THE PUBLIC MIND: FACULTY MEMBERS FEEL ATHLETIC COSTS AT SOUTHEAST ARE TOO HIGH

Dear Editor:

As members of the majority of the Budget Review Committee who voted to cut Southeast's athletic budget by $250,000, we feel that it is necessary for us to present the compelling arguments for this move.

Despite misleading statements by the athletic director and others, intercollegiate athletics costs the taxpayer and the students a great deal of money. It is true that Southeast's program is not "in the red," but what does this mean? Simply that they only spend the money they have. The athletic budget for FY 92-93 totals $3,517,294. This includes a subsidy from the University of $1,847,983. In other words, donations from the boosters, ticket sales, concessions, and all other revenue sources in athletics pay for less than half of the cost of the current athletic programs. The $1.8 million subsidy comes from the unrestricted general operating fund, which is generated by the state appropriation and by student incidental fees.

There are two ways of looking at this subsidy. If it comes from the state appropriation, then we need to consider if this is an appropriate use of state taxpayers' money. However, Southeast's state appropriation will be about the same next year as in fiscal 1989; it seems unlikely that the state government intends these very limited budget dollars to go for athletics. In that case, the athletic subsidy must come from student fees. An estimate of the cost to each student can be obtained by dividing the $1.8 million subsidy by 8,000 full-time students: $112.50 per student per semester. For a student taking 12 credit hours each semester, this translates into a cost of over $9 per credit hour. With the increased student fees for FY 93, a student will pay $943 for 12 credit hours each semester. The proportion of this fee that would go to support intercollegiate athletics is nearly 12 percent!

The athletic director has argued that cutting programs would not save any money for the University. For instance, cutting the football program would save about $519,346. However, according to Dr. McDuffie, the University would then lose 100 football players, who pay $624,380 in tuition fees, room and board, etc.

Thus Dr. McDuffie claims the university, by cutting the football program, would actually lose money. His argument assumes that the 100 students would all leave, and that they could not be replaced. In fact, we could create 100 new scholarships, paying all incidental fees, for $188,600. These would allow us to retain or bring in just as many students, who would pay just as much as anyone else for room and board, etc., and result in a savings of $330,746.

Perhaps the most important issue, however, is that the move to Division I was based on repeated promises that the total intercollegiate athletics subsidy would be capped at 3 percent of the unrestricted operation funds of the University. Provost Leslie Cochran's memo to the Board of Regents dated April 29, 1988 made that limit clear: "...Accept a 3 percent operating budget funding guideline (excluding outside revenue) for the operational support level for the athletic program." At the recent Budget Review Committee meeting, Dr. Cochran confirmed that this referred to the entire subsidy as a proportion of the University's unrestricted budget. Every campus group that voted to support the move to Division I did so with that promised limitation in mind. The subsidy for 1993 is about 3.7 percent of the University's proposed fiscal year 1993 budget of $49,722,382. This is over $350,000 more than the amount permitted under the official guideline. We feel that the Administration and the Board of Regents must be held accountable for the commitments it made to the campus and the public.

How can Intercollegiate Athletics trim $250,000 from its budget? Obviously, programs can be cut. There may be penalties from the NCAA, but, unlike the federal courts, they cannot force us to spend money we can't afford. On the other hand, if intercollegiate athletics is genuinely important to community members, maybe they can provide additional support. The current donations level from the boosters is $250,000. Generous as this is, it appears that it does not allow the institution to operate a Division I program within its own guidelines.

As faculty members at Southeast, we feel that the University's primary function is to educate the citizens of our region. We do not deny the benefits of participation in athletic programs, but we do think that the amount spent on the training of a very small group of athletes is unreasonable, considering the budget constraints we have as an institution. The current level of expenditure for athletics puts an undue burden on the taxpayers, the students, or both; and it exceeds the level of spending that was originally established by the University Administration. This is why we have recommended that the Intercollegiate Athletics Budget be cut by $250,000.

Unfortunately, the Board of Regents on April 15 passed a motion not to cut "one red cent" from intercollegiate athletics, despite the fact that they had not heard any arguments or information from the majority of the Budget Review Committee.

Allen Gathman, Walt Lilly, Shelba Branscum, Terry Sutton, Patricia Willingham, and Roy Farris.