Vice President of Student Affairs Larry Moneta has decided to implement a $100 increase in mandatory programming fees for undergraduates beginning next fall, defying precedent and drawing criticism from student leaders.
Moneta explained the fee hike to Campus Council Thursday night as a necessary measure to provide adequate funding for student resources and programming on campus. Of the total increase, $30 will be added to quadrangle fees in order to create permanent funding for activities that are currently grant-based and $70 will be added to the student activities fee to fund a restructuring of the Office of Student Activities and Facilities, he said.
The student activities fee increase comes as the greatest surprise, because until now raises in that fee, which is split between Duke Student Government and the Duke University Union, could only come via a DSG referendum. The most recent referenda were just last spring, when undergraduates voted to raise the entire fee from $128 to $167, adding $8.50 to DSG's portion and $11 to the Union's portion for each semester.
"It's to do a couple things, for one to stabilize several activities that were at one time on grant money, and secondly to eventually provide more support for student clubs and organizations with [University] staffing support," Moneta said. "[The referendum requirement] will be the same for the student portion of the activities fee--this is an administrative element."
Moneta acknowledged that he did not solicit student input before deciding on the fee increases, but noted that they had the University's backing. He further added that the funds were factored into the 4.5 percent increase in mandatory fees approved by the Board of Trustees in February.
"This isn't new money, this is in lieu of tuition increase," he said. "I'm trying to migrate away from tuition money--this is a tactical shift to try not to [divert] from schools the dollars that they need."
Despite Moneta's rationale, student leaders were upset by the announcement, which they said still merited student input.
"If students want fees increased, we need a referendum from the entire student body," said Campus Council President Anthony Vitarelli, whose organization receives its funding from quad fees. "It's disconcerting if administrators can raise fees whenever they want."
The destination for a significant portion of the extra student activities money will be OSAF, which is currently in the midst of a major overhaul. In the first stage OSAF assumed management of student facilities on campus in addition to its responsibilities in managing student groups' funds, said Gregg Heinselman, director of student life. In the second phase the office's programming wing will be reworked, and in the third phase its facilities and business components will be addressed.
"The commitment's there from the division to [completely restructure], but the financial resources don't exist yet to do that," Heinselman said the day before Moneta spoke to Campus Council. Although Heinselman said Wednesday that he was not aware of any increases to the student activities fee in the near future, Moneta said OSAF will be allocated additional funds, some of which would be directed to this improvement of support for student groups.
One of the concerns raised by Union President Jonathan Bigelow was that the student activities line on students' bursar bills is no longer completely owned by students, a distinction he considers important symbolically and practically.
"Shortly after [the announcement], I requested that the Union's fee be separated in nomenclature from the rest of the fees, and that request was denied," he said. "The rationale was that the University didn't want to have too many line items on the bill. I don't think it's really that hard to separate them, but there you have it."
The difficulty, Bigelow explained, is that by rolling student programming funds and administrative funds into one line item, students are no longer able to tell exactly where their fees are going.
"It creates a dynamic in the student activities fee that I'm not sure is completely welcome," he added. "It was always made very clear to us that Union fees could be changed without direct referenda; however, I'm not sure this makes it clear to the consumers what they're paying for."
Although they are not directly related, the timing of Moneta's announcement of the increase in fees comes on the heels of DSG's discovery of nearly $140,000 in misplaced student activity funds over the better part of the past decade.
DSG President Matt Slovik, who informed the Senate of the misplaced funds at its meeting Wednesday night, said he understood this latest fee increase because it would not be distributed by his organization.
"The way that I understand it is that [Moneta] has the power to institute new fees as he sees fit," Slovik said, adding that he hoped the vice president would officially present the increases to DSG soon. "This isn't money that is going to be distributed by DSG--DSG does not have the power to just say that we want to charge students more without their approval."
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.