Faculty Senate puzzles over
Athletics Department budget

$1m cut was 'real,' says council chair

by Sarah R. Buchholz, Chronicle staff

he annual presentation of the Athletics Council to the Faculty Senate turned into an accounting discussion Nov. 14 as senators struggled to make sense of the Athletic Department's budget. At issue was the substance of a $1.1 million cut to the Athletics budget announced by the administration last year.

      In a vote Feb. 14, the senate recommended that the campus contribution to the Athletics budget be reduced by $2 million over the following four years. On March 11, the administration said it would cut seven intercollegiate sports in order to save $1.1 million.

      Senators questioned the reality of the budget cut when they noted that the total revenues of the department were projected to increase between FY02 and FY03. While the Athletic Council's report showed that budget lines "Total University Allocations" and "Additional University and Trustee Allocations" were reduced by a total of $1.04 million, Athletic Trust Fund revenues rose by more than $1.1 million.

      "The total revenues and expenditures from last year to this is approximately the same," said senate secretary Ernest May. "In my department, which was hard-hit by early retirements, the actual total bottom line like that went down by about 20 percent.

     "And yet we did lose seven sports in this. So I think for the public information, I would ask the question of what is the explanation for this?"

      "There was a $1 million cut in the budget," said Nelson Lacey, co-chair of the Athletics Council. "It was a real cut." Lacey said that about $500,000 was returned to Athletics on a one-year basis to cover severance pay for the coaching staffs of the eliminated sports, to honor the scholarships of athletes from those sports, who had been expecting their funding to last until graduation, and to pay a "special health-insurance fee."

      Most of the other half of the cut was, in effect, erased by increases in fees, room and board to scholarship students, Lacey said.

      "I think we all know that fees, room and board went up last year," he said. "If we're going to run an athletic program and we're gonna give scholarships, every time fees, room and board are raised, so will be the commitment to the scholarship aids to those athletes.

     And so, I would say that I view those as inflationary costs that are going to increase every year as long as we have athletic programs here. They're never going to all go away. And I think if you total that all up, it gets to about the million dollars."

      Lacey added that the budget for FY03 includes some "forecasting" of the expense of sending athletes to NCAA tournaments. Because the campus can't know in advance how far any of its teams will advance in post-season play, the budget for supporting post-season travel and play is uncertain.

      Faculty representative to the Board of Trustees Brian O'Connor asked whether the Athletic Trust Fund Revenues came from students in the form of a fee.

      Interim Deputy Chancellor John Dubach said the increase in trust fund revenue came from an increase in student fees, which allowed the University to decrease its contribution to the Athletics budget.

      "The portion of the student fee to go to Athletics went up at the same time an approximately equal amount of money from the operating funds of the University that went to Athletics went down," he said.

      When senators expressed concerns that students are paying a higher Athletic Fee and that the "cut" was invisible to them, interim Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance Joyce Hatch said that the dire budget situation last year had prompted trustees to raise several fees, including the Athletics one, to make up for the unexpected shortfall in state support.

     Lacey added that because fees went up for all students, scholarship monies for student athletes had increased by several hundred thousand dollars this year to cover the difference. If Athletics funding had continued in the vein it was in, he said, the budget would have increased by nearly half a million dollars in order to cover Title IX compliance corrections (an additional $50,000) and the increase in scholarship monies needed to support student athletes.

     Lacey concluded that, by cutting seven sports, the University saved nearly $500,000 this year, and barring fee increases, would see an additional savings next year of the other $500,000 in one-time fees. But he warned that fee increases are likely to continue and that this would preclude seeing a $500,000 drop in the Athletics budget next year.