Comments on: The OC Rec Center Discussion Thread

By: The Student

The Student — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 08:07:02 +0000

“Students should what they are paying for, why they are paying for, and should be compliant of those things. We do not want to force anything on the student body.”….wow, thats deep. Can anyone tell me why we are listening to the wisdom of Dick Pryor?

By: Ricky

Ricky — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 01:34:50 +0000

That’s a fair concern, and since governing boards change from year to year, I have no way of giving you a 100% assurance that phase III will not be considered by the SRCAB. However, we have done our best to ensure that the mission statement of this envisioned board would first and foremost be to maintain CSL with the rec center only. Anything else that is deemed to be a “need” of the rec center should first be suggested via a campus-wide survey system or referendum. Students should what they are paying for, why they are paying for, and should be compliant of those things. We do not want to force anything on the student body.

By: Jacque

Jacque — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 21:36:47 +0000

Ditto. Seriously. Ditto everything you just said.

By: Niedermeyer

Niedermeyer — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 22:48:35 +0000

The whole situation depends on PARS being honest about what the center will really cost. The UO/OSU comparison that PARS is constantly trumpeting suggests that they could easily justify significantly higher costs (to themselves anyway). The most important thing is that they be given the flexibility to get the budget to a sustainable level, after which they MUST keep the budget as stable as possible. I can’t help being convinced though, that as soon as we achieve that stability, PARS will push hard for the Phase III expansion, at which point we’ll start this whole damn merry-go-round again.

By: Jacque

Jacque — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 20:24:28 +0000

Student- You make a very VERY good point and, in my opinion, this highlights that the problem is not really the I-Fee (aside from the procedural aspects that lead to the inability to make accurate projections, and place caps) but rather the problem comes from (a) the inabiity of departments to stay IN budget (b) the lack of any control mechanisms (c) the lack of transparency that occurs both in and outside of the incidental fee. And I guess that it is for this reason that I am simply skeptical of moving the Rec center off of the incidental fee, I just am not 100% sure that it is going to make that much of a difference in the main issue here: a 1 million dollar program being in deficit for the last three years. However, I think that a specific committee devoted solely to the budgetary woes of the rec center might be a good step, and I don’t really have a problem with moving it off of the i-fee I question whether it will solve the problem…

By: A Student

A Student — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 02:29:19 +0000

I did a little bit of research on the SHAC, as I have seen that people have been saying they want to model the SRC Advisory Board on that. Turns out, the increases in the Health Service Fee (which is really two fees, a health center fee with the SHAC sets, and a Counseling Center fee) have been roughly the same average increase in the past three biennia as the incidental fee (The Heath Service fee’s average increase per year is 5.02% and the incidental fee average increase is 5.35%). In addition, according to the May 26, 2006 SHAC minutes, even the Health Center is in deficit, and is only staying afloat by its carry forward balance…
Don’t know if this changes much, but I thought I would provide it as a basis for consideration, as the conversation seems to be saying that the Rec would be like the SHAC. I found my info at the OUS website (ous.edu) and the Health Center website (healthcenter.uoregon.edu)

By: Niedermeyer

Niedermeyer — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 00:57:07 +0000

Ricky: A good point, but I feel obligated to point out that the starting point for the entire I-Fee budget is guesswork: it’s called a benchmark.

By: Ricky

Ricky — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 00:48:24 +0000

It’s true that a fee is a fee is a fee. However, the question becomes, how much of a fee and a fee and a fee should students pay. One of the things that goes oft unmentioned in these debates that we have really tried to touch upon is the timeline that the PFC is required to adhere to. They require budgets to be decided in winter term, with projections submitted long before then. That means the rec center has less than two months of actual operation time done with in order to project what the rest of the year will be like fiscally. This means that the bulk of their budget has to be educated guesswork. While the rec center representatives and leaders are quite adroit when it comes to educated guesswork, however, no amount of conjecture is equal to having the numbers hard and fast to look at. I’m not saying that this is the PFC’s fault, the layers of beauracracy that the budgets have to pass through demands this timeline. However, at the cost of 1,000,000+ student dollars, we feel that educated guess work is not good enough.

By: Doomscheissah

Doomscheissah — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 00:13:05 +0000

We love Jacque. She actually takes invites to go out drinking seriously. And she actually has fun doing it. (Next week? Same bat time same bat channel?)

