Haven't you heard of tenure. If they're old enough maybe retire them.Originally Posted by brtransplant
|
|
|
|
|
Haven't you heard of tenure. If they're old enough maybe retire them.
And in Louisiana every university administrator who is fired and has any type of case goes ahead and sues.
Historian,
I really do think this has changed. http://www.regents.la.gov/assets/doc..._2012_0425.pdf - Page 5
CLASSIFICATION OF STUDENT SELF-ASSESSED ATHLETIC FEES IN REGARD TOTHE POLICY FOR STATE FUND USAGE IN ATHLETIC PROGRAMS
On motion of Regent Rasberry, seconded by Regent Bollinger, the Board voted unanimously to accept the recommendation of the Finance Committee to approve the reporting of the student self-assessed athletic fees on the BoR-3 form separately and transfer those fees separately to support the university’s intercollegiate athletics program in addition to the maximum transfer allowed by the Board of Regents Policy for State Fund Usage in Athletic Programs.
From reading this, it does appear that student self-assessed fees would not count against the transfer as of 2012.
I'd have to read the Finance Committee's recommendation but at first glance it seems to be a change.
The last time I asked anyone about this issue was September, 2016. At that time I was told any student fee income generated that wasn't to pay down debt or pay for facilities would be included in the cap. This language might have been issued in order to clear up questions regarding how fees were classified for reporting purposes to the state and NCAA.
Back in 2012 both Tech and UL-Lafayette wanted to reflect every dollar that hit athletics for any reason in their respective budgets for conference realignment purposes. Tech promised CUSA a $20 million budget. UL-Lafayette believed it wasn't included in realignment discussions because of its budget. This language might have been in response to those needs. But I was told fundamentally nothing has changed with the policy since 2002. And I suspect that's correct, because no school that's transferring the maximum has even tried to introduce a student fee for anything but facility needs.
The problem I've run into over the years with the Regents is the fact that in the past they've issued clarifying memos to the schools with policy changes that, for whatever reasons, don't show up in the minutes. That's how this policy was fully implemented in 2002. Realitycheck and I both went through a host of documents before I finally found the actual policy change.
Here are the minutes from the Finance Committee meeting on April 25, 2012. On the surface it would seem to be a change in the policy. And lord knows I wish it was. But when you read it carefully notice the language on Page 3 that says "restricted revenue" in multiple places.
Then notice the guest list on the last page. Dr. Rea attended every meeting in Baton Rouge when Dr. Reneau was not present. He was the lone attendee from Tech. However, at this particular meeting, there were 4 people from UL-Lafayette present.
As I previously posted, I suspect this was a change pushed by UL-Lafayette to reflect certain revenue for reporting purposes. I've never heard of any type of fundamental shift in this policy. If so, one of the max transfer schools would have put the issue in front of the students by now.
http://www.regents.la.gov/assets/doc...il-25-2012.pdf
The change is confusing because there isn't a revision to the 2007 policy: http://www.regents.la.gov/assets/doc...5/policies.pdf
However, the minutes are pretty clear to the intent. I would love to know our administration's opinion on the matter.
I believe the restricted vs. unrestricted funds is simply a determinant of any condition or restriction attached to the monies by the funding source.
IE: An endowment or donation to a specific department in the university would be considered a restricted revenue, as it couldn't be spread about as needed. General funding from the state would be considered unrestricted. I found an old LSUHC New Orleans' BOR-3, and I'm pretty sure that's what we're looking at. https://www.lsuhsc.edu/admin/vcaf/Bu...orms/bor3b.pdf
So in these terms, as long as the self-assessed student fee is restricted for use specifically to athletics, and not the general funding of the university, it would not count against the GF transfer.
I would disagree with that -
IF it was otherwise, you would of seen someone already test those waters - especially during the O & G boom
Based on all interpretations our of the AG's Office everything remains status quo -
''Don't be a bad dagh..."
Is there an AG's opinion stating such? And, if you take that reading of the minutes and policy, what effect DID the change have? What would a restricted student self assessed fee that is not counted look like?
