+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 76 to 79 of 79

Thread: Conference realignment likely on hold until 2023

  1. #76
    Champ The Historian has a reputation beyond reputeThe Historian has a reputation beyond reputeThe Historian has a reputation beyond reputeThe Historian has a reputation beyond reputeThe Historian has a reputation beyond reputeThe Historian has a reputation beyond reputeThe Historian has a reputation beyond reputeThe Historian has a reputation beyond reputeThe Historian has a reputation beyond reputeThe Historian has a reputation beyond reputeThe Historian has a reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    2,004

    Re: Conference realignment likely on hold until 2023

    Quote Originally Posted by LATechBanjo View Post

    On my reading, the funds are restricted because they are explicitly dedicated for athletics. If I'm incorrect about the nature of restricted funds, then what are restricted funds? They appear to go to great pains to make clear that these are self-assessed and dedicated funds.
    What it could mean - and perhaps what the schools agreed to behind the scenes - is that funds were restricted to what's been allowed since 2002, facility improvements. And that this has more to do with reporting than anything else.

    I am almost 100% certain UL-Lafayette was behind this change, because they were concerned about how their budget was being reported. All on a day when they knew internally they were about to be passed over in the conference realignment shuffle. Look at the date - April 25, 2012.

    And when I say 'what the schools agreed to behind the scenes' it's because the changes in 2002 were agreed to behind the scenes. I could never find information in the minutes during that era that allowed some of the changes that took place with facilities fees and how they were being used. It took a very specific FOIA request to find correspondence from the AD at UL-Lafayette at the time, Nelson Schexnayder, that outlined what the schools would and would not do if the Board made the changes. That never showed up as an addendum in the Board minutes.

    I suspect that happens frequently with the Board of Regents and may have happened in this instance.
    Last edited by The Historian; 07-21-2017 at 07:22 AM.

  2. #77
    Champ The Historian has a reputation beyond reputeThe Historian has a reputation beyond reputeThe Historian has a reputation beyond reputeThe Historian has a reputation beyond reputeThe Historian has a reputation beyond reputeThe Historian has a reputation beyond reputeThe Historian has a reputation beyond reputeThe Historian has a reputation beyond reputeThe Historian has a reputation beyond reputeThe Historian has a reputation beyond reputeThe Historian has a reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    2,004

    Re: Conference realignment likely on hold until 2023

    Quote Originally Posted by LATechBanjo View Post
    My overall point: The universities are aware that self assessed student fees can now augment the budget, but they're scared to try on account of the students voting it down. Secondly, they're afraid to have a fee passed and then see political blowback: i.e., the legislature getting involved to reverse the BoR decision that we've been reading.
    If this were actually allowed. Or if it's not allowed at this point. And then a change was made that would give Tech the green light to ask the students to vote on this, I don't think either of these reasons would stop Dr. Guice from doing so.

    As I posted a few weeks ago in this thread, there is opposition on campus from certain administrators and faculty members to increases in student fees. Internal politics would be the one thing that would either stop a student fee of this kind or whittle it down to where it had only a minimal impact.

  3. #78
    Administrator & 2006 Men's Progressive Bracket Champion Dwayne From Minden has a reputation beyond reputeDwayne From Minden has a reputation beyond reputeDwayne From Minden has a reputation beyond reputeDwayne From Minden has a reputation beyond reputeDwayne From Minden has a reputation beyond reputeDwayne From Minden has a reputation beyond reputeDwayne From Minden has a reputation beyond reputeDwayne From Minden has a reputation beyond reputeDwayne From Minden has a reputation beyond reputeDwayne From Minden has a reputation beyond reputeDwayne From Minden has a reputation beyond repute Dwayne From Minden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    The Southwest Side of Beautiful Lake Claiborne
    Posts
    35,879

    Re: Conference realignment likely on hold until 2023

    Quote Originally Posted by The Historian View Post
    What it could mean - and perhaps what the schools agreed to behind the scenes - is that funds were restricted to what's been allowed since 2002, facility improvements. And that this has more to do with reporting than anything else.

    I am almost 100% certain UL-Lafayette was behind this change, because they were concerned about how their budget was being reported. All on a day when they knew internally they were about to be passed over in the conference realignment shuffle. Look at the date - April 25, 2012.

    And when I say 'what the schools agreed to behind the scenes' it's because the changes in 2002 were agreed to behind the scenes. I could never find information in the minutes during that era that allowed some of the changes that took place with facilities fees and how they were being used. It took a very specific FOIA request to find correspondence from the AD at UL-Lafayette at the time, Nelson Schexnayder, that outlined what the schools would and would not do if the Board made the changes. That never showed up as an addendum in the Board minutes.

    I suspect that happens frequently with the Board of Regents and may have happened in this instance.
    Thank you...

    No one on this board is better versed in these issues than the Historian -
    ''Don't be a bad dagh..."

  4. #79
    Champ LATechBanjo has a reputation beyond reputeLATechBanjo has a reputation beyond reputeLATechBanjo has a reputation beyond reputeLATechBanjo has a reputation beyond reputeLATechBanjo has a reputation beyond reputeLATechBanjo has a reputation beyond reputeLATechBanjo has a reputation beyond reputeLATechBanjo has a reputation beyond reputeLATechBanjo has a reputation beyond reputeLATechBanjo has a reputation beyond reputeLATechBanjo has a reputation beyond repute LATechBanjo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    South LA
    Posts
    3,304

    Re: Conference realignment likely on hold until 2023

    Quote Originally Posted by The Historian View Post
    What it could mean - and perhaps what the schools agreed to behind the scenes - is that funds were restricted to what's been allowed since 2002, facility improvements. And that this has more to do with reporting than anything else.

    I am almost 100% certain UL-Lafayette was behind this change, because they were concerned about how their budget was being reported. All on a day when they knew internally they were about to be passed over in the conference realignment shuffle. Look at the date - April 25, 2012.

    And when I say 'what the schools agreed to behind the scenes' it's because the changes in 2002 were agreed to behind the scenes. I could never find information in the minutes during that era that allowed some of the changes that took place with facilities fees and how they were being used. It took a very specific FOIA request to find correspondence from the AD at UL-Lafayette at the time, Nelson Schexnayder, that outlined what the schools would and would not do if the Board made the changes. That never showed up as an addendum in the Board minutes.

    I suspect that happens frequently with the Board of Regents and may have happened in this instance.
    Can't disagree with that possibility! I'm not surprised by anything occurring behind the scenes in this state and meaning the opposite of what's written.

    As I put in my last post, there are schools that specifically identify restricted self-assessed funds for athletics in 2015-2016. http://www.regents.state.la.us/asset...BOR3_FY17.xlsx

    Northwestern lists a total of $1,883,513. (Of interest, in 2013 the students at NWST doubled the existing student athletics fee on themselves). They report the identical amount on the 2015-2016 report as student fees https://www.lla.la.gov/PublicReports.nsf/D9DCB2971B6FC226862580CE005943BC/$FILE/00012629.pdf. They report $3.8Million as direct institutional support. https://businessaffairs.nsula.edu/as...utal-15-16.pdf

    I'm not savvy enough to calculate what their total 3% capped amount would be, and the characterization between direct/indirect institutional support. But if someone knows where to find the true operating budget numbers and calculate the transfer cap, it should just be a matter of math. I've looked and can't figure it out though.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts