Summer Training 2012

1. The Student Incidental Fees Committee Summer Training 2012

2. Agenda for Today • Southworth • Overview of SIFC and Student Fees • Budget Process • Review of SCSFSP • Questions

3. Southworth and Its Implications • 2000 Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of charging mandatory student fees • Court ruled unanimously in favor of the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin • Mandatory student fees may be charged to all students to subsidize student groups as long as they are viewpoint neutral • Case is: Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin v. Southworth

4. Case Background • Three law students at University of Wisconsin challenged the mandatory fee system because they were forced to fund activities that they disagreed with politically or ideologically • A U.S. District Court and the 7th U.S. Court of Appeals both ruled in favor of the three law students, and then a year and a half after the Court of Appeals ruling the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the lower courts ruling because of the marketplace of ideas created by student fees is germane to the whole idea of a university as long as the funding is allocated in a viewpoint neutral way

5. What Viewpoint Neutral Means • The determination of funding support must be viewpoint neutral. One cannot choose to defund a program because they disagree with the political or ideological activities or beliefs of the program. Basically, you may not discriminate based on the message advocated • For example, one could not want to defund/cut funding the pistol club because they believed that guns should be outlawed, or that a pro-choice group shouldn’t be funded because one is against abortion • Unbridled discretion: This term was brought on by the 7th Court of Appeals in 2002, and made the requirement that the governing body of the funds (the University) must not have unbridled discretion and their must be a clear set of objectives already set out that the funding process will follow

6. What Viewpoint Neutral Does Not Mean • Viewpoint neutral does not mean: • You are forced to fund any program, if you don’t believe that the program is germane to the educational purpose of the university you can reduce or cut funding • All groups must be funded at the same level • If you fund one viewpoint you must fund the other viewpoint. Levels of funding must be based on objective criteria, and that is all • For example, when Mousa wanted to cut or reduce funding for athletics because he was against student fees buying athletic tickets, his reasoning was outside viewpoint neutrality. If his reasoning was he believed, using the objective funding criteria, that sporting events were not germane to the university’s mission, than that would be appropriate

7. Local Cases • During Southworth, another court case was being argued, Rounds v Oregon State Board of Education, and the 9th Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the State allowing mandatory fees. They did not bring about the viewpoint neutrality issue, but believed that the student fees were germane to the university’s goals. This is one of the reasons the Supreme Court heard Southworth • Currently, the ASUO just passed a referendum stating, “Should students be allowed to vote directly on funding levels for certain fee-funded programs?” • What do you think of this?

8. Fee Funded Organizations SIFC SHS CAPS ASOSU RecSports Music Ed Act Facility Improvement SSI MU Athletics OLV SDBB

9. Referendum Process • Financial Initiative: • 15% of fee paying students must sign • Finite collection period, dollar amount, and per student amount are required • Must be adopted by a major budgeting board • 2/3 majority vote in the spring will pass • Financial Referendum: • 2/3 majority vote of Congress needed • Finite collection period, dollar amount, and per student amount are required • Must be adopted by a major budgeting board • 2/3 majority vote in the spring will pass

10. Capital Construction Initiatives • Must be sponsored by students • Be sponsored by a major budgeting board, and be approved and space allocated through the Campus Planning Committee • Must obtain majority approval of SIFC prior to signature gathering • ASOSU Congress then approves SIFC recommendations • Finally, the capital construction initiative must be signed by 15% of fee paying students • The initiative will be voted on during the ASOSU general election in the spring and a simple majority approval is all that’s needed. In the event of a special election, 75% of the prior year’s general election turnout is needed to be valid. • Once approved, the initiative is forwarded to the OSU President and Oregon State Board of Higher Education

11. Student Fees Per Term for FY 12-13 12-13 Fee Level: $447.57 11-12 Fee Level: $460.47

12. SIFC Criteria for Funding • Extent to which a program or activity provides opportunities for students, either by direct participation or by participating as spectators and listeners, to develop new skills, competencies or appreciations not available elsewhere in the university • Extent to which there is agreement between the programs’ or activities’ goals and objectives and those of the overall goals and objectives of the university • Extent to which a continuing program or activity fulfilled its stated objectives of previous budget years • Extent to which a program or activity complements or provides an optional laboratory setting for an educational program

13. Extent to which a program or activity is of general interest to the university community Extent to which a program or activity provides an appropriate service not available on campus or in the city as conveniently and/or inexpensively Extent to which alternative funding has been sought (if applicable) Extent to which budget requests reflect actual costs incurred in realizing the goals and objectives of a program or activity

14. Structure of the SIFC President Ray ASOSU Congress (Two Members Ex-Officio) ASOSU Executive (ASOSU President Voting) SIFC Student Body (Election of SIFC Members)

15. SIFC Contingency Fund • Purposes • Provide for under-realization of funds to major budgets • Meet emergency funding needs of fee-funded programs • Meet unexpected funding needs of fee-funded programs • Each request is assessed in terms of the following: • Available funding resources outside of contingency • Utilization of reserves/balances • Process • Approval of contingency request by a budget advisory board • Typically, the one that represents the group/activity • Approval of the allocation by the SIFC • Congress has window of opportunity to review and recommend changes to allocations

16. Rough Annual Calendar • Fall Term • Training • Budget guidelines created • Budget boards are fully formed • Winter Term • Individual budget open forums • SIFC budget presentation • SIFC budget open hearing • Joint Session of Congress • Spring Term • Review of bylaws • Election of new SIFC Chair

17. Budgeting Process Budgeting Boards Create Budget Budgeting Boards approve budget and hold open hearing Budgets are presented to SIFC Tentative Decision by SIFC SIFC Open Hearing, Final Approval

18. SIFC Open Hearing, Final Approval Joint Session of House and Senate Congress votes on fee amounts No Yes Mediation Sent to President Ray No Yes Hearings Board Sent to OUS Chancellor

19. Budget Presentation • Budget Presentation • One hour and fifteen minutes • Students must do presentation • Thirty minute presentation and Q&A • Forty-five minute discussion • Result is a tentative approval / denial • SIFC Open Hearing • Time for public input • Additional consideration by Committee • Result is a final approval

20. Review of S.C.S.F.S.P. Special Commission for Student Fee Strategic Planning

21. A review of the entire student fee process that occurred in fall 2009 • The goal of this review was to fix apparent weaknesses within the process, and it focused on fiscal responsibility, accountability to students, and program review and evaluation • The program review evolved into the two or three organizational reviews that happen each year, and currently we are reviewing SSI • The MU, SHS, and OLV have been reviewed so far • The purpose of the organizational review is to address any problems with communication or budgeting process within the fee funded board and SIFC, and the goal is a more transparent and efficient budgeting process • The accountability section really created the calendar which we operate by today, this greatly increased the communication between SIFC and the budgeting boards • Also created a faculty advisor for SIFC, and this is key for transitions and institutional knowledge

22. Budget Liaisons • Nic Nolan: CAPS, ASOSU • Amelia Harris: Music, Rec Sports, and Ed Act • Tyler Hogan: Music, Rec Sports, and Ed Act • Madison Parker: SDBB, OLV • Tori Redman: SSI, MU • Terra Setzler: Athletics, SHS

23. Questions? Student.fees@oregonstate.edu