The University Student Center and Student Life Center are concrete testaments to what a unified university culture is capable of achieving. At the same time they are also testaments to the challenges students and administrators face in sharing the leadership and stewardship of our universities.
Two years ago I imagined this being a time of celebration for the bright future of our campus, rather than an eyebrow raising inquiry into how we’ve financed this bright future we worked so hard to create.
Despite notable misgivings, the spaces and services that will change the experiences and lives of tens of thousands of USF St. Petersburg students were hard fought, and I argue, well worth it. Four years ago our student culture was so small that what is now causing an uproar wouldn’t have instigated much more than a murmur. Many good-willed people over many years gave time and energy to develop and grow and build our campus into an academic sanctuary. It’s up to this generation to continue that work.
When I first got involved in what was then called the “Student Union Program Committee” in April 2008, we had a plan for a grand student union. Residence Hall One was nearing capacity as planned and the university was again pivoting its energy toward gaining state approval of a facility that would provide the spaces and services that were so obviously lacking, mainly a health clinic and eatery. As a resident student, I knew why this was important. I wanted to fight for this.
When the economy bottomed out in fall 2008, we realized the state was not going to approve funds for a non-academic building. We had a choice: give up or follow what USF Tampa’s students did with their Marshall Center and ask for a new fee specifically for a student union. By spring 2010, we won the legislature’s approval. There were, however, two major caveats: the Campus Activity Center renovation, renamed the Student Life Center, was incorporated into the project to hold down costs; and the fee increase we won wasn’t in the form we asked for, but rather an broad increase to the existing activity and service fee.
The two years where Jon Ellington and I served as student presidents, public records show that we often engaged the university on issues of fees and facilities with healthy skepticism.
I need to make four important points for the record:
1) Charges that anyone within the system Jon or I worked with had disguised their intentions or motives are not true. Things are messy now, and there appear to be wrongs that need righted, but I can’t bring myself to believe that my trust or the students’ faith were violated in the final breakneck negotiations that made the project a reality. I believe the issues we face today mostly evolved after the project was finally approved.
2) In 2010, I signed what I believed was a binding memorandum with the university that committed a finite per credit hour amount of activity fee revenues for the purpose of financing the USC. I was under the impression that the vast majority of the new fee revenues would go toward servicing the bonds. My assumption then was the building would ultimately be self-sustaining in its operational finances and the student government I led exerted authority to commit activity fee dollars for the lifetime of the bonds. I never imagined SG would be asked to grant further approval to finance the building.
3) The approval SG gave to finance the USC clearly stipulated that LEED certification would be a priority for the project. Without that understanding I’m not certain we would have moved forward the way we did. The language was clear: LEED platinum certification would be a declared goal of the project, and at a minimum, LEED gold certification would be achieved.
4) Last, the pro forma we used to make the case for the USC was the financial blueprint of the USC we envisioned and it was a centerpiece of the case we made in Tallahassee and Tampa. It was former Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Kent Kelso who just today reminded me of this document, and I intend to find it. I believe it could do a lot to bridge the gap between what the 2009-2011 student governments recall agreeing to, and what we see today.
Throughout the whole effort, Student Government aspired to have USFSP taken seriously, and for state and bay area leaders to see us as more than the stepchild of USF Tampa, but as the USF system’s waterfront gem. If we, the students of USFSP, want a voice, representation and power within the USF system, we have to play our cards very carefully. Cool, focused and persistent engagement with the system is the greatest hope we have to create positive change for USFSP students.
Rectifying the financial mishaps of the USC and SLC is undoubtedly the most consequential issue facing the USFSP student body today. I don’t accept that USFSP students are powerless to make this right. If there was an injustice or a mistake made that burdens USFSP students unfairly, there’s surely a way to make an effective case for resolution without alienating leaders within the system. After all, our strength is derived from the system.
Please, USFSP student leaders, my friends, make this right. Without a doubt, our new facilities will help us become one of the most reputable universities in the state, but the greater question is, how much respect and standing will the USFSP student body have in the future of the USF system? This is a defining question in a defining moment. Peace with the USF system will bear more fruit for the students you serve. We need to show that we’re willing to fight for equity and fairness, but just as important, we need to show the USF system that we’re deserving of their respect, especially in times of disagreement. This, I believe, is the greater long-term challenge we face. We have so much to win and so much to lose over this issue.
James Scott was a student government president, senator and student lobbyist and one of the primary student-planners for the University Student Center
