Student leaders fume over fee

Members of two campus committees charged with examining student fees said they were shocked Thursday when the UNC Board of Trustees approved an unprecedented fee hike.

Just days before the BOT’s vote, the Student Fee Audit Committee and the Chancellor’s Committee on Student Fees voiced almost unanimous disapproval for the proposal to use student fees to fund athletics.

The plan calls for a reallocation of 25 percent of logo revenues from athletics to merit-based scholarships and a $50 increase in student fees to fund Olympic sports.

The BOT also approved a $100 hike in the student athletic fee for the 2006-07 academic year.

Student Body President Matt Calabria, a member of both committees and an ex-officio trustee, was one of two members of the BOT to vote against the move.

He said he didn’t think the proposal had been studied thoroughly enough to bring it to a vote.

“I think all students present were very surprised when it was brought up,” Calabria said. “I think the process was rushed and skipped a number of important steps.”

Speaker of Student Congress Charlie Anderson, also a member of both the advisory committees, said he was troubled by the vote. “The timing of it didn’t allow us to do the proper research,” he said.

“This obviously isn’t the best choice for students.”

Chairwoman of the Faculty Judith Wegner, who proposed the increase, said she was surprised that the BOT made a decision

“Sometimes if you wait, it doesn’t make it any better,” she said. “They really were conscientiously trying to set the tuition rate so they could address several chronic problems.”

Several officials said the most troubling part of the decision was that the board locked in a $100 fee increase for two years down the road.

“One of the most alarming points about the whole thing was the inclusion of the caveat that they’ve already (approved the $100 fee),” said Jen Bushman, president of the Graduate and Professional and Student Federation. “I think that crosses a line that has not been crossed historically.”

Natalie Russell, student body treasurer and member of both committees, said she thought trustees didn’t consider student input sufficiently.

“I think that’s a real shame,” she said. “With the exception of the student body president serving on the Board of Trustees, the work of those two committees is really the only message the students have to put towards the chancellor and the Board of Trustees.”

The Board of Trustees’ decision still has to be approved by the UNC Board of Governors, which is set to begin reviewing recommendations in February. Anderson said he hopes the board will examine several factors clouding the decision.

“I would certainly hope that the Board of Governors takes a long hard look at … the lack of consideration with respect to the effect on out-of-state students and the lack of consideration for student governance and student opinion on the athletic fee.”

Contact the University Editor at udesk@unc.edu.