I don't necessarily think that just because it hasn't happened means it can't. I would argue that the reason it hasn't been done yet is because you'd likely only get one shot at it. In an environment where the universities (including Tech) have had to raise tuition and fees yearly just to avoid layoffs, another fee is hardly palatable, and the size of the fee would need to be substantial to make a real dent in the operating revenues of the athletic department.
As of 2017, the students pay 119.50 in self-assessed fees for a full time student undergraduate. There are 7,850 of these. A $60/quarter fee for just full times over 1 year is $1.4 Million. This replaces a money game.
The only effect it had was how it was REPORTED and formally accounted for - didn't change the "nature" of the fees or how they are counted against the cap - better apples to apples comparison
As the Historian expounded on - the nature of the beast is still the same - you don't have to have a formal AG opinion to ask if it has changed (or expend the political capital, especially give then economic climate of the last 5 years), all you have to do is pick up the phone with their office and ask if there has been a change -
''Don't be a bad dagh..."
I'm sorry, DFM. But that dog don't hunt.
If it has been intimated by the AG that the transfer limit still applies to self assessed student fees for athletics (SASFA?), I am forced to wonder: Who asked? Who from the AGs office answered? And what was provided that so definitively answered the question to the point that no one in administration is willing to swallow it?
As to the reporting you mention: the minutes and motion specifically mention both reporting AND the actual transfer of such funds being different than before. The Finance Committee directly addressed (succinctly, I might add) the exact situation we've always talked about for years as limiting student fees. I quote:
"Currently, any revenues generated through student self-assessed fees have been included in the total maximum allowable transfer to athletics. He (Mr. Barre, Deputy Commissioner for Revenue and Finance) stated it has become evident that whenever a university student body votes to assess themselves a fee to support athletics, the full benefit of that dedicated revenue stream has not been allowed in the maximum transfer calculation, by virtue of the fact that those revenues are netted against the 3% operating budget calculation, thus the impact of the new revenues dedicated by the students to be transferred to support the university's intercollegiate athletics program are not fully realized."
"the staff recommends in order for university athletic programs to be afforded the full amount of student self-assessed dedicated support:
1. that restricted revenues generated by student self-assessed athletic fees be separately identified on the BoR-3 form... and
2. that restricted revenues generated by student self-assessed athletic fees be transferred separately to support the university's intercollegiate athletics program in addition to the maximum transfer allowed by [policy]."
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.
My original question still stands:
If the rule change here doesn't allow self-assessed student fees to be reported and transferred outside of the limits of the general transfer cap, then what on earth does it do? The AUP would cover anything regarding inflating athletic budgets using fees, and the motion we're discussion shouldn't have an effect. The AUP governing the athletics reporting was already in place in 2012. Just to Historian's point: All the UL-Laf folks on the guest list you read were academic affairs and one finance person. No athletic presence, from what I can tell.
And to add: I understand that both yourself and Historian have a deep knowledge of the wonky world of state and local govt. finance. I'm no stranger to it myself, but likely not on this level. I do not mean to imply disrespect by disagreement.
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.
As soon as one university does it to serve as canary in the coalmine, the whole UL system will follow along.
NWST, ULM, SLU, MCNeese, Nicholls all have restricted student self-assessed fees listed on their BOR-3. for 2015-2016. ULL and Tech do not.
Last edited by LATechBanjo; 07-20-2017 at 04:12 PM.
Banjo - relax
I agree with you that recent years would've been a bad time to introduce a vote for a student fee for athletics. With state funding for higher ed being slashed every six months, tuition and fees skyrocketing, and TOPS in limbo, the blowback could've been really bad for any school that tried to pass an athletics fee in the last couple years. I don't think any of our faculty and staff have gotten a raise since 2008, and our buildings and grounds staff has been slashed to nothing.
Keep in mind ULM, UNO, and maybe another school had votes for athletics and other student fees that got rejected in the last few years. Also, all 3 of Tech's self-assessed fees since 2004 have passed overwhelmingly with about 85% in support.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
