Questions of control over student fee money continue to strain the relationship between students and University administrators.
They say they want to work together to establish budgets and programs funded by student fees.
But when it comes to determining what role each should play in the decision-making process, students and administrators often disagree on how much control students should have.
Last spring, EMU administrators angered many students and staff members in the EMU when they decided not to renew the contract of Cultural Forum program co-ordinator Linda Dievendorf — who had been at the University for 21 years.
Student supporters of Dievendorf said because her position was funded with student incidental fees, administrators should have asked for their input before they made the decision to not renew her contract, which ends on May 24.
Dievendorf said EMU administrators Gregg Lobisser and Dusty Miller did not tell her why her contract was being terminated after 17 years.
But in the months that led up to that announcement, she said she clashed with administrators over how to run the Cultural Forum. Administrators told her she needed to direct students more on how to spend the program budget, she said.
Dievendorf said that went against her philosophy of letting students learn through experience. Typically students discuss programming possibilities and then reach a consensus as a group about what to do, she said.
Administrators rarely attended Cultural Forum events last year, she said. And she said administrators do not understand how the program works, or what students are capable of.
“I really think they’re out of touch with the programs we do,” she said. “And I think they’re out of touch with students on campus. … My termination is the tip of the iceberg. I think it is reflective of administrative desires to control student fees and student programs. And they’re not even trying to hide that fact anymore.”
Lobisser, the director of student activities in the EMU, said he could not comment about Dievendorf’s termination.
Overall, he said he considers the relationship between EMU administrators and students to be “positive and constructive.”
He said he works with students on a daily basis, and keeps in touch with what student groups are doing by attending fall open houses and other events throughout the year.
Accusations of administrators abusing power usually stem from a lack of understanding of the student incidental fee process, he said.
“Many students see the incidental fee as essentially outside of state budgets and state funds,” he said. “The legal reality is that they are state funds, and they must comply with the statutes that exist for the University.”
Lobisser said EMU programs such as the Cultural Forum should be managed differently than ASUO sponsored groups, such as student unions. In the EMU, he said, administrators take a more “directive” approach to provide continuity from year to year and to ensure programs fit with University missions.
Graduate student Roger Adkins is the Cultural Forum Queer Film Festival coordinator and a member of the Student Empowerment Group (STEP), which was formed in response to Dievendorf’s termination.
The goal of STEP is to change University policies so that students will always have a say over the use of student fees, including hiring and firing situations, he said.
Over the summer, student government leaders, faculty members and community members attended the STEP meetings, he said.
Administrators do not trust students to create their own programming, Adkins said. And when they do ask for student input, he said, it is often after the fact.
“That’s University administration in a nutshell,” he said. “They make the decision, and their idea of student participation is they let (students) comment on it later.”
ASUO Accounting Coordinator Jennifer Creighton, like Dievendorf, works with both students and administrators.
While administrators like to point to Dievendorf’s termination as being the source of troubled administrative-student relationships, the issue goes beyond Dievendorf’s situation, Creighton said.
Many students are reluctant to go to administrators for advice because they do not perceive that the administration is supportive of students, she said.
“The administration could definitely communicate better with students about policies and changes,” Creighton said, “and offer them more support.”
ASUO executives Nilda Brooklyn and Joy Nair have criticized the administration for not allowing students more control over student fees. This summer, the Oregon University System approved several new fees, including an energy surcharge fee estimated at $30 per term.
Brooklyn and Nair, upset that the administration added the fee without student input, began a campaign in September to eliminate it.
Nair said they are working with the administration to get rid of the fee. A committee has been formed to generate ideas on how to conserve energy, she said. Provost John Moseley is a member of that committee, she said.
But Nair is skeptical about how valuable administrators will be in the process.
“If we leave it in the hands of the administration, nothing will get done,” she said.
Brooklyn said she believes administrators have “the best interests of the University” in mind, but they sometimes misinterpret students’ actions, she said.
“Students get frustrated, and students protest because they care about this University,” she said. “And I think sometimes administrators miss that.”
Associate Vice President of Student Affairs Anne Leavitt said the joint effort between students and administrators to lobby the state legislature for higher education funding last year shows they can work together successfully.
She said she is optimistic students and administrators will work together to resolve incidental fee issues as well.
“Sometimes I think student perceive this as an issue of power,” she said. “I like to think of it as an issue of opportunity.”