The President introduced Dr. Laura Bayless, Vice President of Student Affairs and Mr.
Matt Lechter, Executive Director Housing and Residential Services. They explained
that this presentation is a high-level view using a number of different data collection
sources that captured what students are thinking about regarding their residential
experience.

L. Bayless provided background on the survey instrument Skyfactor. This is a survey
instrument that has been administered around the country for decades. The data that
will be discussed today comes from this survey. She next outlined the agenda for the
discussion:

1. Goals of the residential experience/Why we want students to live on campus
2. Overview of occupancy
3. What students tell us about living and eating on campus
 Skyfactor nationally benchmarked survey
 Feedback about dining from identity-based student groups and student
groups and student government town halls
4. Priorities and actions stemming from student feedback

M. Lechter talked about the goals for the residential experience which included
cultivating a sense of belonging and creating a safe and respectful environment to
promote academic success. He talked about students being members of the community
of Fitchburg State and the City of Fitchburg. This is now their home for the majority of
the year.

L. Bayless discussed how the residential experience is linked to the Strategic Plan.
What the university is doing is intentional and designed to produce the outcomes
desired.

C. Stimpson joined the meeting at 8:27 a.m.

M. Lechter reported on the occupancy usage as of today. He noted that Herlihy Hall
and Mara 6 & 7 are offline. The total reported bed count is 1,705. We have converted
some of the triple and double rooms to premium singles. Students are appreciative of
the larger space.

L. Bayless next discussed the Skyfactor Nationally Benchmarked Survey, “Voice to
Vision Dining Survey,” the SGA Town Halls and conversations with identity-based
student organizations. She said the university can add specific questions to the national
survey and that the intention is to administer this survey every 2-3 years. The university
response rates are consistent with our comparison schools. The comparison group
consists of schools similar to Fitchburg State that were administering the survey at the
same time. The outcomes from the survey questions regarding residence halls, rated
satisfaction as low overall. The students reported that they were satisfied with the
roommate process and most unhappy with dining services. Compared to the benchmark
schools, our students were generally dissatisfied with facilities.

M. Lechter discussed the survey’s highs and lows. Students rated roommates, safety,
security and a sense of belonging as high. He noted the full-size beds added to the
residence halls have been evaluated positively. He talked about the importance of
programming in the residence halls which boosts the student’s sense of community. He
acknowledged that more attention needs to be focused on facilities and dining services.
Students are looking for clean facilities, and they feel less stress when they are in a
clean environment which adds to their sense of pride. We need to have educational
conversations with students regarding the day-to-day work of cleanliness. Many
students are not used to doing their own laundry and housekeeping in their private
areas. The university staff clean the common areas, and the students are responsible for
their personal space.

There was a discussion on cleanliness and building renovations.

L. Bayless discussed the feedback from the dining hall survey. She stated that the
dining experience and housing are related. The quality of food, the meal plan and hours
of operation were discussed. Students are frustrated with the hours of operation and the
food quality. The inability to bring in outside food for events was another issue they
were not pleased about.

E. Gregoire asked given the feedback, how will these issues be addressed. L. Bayless
responded that some strategies have been implemented such as Starbucks. There was a
discussion on various food vendors.

There was a discussion on comparisons with the other schools that participated in the
survey and total bed counts as they relate to occupancy capacity. The residence hall
designed space and configuration are two different factors. We must pay the debt
service regardless of the bed count. Given we have three buildings not being used for
student occupancy, our configured percentage is increased to 90% but our reported
designed occupancy number to the MSCBA is 62%.

S. King Goodwin left the meeting at 8:57 a.m.

M. Lechter talked about next steps, and focusing on customer service with solution based
thinking. He would like to increase the professional staff activities and make staff
more visible to students. Working with Capital Planning and Maintenance to get
consistent updates on workorders and increase the cleaning schedule is a priority. He
discussed the “First Look Friday” event where new students could see their rooms prior
to move in day. It was a highly successful event.

There was a discussion on promoting the cost benefits and social advantages of living
on campus.

M. Lechter stated that his team works closely with admissions to coordinate
communication and the benefits of living on campus. The partnership between the two
offices is strong.
 

The President agreed with what was said and talked about the increased integration of
the admissions process with housing. With the new viewbook and website upgrades, the
university believes that we are better equipped to attract students. By providing rough
examples of what housing costs off campus as opposed to on campus can sway students
to opt in to living in the residence halls. There are a lot of different levers the university
is trying to pull.

There was a discussion.

E. Gregoire asked about the community aspect and learning communities in the
residence halls.

M. Letcher responded that learning communities are a hot trend in the residence halls.
We have those and will be spending more time with our first-year students to better
understand what topics and areas of interest there are. He discussed roommate matching
and provided a summary on how we might improve the on-campus housing experience.

D. Phillips joined the meeting at 9:15 a.m.

L. Bayless talked about what we need to work on.

D. Tiernan stated the dining hall renovation has been discussed but how do you address
the quality of food which seems to be an on-going concern? L. Bayless responded that
the issue might be perceptual along with the supply chain issues that have occurred.
She stated that she is not sure yet what quality means. For example, is the issue the
food itself, or is the food being served not what our increasingly diverse students are
used to eating?

J. Bry commented that it’s difficult to understand what students mean by quality as
opposed to variety. Better understanding what students are communicating is currently
being explored.

There was a discussion.