SG is asking the right questions about the University Student Center
At a time when polls show American trust in government is approaching an all-time low, a group of USF St. Petersburg students has stepped forward and made a case for a brighter future.
Student Government senators displayed a spirited civics lesson and an exhibition of government accountability when university administration asked them to approve a budget for the University Student Center at a general assembly meeting on Sept. 26. The presented budget—funded primarily through a $13.80 per credit hour fee all students pay as part of required Activities and Service Fees—is full of non-specific lines such as $270,000 for “contractual services” and $68,000 for “other expenses.” Other fees, such as “maintenance,” “renewal/replacement,” and “other capital outlay” appear largely redundant.
Details from administration were scarce. When budgeting, for instance, the building is split between the student center, dining services and the residence hall. Student fees are used to pay utilities in the student center portion, but are they also used for the residence hall and dining center, which housing fees and Sodexo should respectively be paying? A USC representative said he thought the building only had one electricity meter, but he wasn’t sure.
After almost 45 minutes of half-fulfilled explanations, and many vigorous questions and concerns from SG, the senators could conclude on only one thing.
“We need to know more.”
And rightly so. At $13.80, the student fees used specifically as revenue for the building account for over half of all A&S fees, which, at $25.05, are the highest in the state. The near $1.9 million in student fees used to fund the building amounts to over a half million dollars more than the combined budgets of all other departments and organizations funded by A&S fees, which include Campus Recreation, the co-ed sailing team, The Crow’s Nest, the debate team, Harborside Activities Board, USFSP Leadership Programs, Multicultural Affairs, SG, Student Life and the Waterfront.
And all of that money goes to pay for a “student center” that largely fails to live up to its own name.
The student leaders who agreed to use A&S fees to fund the building in 2009-10 did so under the belief it would include areas for student organizations and a wellness center. However, they found certain concessions were necessary during the lobbying process to get it built. Many of those plans were dropped, instead replaced with spaces useful for administrative coffer-building, like the ballroom and student housing.
Instead, the majority of the old plans were pushed across the street to the old Campus Activities Center, soon to be renamed the Student Life Center after a $2.9 million university-funded renovation.
In the case of the Wellness Center, the funding necessary to fully fund the service was halved after former student leaders and administration agreed it would be better spent to pay for the USC, which meant the two anticipated nurse practitioner positions were cut down to one.
Some of those content with the building argue it has created an unprecedented hub for student life on campus, but with 81,000 square feet of open spaces, administrative offices, tables, an empty “game room” and bedrooms, the USC is hardly the Marshall Center students were promised. They contend students received a “good deal” when the university agreed to remodel the CAC, but its $2.9 million price tag is a fraction of the cost students will pay for their “student center” over its lifetime.
Are USF St. Petersburg’s paying customers getting their money’s worth? A student who takes a minimal 124 credits will pay almost $1,750 toward the USC over four years. But with the school’s graduation rate hovering around 25 percent (according to U.S. News standings), and many students taking out interest-accruing student loans, the cost is much higher for many students. It’s a wonder they haven’t stepped up and demanded details like Student Government did in last week’s meeting.
Members of SG have made mistakes in the past regarding the USC, but their aggressive defense of money students can’t afford to lose is a major step in the right direction.
