Parking is currently $100 per year, excluding summer, and a parking ticket is now $20.Originally Posted by techman05
|
|
|
|
|
Parking is currently $100 per year, excluding summer, and a parking ticket is now $20.
Where is the student facility enhancement fee, the one being used to pay off the SEZ project? Our students are already being hit with that fee which is similar to an athletic fee. Adding another would probably meet with resistance.
Good idea.
This flier needs to be put under every dorm and Tech apartment room door as well as on every windshield in student parking. Heck email it as well.
That is a limited time fee, tied to construction and for paying off that construction only fee. Athletic fees like the ones being talked about are permanent ongoing fees that the department can use any way they want (Operating expenses or to finance future construction). The big issue has always been that supposedly the state offsets any operating fee by reducing the amount Tech can transfer into athletics, so it's zero gain for the department, but would gain the school more money overall.
I am concerned about this due to some future Tech grandchildren. That end zone fee, although limited in its duration, still has TWENTY years to go which far surpasses the time they will be in Ruston. So, this offset you mention, why add a fee on the students when it would be offset by reducing the amount transferred from the state? If its zero gain for the department then why transfer the load to the students rather than let the state continue its subsidy? You, I think, are "hearing" something that has no factual basis.
I don't believe a student fee would result in a reduction of University support.
My memory is we paid a $25/qtr athletic fee in the '70s
$12,500/sem. Is my quick math correct. > $8350/qtr
Correct. That was done away with several years ago. Northwestern State went to the ULS board asking them to do away with that restriction. Previously, any fee that wasn't for construction or to pay down construction related debt was deducted from a school's general fund transfer to athletics. The board agreed to allow NSU to impose the fee without the reduction.
In the past 10 years or so, student votes to pass a fee at UNO narrowly failed. A vote of the student body at ULM was soundly defeated just a few years ago. At the same time, the Tech student body hasn't voted down a fee in at least the past 45 years. Most have passed easily.
The last time a vote was even close was in 1992. The fee to build Centennial Plaza narrowly passed.
One more thing worth mentioning. While the ULS Board has required a vote of the students in the past, it doesn't have to follow that vote. It can allow a school to impose the fee even with a "no" vote of the students.
The same is true for the LSU Board of Supervisors. A little over 10 years ago LSU students narrowly defeated a fee increase to fund the renovation and expansion of the LSU Union. The LSU Board still implemented the fee.
Last edited by The Historian; 01-18-2020 at 06:16 PM.
Then, “Let’s do it!”
Aren't we mixing apples and oranges? Student ATHLETIC fees were banned by the regents until that rule was eliminated some 3-4yrs ago. One can now be initiated but only by an affirmative vote of the students. The SGA survey pertains only to athletic fees as I understand it.
Student athletic fees were never banned by the Regents. But any fee reduced the amount of the maximum general fund transfer dollar for dollar by the ULS via an internal policy for its' schools. Exceptions were made for athletic facilities and debt payments for athletic facilities. That changed when NSU went to the ULS Board and asked them to change the policy. And they did.
The ULS requires a process to pass certain student fees that includes, among other things, support of the SGA Senate and SGA President along with a vote of the students. At the same time it doesn't have to follow that vote. It can impose the fee even with a "no" vote. The Regents don't require it of any of the systems they supervise.
Last edited by The Historian; 01-19-2020 at 02:04 PM.
Re: SGA sends out Student Athletic Fee Survey to current student body
You do realize that students attending on loans will be obligated to pay for those athletic fees with interest for the next 15-20 years, right? Would you be interested in increasing your student loans by 20-50% for athletes that 1) don't give a flip about a degree, 2) that aren't in general college population, and 3) are only there to collect a check?
Is that right, good or proper? No, it's not. People wanting football/basketball/etc/ are not necessarily the same people anymore that want education.
I like the idea of an athletic fee. I don't like how it ads debt to those that don't have cash to attend college. Just because government money is easy to come by, doesn't mean it's best for the school to take it.....and I despise Tech for taking the easy road, and eliminating most of its job placement options that were widely available in the early 90's.
I think alumni should take the high road, and not commit current students to excessive debt to provide for their amusement.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
