NEWS: Student Fee Committee Gives Student Service Fee Revenue To Athletics

(The Student Fee Advisory Committee meets on April 26 to review funding proposals.)

The Student Fee Advisory Committee unanimously passed the athletics budgets within the student services fee on April 26. Unless President Calhoun objects, athletics will retains its funding from student services.

The eleven-member committee met with all but one member present to approve budget requests from student services departments. Athletics Director Howard Patterson also attended but did not comment on the athletics budget during the meeting.

On the question of the legality of student service money going to athletics when it is a separate service and has its own fee, and when this appears to be an exclusion given the statutory definition of a student service, Vice President for Student Success Ona Tolliver said that the university reached out to UT-System General Counsel in 2019 and received legal guidance from UT-System attorneys.

While it was unclear what exactly that guidance was, Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Kim Laird said that the university made a determination at that time that while the athletics program has its own fee, it would not be prudent to increase funding to the athletics program from the student service fee.

VP Tolliver said that Dr. Patterson communicated to the committee that the athletic department’s goal is to withdraw its funding from student service budget as soon as there is “a place for that” in the athletics fee budget to receive this transfer. 

VP Tolliver also stated in the discussion that “there is always going to be a need for athletics.”

"As you know, part of our commitment to our athletic programs and to our student athletes, is that, as we move to D2, we did anticipate a need--and there is always going to be a need for athletics--the goal is to remove any additional funding request from the student fee committee," she said.

After a short break, the committee unanimously approved the athletics program’s budget request along with other line items in its student service fee review. Within VP Tolliver’s comments, she mentioned that though previously independent, the Spirit Squad and Dance team are now integrated within athletics.

All together, this means Spirit Squad, Dance Team, Internet broadcasting, Athletics, and Athletics Marketing line items all draw funds from the student services fee, a total of $351,806, a whopping 14.2 percent of the total $2.5 million student services fee budget.

RICK MCGILL’S SUPPORT FOR THE STUDENT

Within the discussion of the student service fee, REC Sports Director Rick McGill was the most vocal in asking questions about the fee’s use.

On the subject of one-time funding, VP Laird said the university had set aside roughly six to nine months of money as a reserve to ensure student service departments could continue to operate in the event of a disruption in the collection of student service fee revenue. At this, McGill pushed back some with a question of how this money in reserve respected the students wishes who paid it during the semester.

McGill said, “I’m just thinking as a student who pays the fee. So if I'm paying the fee each semester, I want that fee to be put to use while I'm here. 

VP Laird replied that the intent of the reserve was not for savings.

McGill also asked what the cap was, if any, to prevent the reserve getting too high that it doesn’t get spent towards the students.

VP Laird replied, “One hundred percent. That reserve would not be utilized without coming before the student service fee committee and having the committee evaluate any request for that reserve.”

In my view, as an observer, it appeared to me that McGill was the committee member who was the most dedicated to have the individual student in mind, while other members such as VP Laird, VP Tolliver had the institution in mind.

MY REACTION

In the end, the passage of the athletics budget within the student service fee budget, in my view, is another example of institutional priorities creeping into a sphere which is supposed to be solely the student body’s jurisdiction.

It appears to me that the institutional powers and members of the committee, namely staff members and university employees, have their own agenda they want to see with the student service fee. They have their own opinions of how they would want the student service fee used and this is not necessarily student priorities.

For example, previously in April 2021, VP Laird told student government that it was important that “we’re able to support our athletics program” with respect to a pending vote on an increase to the athletics fee and obviously Dr. Patterson supports the athletics program.

I felt that this view was lost on the committee members, particularly student members, that the individuals who advised them about the athletics program and the university priorities have their own stake in the game. 

They had their own interests to preserve and were not necessarily neutral arbiters. The administration has an agenda—and there’s nothing necessarily wrong with that. It’s just not one that is necessarily in harmony with the student voter population or even necessarily in their best interests. 

This is the point that I felt was lost on the student members of the committee.

TWO VIEWS ON ATHLETICS

Overall, the athletics budget passed in The Student Fee Advisory Committee, I think, because the members bought into the claim that an athletics program is inseparable from the university’s survival (which I believe it is not). 

This is the argument of nearly all athletics program supporters as this view believes that athletics programming is the means of securing institutional funding from the outside community. These believe that athletics programming supports the university’s brand and increases student enrollment to the university. These believe athletics programming is how the university funds itself (due to the increase in tuition dollars from athletics-driven, or athletics-marketing driven student enrollment).

On the other hand, there are people like me, who believe that all of that is largely a lie or at least largely exaggerated. People like me who hold this view believe that athletics is overrated and that not many students come to the university because of it. We also believe that the return-on-investment from athletics is minimal, if not poor for the expense students bear through student fees because of the program. 

Many of us may also believe that athletics programming in higher education is a distraction from the institution’s fundamental mission of education, rather than extracurriculars, and that the athletics program’s “for-profit” or rather business-minded mission is an existential threat to (or at least subordinates) the university’s humanitarian mission of education.

So these are the stakes in this debate and hopefully this discussion has illuminated some of the players.

STUDENT VOTERS HAVE FINAL SAY

In the end, as I’ve written before, the only way for the athletics program to thrive is if the student body approves of a fee increase. This is the only way the athletics program can successfully grow (that is, with this kind of funding; the money from student athletics fee).

Without this, the athletics budget remains static and cracks under the pressures of rising costs from inflation and pressure to invest in staff salaries and fridge benefits in order to remain competitive with other programs.

In other words, it becomes obsolete, outdated and inferior. It will lose its life-blood which will be its ability to sustain operational resources, and will die without student fees. So this is the existential reality that the athletics program faces.

Therefore, the question of the athletics program at UT-Tyler’s future remains upon the students, namely, over whether or not they will submit to an hike in the athletics fee when given the chance. This is the constraint on this controversy. The students are the judge in this debate. They will decide, because regardless of what I or all of the lawyers in UT-System think, it’s the students’ decision, because they fund the athletics program.

And that is where I believe this debate is going next: to the student body’s decision. They will have a chance to speak on the matter through a vote on another athletics fee increase, which I believe will come again this fall.

So, the student body is the only entity that can stop this behavior as I believe that the administration is all-in behind their athletics program, as I believe members’ actions communicated in April.

Athletics supporters want to use the athletics program to fund the institution and the institutional goals. They want bigger buildings and larger budgets and more fame and glory for the university. They want greater spending. Yet, their goals effectively mean doing this on the financial backs of students who are the ones who carry the fee.

The only question left is whether or not students voters will let them. 

Enjoyed this post? Never miss out on future posts by following me.

Twitter: @jhescock12