By: Jacque

Jacque — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 23:58:49 +0000

Betz you are right when you say that the problem arises from not enough students being educated and aware of what’s going on on campus and turning out to vote so how can we fix this… I think that as a governing body we get so focused on big picture that it does eventually evolve into this self-interested, authoritative thing that noone likes and don’t focus on just getting the average student involved, but also if students really wanted to know what was giong on, they would pick up a school publication, they would come into the ASUO office and talk to people (I mean I’m a bitch sometimes but I’m not THAT bad, I promise)… you know what I mean? So I think that the need to get involved needs to come from somewhere else in addition to the voice of the ASUO…

By: Betz

Betz — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 23:39:29 +0000

Timothy:
That’s one of the lies they tell themselves in order to sleep soundly at night.

Completely agree. Senators and ASUO representatives tend to have this heightened sense of self and authority, and they see themselves as the parent-figures that have to constantly keep 20,000 (estimated?) kids in line. I mean, do they honestly think that a group of non-senators are incapable of managing an annual budget? I’m sure this is the sort of thing that gets taught in the business or accounting departments (I wouldn’t know, I’ve never taken a business or accounting class before), and so this is the sort of thing that is completely do-able by interested students. The problem seems to arrise from this latter concern: not enough students turn out to vote, not enough students are aware of whats going on on campus.

By: Timothy

Timothy — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 23:35:50 +0000

I bet SHAC makes more freethrows than Shaq.

By: Niedermeyer

Niedermeyer — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 23:27:34 +0000

Maybe the Student Health Center Advisory Council (SHAC) has a mechanism in place. I think that everyone realizes that fixing the SRC will be initially expensive, but if annual increases stay below 5%, it will have been worth it. How this would be “enforced” is a question not easily answered. The PARS always has a reason for avoiding fees or cuts, so we have no choice but to fork over a bunch of cash.

By: Jacque

Jacque — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 23:16:28 +0000

Oh well I guess Richard wrote the post so that comment was directed at him (the little punk!) ;)

By: Jacque

Jacque — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 23:14:52 +0000

Ted
Why do you always misinterpret what I say??? LOL just kidding to clarify my point is not: they spend outside of their budget therefore, we should keep control. but just to point out that moving control does not necessarily gurantee fiscal responsibility, therefore WHAT mechanisms are we going to put in place to make sure that they do spend within their budget? Do I think another committee might be better equiped to handle it yes of course. but a fee is a fee is a fee so really incidental or not, students are paying for it: that million+ dollars is comming from somewhere. the problem with it comming out of the I-fee is like you said- the 7% cap, so yea the logical conclusion might be to remove it from there… To me the question is what happens when the mandates are met and their operational budget is stablized? they should be able to run at less than a 7% increase every year therefore I think you MIGHT be able to solve the problem by evaluating their mandates seperately, thus negating the need for a new committee and more bureaucracy. I also want to note that it was really great to see certain candidates take an interest in the Rec Center Budget, and have them attend their first ever ad hoc committee meeting because it is something that is important to all students in some way or another… :)

By: Niedermeyer

Niedermeyer — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 22:41:15 +0000

Please do. I actually write this all in aramaic, and babelfish doesn’t do a great job with punctuation. I hear apostrophe’s are particuarly hard to translate.

I’d say that opposition to taking the SRC off the I-Fee is evaporating, and rightly so. The PFC doesn’t currently have control over the SRC budget, and past attempts to do so have made the problem worse (with a little help from PARS, who just happily ate away it’s reserve). As Richard mentions, the Health Center is a pretty good analogy, and proves the point that *gasp* decentralizing campus governance might not be a horrible thing.

By: Timothy

Timothy — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 21:55:20 +0000

It’s more funny-sad than funny-haha. Oh, and I hope you don’t mind that I added some paragraph breaks to that post.

By: Niedermeyer

Niedermeyer — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 21:43:39 +0000

It’s funny and it’s true. Election season makes everyone scramble for the opposite end of the political spectrum. The “fiscal conservatives” run away from the 2.5% benchmark, and the programs crowd takes up “the good fight” by holding up the PFC as the scions of “fiscal responsibility.” Laughable stuff, really.

By: Timothy

Timothy — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 21:29:45 +0000

Do they truly believe that they are the only fiscally responsible students on campus?

That’s one of the lies they tell themselves in order to sleep soundly at night.