After consulting with the legal counsel, university leaders have reversed their position and now say Student Government does not have budgetary authority over the activity-fee funded University Student Center. Furthermore, any funds left over from the $1.86 million annual budget will be returned to the USC, not to student government, as has been stated several times in the last weeks.
Instead, an advisory panel consisting of four university employees and two student representatives from SG will recommend expenditure decisions for the building, constituting 55 percent of current activity and service fee collection.
“The bottom line is, you do not need to approve the budget,” Interim Regional Chancellor Bill Hogarth told the Senate Executive Committee on Oct. 15. However, “I would still like your input.”
Hogarth apologized for the confusion over authority of the fees. “First we said you did, then we said you didn’t, then we said you did,” he said.
The university’s position is based on the Marshall Student Center Enhancement Fee, a special fee for USF Tampa that partially funds the student union on that campus. The $13.80 per credit hour dedicated to the bond payment and operations of the USC is “not treated any different than the Marshall Center [fee],” Hogarth said.
The Marshall Center fee is set aside for bond payment, renovation and expansion of the Tampa student union. The majority of the money set aside for the USC is to fund operations, salaries and programming.
In Tampa, “All (Marshall Student Center) operations, including payroll, programing and utilities are funded by the Activity and Service,” wrote Tampa SG Senate President Jeff Gao in an email. “Those fees can only be allocated by SGA per state statutes. Student Government has full oversight on the MSC annual operating budget.”
University leaders had hoped to achieve a fee similar to the Marshall Center fee for USFSP during the 2010 Florida legislative session, but instead received an equalization of fees across all state universities.
The university is reading an implied exemption to the state statute that gives expenditure authority of activity and service fees to the student government “to benefit the student body in general.” The activity and service fee is currently $25.05 per credit hour.
“I realize you didn’t get everything you wanted in the building, but it has to be paid for,” Hogarth said. “It’s already been approved by your predecessors.” Hogarth was referring to the student government in 2009 which passed a non-binding resolution supporting a fee increase for the student center.
This, too, would be a unique situation. USF Tampa Student President Brian Goff said, according to the Office of General Counsel, governments cannot make long-term decisions that prevent future governments from acting at their discretion.
SG Attorney General Paul Jones asked if previous governments could make these types of decisions. “For this one, yes,” Hogarth said.
Hogarth urged the student representatives to move past the issue, telling them that at least now they don’t have to worry about it. “You asked the right questions,” he said. “I think you’ve been treated fairly.”
The following Wednesday, Jodi Adamchak from the Office of General Counsel told the SG General Assembly the fee increase was approved for a specific purpose by the Board of Trustees and the Board of Governors, and therefore the student government ceded its budgetary authority.
However, SG could refuse to fund the USC as a line-item in next year’s budget, but that action would force the USFSP chancellor to veto the student-approved budget for the purpose of bond payment. It is not clear if operational costs could be included under this interpretation of events.
During the meeting, which at times was testy, Adamchak pointed to a collection of approvals by students and university officials throughout the lobbying and planning process, specifically, a 2009 non-binding resolution passed unanimously by SG and a 2010 fee committee recommendation.
Sen. Brandi Murphy asked about a summer 2010 non-binding resolution absent from the list of approvals. Had it been followed, a vote by two-third of the Senate and approval from the regional chancellor and student president would have been required to release the first two years of fees collected during the building’s construction. This resolution was passed after the Florida legislature approved the fee increase. No follow-up action on the resolution was ever taken.
Adamchak and Hogarth said they had never seen the document. The Crow’s Nest had provided a scanned document to the university at the request of Communication Director Tom Scherberger on Sept. 18.
Adamchak said the resolution did not change the university’s position. The portion of activity fees for the building is “already allocated by virtue of the request,” she said.
State law allows for the securing of activity fees for the purpose of bond payment, up to 5 percent of the previous year’s intake. Adamchak said by way the fee increase was requested, not just bond payments were removed from SG control, but operational costs as well.
The Crow’s Nest reported that USFSP had taken control of over 70 percent of the amount bondable USF system-wide while contributing 21 percent. Goff said neither he nor a previous Tampa student government approved such an action. Adamchak said the Board of Governors implicitly approved an increase of this cap, though at current funding levels, no increase would be necessary.
The University of Florida received an explicit increase to the activity fee bonding limit in 2012 for the purpose of improving its student union. Traditionally, the state courts see explicit exemptions to state law as evidence that other exemptions must be explicit, as well.
Spokesperson for the Board of Governors Kim Wilmath said the board’s facilities manager concurred with USF’s explanation, but the board does not manage or track specific fee expenditures and had no authority to advocate for a specific position.
Adamchak said the structure of the implicit agreement between SG and the university was for the best, since future student governments could choose to default on the bond. However, under state law, this is only possible in the unlikely event that the university president also decides not to service the bond.
“What we’re trying to do is protect ourselves from ourselves,” she said.
As the meeting ended she issued a warning to the government, saying other universities have disbanded student governments that could not move beyond difficult issues. The Crow’s Nest was unable to find evidence of this occurring in Florida where student governments and their authority are established by law.
The Senate’s delay on approving the budget for the USC stemmed from the university’s lack of information or justification for certain expenditures, said Sen. Christa Hegedus.
Will the government fight the decision? “Yes, we will,” Hegedus said.
“It’s to be announced. I don’t know what direction to go, but action will be taken.”
