summer training 2012 the student incidental fees committee
TRANSCRIPT
Summer Training 2012
THE STUDENT INCIDENTAL FEES COMMITTEE
Agenda for Today
Southworth
Overview of SIFC and
Student Fees
Budget Process
Review of SCSFSP
Questions
Southworth and Its Implications
• 2000 Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of charging mandatory student fees
• Court ruled unanimously in favor of the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin
• Mandatory student fees may be charged to all students to subsidize student groups as long as they are viewpoint neutral
• Case is: Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin v. Southworth
Case Background
• Three law students at University of Wisconsin challenged the mandatory fee system because they were forced to fund activities that they disagreed with politically or ideologically
• A U.S. District Court and the 7th U.S. Court of Appeals both ruled in favor of the three law students, and then a year and a half after the Court of Appeals ruling the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the lower courts ruling because of the marketplace of ideas created by student fees is germane to the whole idea of a university as long as the funding is allocated in a viewpoint neutral way
What Viewpoint Neutral Means
• The determination of funding support must be viewpoint neutral. One cannot choose to defund a program because they disagree with the political or ideological activities or beliefs of the program. Basically, you may not discriminate based on the message advocated
• For example, one could not want to defund/cut funding the pistol club because they believed that guns should be outlawed, or that a pro-choice group shouldn’t be funded because one is against abortion
• Unbridled discretion: This term was brought on by the 7 th Court of Appeals in 2002, and made the requirement that the governing body of the funds (the University) must not have unbridled discretion and their must be a clear set of objectives already set out that the funding process will follow
What Viewpoint Neutral Does Not Mean
• Viewpoint neutral does not mean:
1. You are forced to fund any program, if you don’t believe that the program is germane to the educational purpose of the university you can reduce or cut funding
2. All groups must be funded at the same level
3. If you fund one viewpoint you must fund the other viewpoint. Levels of funding must be based on objective criteria, and that is all
• For example, lets say a committee member wanted to cut or reduce funding for athletics because they were personally against student fees buying athletic tickets, their reasoning wouldn’t be viewpoint neutral. If their reasoning, using the objective funding criteria, was that sporting events were not germane to the university’s mission, than that would be appropriate
Local Cases
• During Southworth, another court case was being argued, Rounds v Oregon State Board of Education, and the 9th Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the State allowing mandatory fees. They did not bring about the viewpoint neutrality issue, but believed that the student fees were germane to the university’s goals. This is one of the reasons the Supreme Court heard Southworth
• Currently, the ASUO just passed a referendum stating, “Should students be allowed to vote directly on funding levels for certain fee-funded programs?”
• What do you think of this?
Fee Funded Organizations
ASOSU
MU
Rec Sports
SSI
MusicSHS CAPS
Athletics
Ed Act
OLV SDBBFacility Improvement
SIFC
Referendum Process• Financial Initiative:
1. 15% of fee paying students must sign
2. Finite collection period, dollar amount, and per student amount are required
3. Must be adopted by a major budgeting board
4. 2/3 majority vote in the spring will pass
• Financial Referendum:
1. 2/3 majority vote of Congress needed
2. Finite collection period, dollar amount, and per student amount are required
3. Must be adopted by a major budgeting board
4. 2/3 majority vote in the spring will pass
Capital Construction Initiatives
• Must be sponsored by students
• Be sponsored by a major budgeting board, and be approved and space allocated through the Campus Planning Committee
• Must obtain majority approval of SIFC prior to signature gathering
• ASOSU Congress then approves SIFC recommendations
• Finally, the capital construction initiative must be signed by 15% of fee paying students
• The initiative will be voted on during the ASOSU general election in the spring and a simple majority approval is all that’s needed. In the event of a special election, 75% of the prior year’s general election turnout is needed to be valid.
• Once approved, the initiative is forwarded to the OSU President and Oregon State Board of Higher Education
Student Fees Per Term for FY 12-13
12-13 Fee Level: $447.5711-12 Fee Level: $460.47
SIFC Criteria for Funding
1. Extent to which a program or activity provides opportunities for students, either by direct participation or by participating as spectators and listeners, to develop new skills, competencies or appreciations not available elsewhere in the university
2. Extent to which there is agreement between the programs’ or activities’ goals and objectives and those of the overall goals and objectives of the university
3. Extent to which a continuing program or activity fulfilled its stated objectives of previous budget years
4. Extent to which a program or activity complements or provides an optional laboratory setting for an educational program
5. Extent to which a program or activity is of general interest to the university community
6. Extent to which a program or activity provides an appropriate service not available on campus or in the city as conveniently and/or inexpensively
7. Extent to which alternative funding has been sought (if applicable)
8. Extent to which budget requests reflect actual costs incurred in realizing the goals and objectives of a program or activity
Structure of the SIFC
Student Body(Election of SIFC Members)
President Ray
SIFCASOSU Executive (ASOSU President
Voting)
ASOSU Congress(Two Members Ex-Officio)
SIFC Contingency Fund
• Purposes
• Provide for under-realization of funds to major budgets
• Meet emergency funding needs of fee-funded programs
• Meet unexpected funding needs of fee-funded programs
• Each request is assessed in terms of the following:
• Available funding resources outside of contingency
• Utilization of reserves/balances
• Process
• Approval of contingency request by a budget advisory board
• Typically, the one that represents the group/activity
• Approval of the allocation by the SIFC
• Congress has window of opportunity to review and recommend changes to allocations
Rough Annual Calendar• Fall Term
a) Training
b) Budget guidelines created
c) Budget boards are fully formed
• Winter Term
a) Individual budget open forums
b) SIFC budget presentation
c) SIFC budget open hearing
d) Joint Session of Congress
• Spring Term
a) Review of bylaws
b) Election of new SIFC Chair
Budgeting Process
SIFC Open Hearing, Final Approval
Budgeting Boards Create Budget
Budgeting Boards approve budget and hold open hearing
Budgets are presented to SIFC
Tentative Decision by SIFC
SIFC Open Hearing, Final Approval
Sent to OUS Chancellor
Joint Session of House and Senate
Congress votes on fee amounts
Yes
Mediation
Sent to President Ray
No
Yes
No
Hearings Board
Budget Presentation
Budget Presentation
a. One hour and fifteen minutes
b. Students must do presentation
c. Thirty minute presentation and Q&A
d. Forty-five minute discussion
e. Result is a tentative approval / denial
SIFC Open Hearing
a. Time for public input
b. Additional consideration by Committee
c. Result is a final approval
Review of S.C.S.F.S.P.
Special Commission for Student Fee Strategic Planning
• A review of the entire student fee process that occurred in fall 2009
• The goal of this review was to fix apparent weaknesses within the process, and it focused on fiscal responsibility, accountability to students, and program review and evaluation
• The program review evolved into the two or three organizational reviews that happen each year, and currently we are reviewing SSI
• The MU, SHS, and OLV have been reviewed so far
• The purpose of the organizational review is to address any problems with communication or budgeting process within the fee funded board and SIFC, and the goal is a more transparent and efficient budgeting process
• The accountability section really created the calendar which we operate by today, this greatly increased the communication between SIFC and the budgeting boards
• Also created a faculty advisor for SIFC, and this is key for transitions and institutional knowledge
Budget Liaisons
• Nic Nolan: CAPS, ASOSU
• Amelia Harris: Music, Rec Sports, and Ed Act
• Tyler Hogan: Music, Rec Sports, and Ed Act
• Madison Parker: SDBB, OLV
• Tori Redman: SSI, MU
• Terra Setzler: Athletics, SHS
