it would leave it open if there becomes more money available.
   3. Elizabeth talked about inclusion. Both Abe and Elizabeth brought up that there needs to be a asterisk that based on last years number earners up to x about have little chance of being funded.
   4. Mark continued to bring back to the original motion. Abe brought up that the cap still does not address the entire strict budget.
5. Send out motions via email� motion with cap, adopt new algorithm, and prioritize. Brenda took down pre-voting for motion.

V. Adjourn (1:30)

VI. Motions Sent out via Email

Six votes need to be cast on any motion to be able to take action. Motion 1: The Childcare Services Subcommittee recommends that for the year 2010, the University allocate childcare grants for families making up to $100,000.

Vote so far is 4 yes (Brenda, Amy O, Mark J, Amy R), 3 no (Yael; Mark Lewis, Sharon Sassler by email): MOTION PASSES

Motion 2: The Childcare Services Subcommittee recommends for the year 2010 adopting the following algorithm for determine grant awards: (see attached)

Vote so far is 5 yes (Brenda, Amy O, Mark J, Amy R, Yael), 2 no (Mark Lewis, Sharon Sassler by email): MOTION PASSES

Motion 3: The Childcare Services Subcommittee recommends for the year 2010 the University allocate the fixed funding for childcare grants on a priority basis, starting with the lowest income categories, filling funding those requests at the percentages given, and moving up to subsequent income categories as funding allows.

Vote so far is 6 yes (Brenda, Amy O, Mark J, Amy R, Yael; Sharon Sassler by email), 1 no (Mark Lewis by email): MOTION PASSES

Motion 4: If the University needs to consider lower child care grant payments, consider the alternative attached that has diminishing coverage for Afterschool care of school age children as family income increases. Votes yes: 4 (Amy R., Sharon, Yael, Brenda) NOT ENOUGH VOTES TO TAKE ACTION

Motion 5: If the University rejects the committee’s proposal of capping child care grants at the $100,000 family income level, please consider applying the percentages for the 100–150K category shown in the alternative attached.

Votes yes: 4 (Amy R., Sharon, Yael, Brenda) NOT ENOUGH VOTES TO TAKE ACTION