Spreading cuts


KARL JAROSIEWICZ | The discussion surrounding the Proposed Student Services Fee Schedule, 1998-1999, at the March 4 meeting of Senate only hinted at the true depth of an issue which could become one of the hottest conflicts on campus. Behind the meagre details presented to Senate is the story of the University's Budget Planning Group (BPG) attempting a controversial manoeuvre to recover more money in support of a dwindling operating budget.

The proposed fee increase comes from the Coordinating Committee on Student Services (CCSS). Composed of five McGill staff representatives and five student representatives, CCSS is a parity committee responsible for the operations, financial administration and budget of Student Services.

A presentation was made, first by Vice-Principal (Academic) Bill Chan and then by SSMU president Tara Newell, both attempting to fill in for a tardy Dean of Students Rosalie Jukier.

Newell supported the proposed increase but called it "a band-aid solution" in the face of declining operating funds. She said that Student Services played a big role in reducing student attrition, and it supported the University's recruitment strategies. She said that while the University is successfully recruiting more international students, Student Services bears the burden because this group needs more advising, financial aid and mental health services than other groups.

When Jukier arrived, she picked up where the others had left off.

The CCSS proposal called for an $18.50 fee increase for full-time students. The stated reason for the fee augmentation is a decrease in student enrolment, a corresponding decline in the government's operating grant and increased operating expenses within Student Services. Jukier noted the success of the First Year Coordinator's office, a pilot project that will need funding to continue.

Newell had earlier credited the First Year Coordinator with reducing the loss of new students that takes a toll on enrolment numbers and, therefore, on the operating grant.

Jukier told Senate that CCSS had voted in favour of the fee increase. However, shortly after the vote, the committee learned that the BPG had recommended cutting a Facilities Use Recovery (FUR) payment the University owes to Student Services by $350,000 over a three-year period. She said that subsequently CCSS had held a meeting and voted against the cut.

Historically, Student Services is a self-funded operation at McGill, getting the bulk of its money directly from fees it levies upon students. According to a letter signed by Tara Newell and circulated at Senate, beginning in the early 1970s, Student Services was "forced to take responsibility for the Athletics Department, including all of its operating costs, as a result of cost-shedding strategies employed by the University at that time."

The arrangement allowed the University to use the gym and other athletic facilities for exams, for storage space, and to house the Department of Athletics. In return, the University granted Student Services a FUR of $705,000 per year. Although the arrangement had been "reconfirmed...in 1992 and 1995, the Budget Planning Group unilaterally decided to reduce this fee in 1998."

The letter states that the FUR is not "a subsidy, rather a legitimate payment owed to Student Services for the operational costs of academic departments. By cutting this payment, the BPG is asking students to forfeit the services that their Student Services fees are supposed to pay for, and then using these fees to support the academic departments which are meant to be funded by tuition."

Newell's letter states that the University has been "forced to download its operating expenses on non-academic units that have independent sources of revenue" such as Student Services, but does so "because these units can increase fees while the University cannot."

An article published in the March 4 issue of the McGill Tribune said that the CCSS's position is "to refuse to cooperate with the University's proposed cuts." One tactic it might use would be to "refuse to allow exam writing in the Currie Gym." Such pressure tactics were not discussed in Senate.

Post-Graduate Students' Society representative Anna Kruzynski stated her organization's opposition to Student Services fee increases on principle.

"The money [to fund Student Services] should come out of the operating budget, not student's pockets. Last year, we opposed the new Student Services facilities being proposed." She implied that the new facilities, which are in the planning phase, are partly responsible for the $18.50 increase in fees.

Dean Jukier countered that "none of these fees has anything to do with the new facilities, now or ever."

Newell blamed the fact that Student Services are funded directly by students for McGill's lower than expected placing in the Maclean's magazine annual university rankings.

"I call into doubt the use of these rankings as a measure of our worth," said Dean of Law Stephen Toope. "Maclean's is not measuring quality, only its own system of measuring what it sees as normal. McGill has never adopted the same funding strategies as other universities."

The motion to increase Student Services fees came to a vote and was passed. However, the real battle may lie ahead. The BPG plan to cut the FUR payment is still only a proposal and must be approved within the context of the upcoming University budget. The budget must go before Senate for discussion and later will go before the Board for approval.