Last Wednesday the Emerald Editorial Board published a commentary on the incidental fee allocation process. While the piece was spirited, it left out a lot of necessary information.
The purpose of the student Incidental Fee is to enhance the cultural and physical development of the students at the University. The Programs Finance Committee, ASUO Senate and ASUO Executive are annually faced with the task of fulfilling this purpose while keeping the fee at a reasonable level. There’s a lot going on within this process, and oversimplification will only lead to misunderstanding. Every student should offer their input; the process can’t work if student leaders don’t know what their constituents want.
The editorial board’s piece stated that the PFC overspent their benchmark in the first two days of hearings. This is inaccurate, to say the least. Senate set PFC’s overall benchmark at 2.5 percent. Some programs will have more growth than that, some less, and some will be reduced. The board neglected to mention the fact that the hearings that took place during those two days account for only half of the total PFC budget. They also assumed that all other budgets will be level-funded next year. This is simply wrong; the PFC has already reduced many program budgets. Had the editorial board members attended any hearings, they would know that.
The Executive recommended a 5 percent benchmark this year; the main reason for that recommendation was personnel expenses. More than $1.6 million of the current PFC budget pays employment expenses for ASUO-supported departments. These personnel expenses rose 10 percent on average this year. We don’t control these costs; they’re determined by union contracts, state mandates, and minimum wage increases. The ASUO has no discretion over these costs, other than eliminating positions and cutting back student jobs.
The Executive was very concerned by these rising costs this fall term, when we began to look at our benchmark recommendation. We knew that they could cause the fee to rise at an unacceptable rate, so we asked programs to be more conservative with their administrative and programming dollars. These more discretionary expenses can often be partly paid for by alternative sources: fundraising, grants, or the University General Fund. Our model also reduced funding for those groups who had historically not used or needed their entire budgets. Reducing these budgets meant that some growth could be allowed elsewhere with minor increases in overall funding.
The Executive and the Senate disagree on the appropriate benchmark level. In our view, the Senate didn’t fully consider what’s causing fee growth this year, or ways to account for that growth.
When talking about the fee, it’s important to acknowledge all of the things it pays for. The PFC portion of your fee pays for services from 17 different contracts and departments, and funds more than 120 student groups. It funds the Student Rec Center, Intramural Sports and Legal Services. It pays for the paper you’re reading now, and for Campus Recycling (where most of those papers end up.) Because of the fee, your student ID doubles as a bus pass. Do you use everything the fee pays for? No. The fee provides services all students use, and promotes a marketplace of ideas that all students can take part in.
The ASUO’s challenge is balancing cultural and physical development with rising costs. The reality is that we are facing escalating costs for services that have been traditionally provided. The fee process is complicated, and it’s only with a clear understanding of all the issues that we’ll be able to work toward solutions.
Jared Axelrod is the ASUO president, Juliana Guzmán is the ASUO vice-president and Madeline Wigen is the ASUO Finance Coordinator