Laundry fee highlights need for checks and balances
Originally published in the Park University Stylus, Feb. 2013. This double editorial is in reference to "When is a laundry fee not a laundry fee? Residence director explains," a piece of investigative journalism.
‘Laundry fee’ incorrect term for charge
It took the Stylus three weeks talking to Ben Dewberry, director of residence life, to find out the term “laundry fee” is a misnomer. More accurately, it should be called the “resident activity fee” because it turns out the laundry portion of the fee is less than a third of the funding.
Dewberry said the average student’s laundry only costs Park University $14.25 per semester, or $3.56 per month per student. The utilities for the laundry room cost $1.31 per month per student. Despite the low cost and the university’s ability to fund it - as evidenced by the free laundry offered this semester - Dewberry said he elected to create a fee to cover it three times over to fund projects in his office and in Residence Hall Council, or RHC.
He decided not to include laundry as an amenity for residential students because “it would have gotten lost in the budget and couldn't be allocated directly back into funding for the students in the residence halls.”
The truth, then, is the fee was never intended to pay for the laundry. It was intended to pay for programming, RHC officer stipends, and other activity-related costs. Why didn’t he say that in the first place?
Laundry fee highlights need for accountability
In fall 2013, a residential student will be paying $100 per semester in activity fees, and $30 of that is allocated directly to two organizations: RHC and Park Student Activities Board, also known as PSAB. Another $20 goes to Park Student Government Association, or senate, to be distributed to the dozens of student organizations on campus.
With 350 resident students, RHC will receive $5,224 per semester -- over 10.5 times their normal allocation. According to senate business manager Saruul Baatartsogt, their allocations requests to senate have been less than $550 per semester, and they have not requested allocations since 2009. They haven’t requested special funding since 2011. If they haven’t needed operational money in four years and special funding in two, why do they need over $10,000 next year?
The student clubs who receive allocations from senate go through a strict process: they have to seek adviser approval and apply with a line-item budget before an early deadline. Then, club officers meet with the senate financial committee to talk about their plans and defend each line on their budget. They must have plans for fundraising and providing programming for the general student population, not just their own members. They must have plans for community service. After this meeting, a club officer must show up to the general assembly to explain the budget again, hear the committee’s funding recommendations, and defend any items which were denied. Any guest of the general assembly may also give an opinion. Finally, the general assembly votes yay or nay, and the decision is final. Sometimes the club gets what they asked for. Sometimes they get some of what they wanted, and sometimes they’re denied.
Even senate’s own budget undergoes this process. Each committee makes a budget and goes through the process like a club. Their budgets are explained in the general assembly so any Park community member can voice concern.
If a little student organization asking for a couple hundred bucks has to go through a weeks-long process of enduring line-item scrutiny and defending their budget from critical eyes, why aren’t the organizations receiving thousands of dollars from fees required to go through the same process? Where is the system of elected eagle-eyed students to ensure PSAB or RHC isn’t wasting student money?
It doesn’t matter if the current officers are ethical people who never waste student money. It doesn’t matter if there is a staff member watching over the club. Those people won’t be here forever, and there is no way to guarantee future officers and advisers will be ethical people who would never waste money. That’s why we have the senate allocations process - so 16 peer-selected students can watch over the clubs on behalf of the student population.
It doesn’t matter if the fee is a great idea, or if the activities will be both educational and entertaining to all who attend. It doesn’t matter if the students enjoy having access to laundry all semester.
What matters is the student body has no way to check in on PSAB or RHC. They are two branches of student government who don’t open their budgets for scrutiny like senate does. They get mandatory money from the students but don’t have any accountability for it. They handle - or will handle - over $10,000 per semester in student funding, all by themselves, but don’t have the transparency obligations of a club with a $200 budget.
The Stylus calls for the same accountability from PSAB and RHC as the students get from any club who receives senate allocations. When PSAB was a senate committee, then called Campus Activities Board, we knew how much money they had and what they planned to do. When RHC was a student club, we had access to their line-item budget when they applied for allocations. Let’s go back to that level of transparency.
‘Laundry fee’ incorrect term for charge
It took the Stylus three weeks talking to Ben Dewberry, director of residence life, to find out the term “laundry fee” is a misnomer. More accurately, it should be called the “resident activity fee” because it turns out the laundry portion of the fee is less than a third of the funding.
Dewberry said the average student’s laundry only costs Park University $14.25 per semester, or $3.56 per month per student. The utilities for the laundry room cost $1.31 per month per student. Despite the low cost and the university’s ability to fund it - as evidenced by the free laundry offered this semester - Dewberry said he elected to create a fee to cover it three times over to fund projects in his office and in Residence Hall Council, or RHC.
He decided not to include laundry as an amenity for residential students because “it would have gotten lost in the budget and couldn't be allocated directly back into funding for the students in the residence halls.”
The truth, then, is the fee was never intended to pay for the laundry. It was intended to pay for programming, RHC officer stipends, and other activity-related costs. Why didn’t he say that in the first place?
Laundry fee highlights need for accountability
In fall 2013, a residential student will be paying $100 per semester in activity fees, and $30 of that is allocated directly to two organizations: RHC and Park Student Activities Board, also known as PSAB. Another $20 goes to Park Student Government Association, or senate, to be distributed to the dozens of student organizations on campus.
With 350 resident students, RHC will receive $5,224 per semester -- over 10.5 times their normal allocation. According to senate business manager Saruul Baatartsogt, their allocations requests to senate have been less than $550 per semester, and they have not requested allocations since 2009. They haven’t requested special funding since 2011. If they haven’t needed operational money in four years and special funding in two, why do they need over $10,000 next year?
The student clubs who receive allocations from senate go through a strict process: they have to seek adviser approval and apply with a line-item budget before an early deadline. Then, club officers meet with the senate financial committee to talk about their plans and defend each line on their budget. They must have plans for fundraising and providing programming for the general student population, not just their own members. They must have plans for community service. After this meeting, a club officer must show up to the general assembly to explain the budget again, hear the committee’s funding recommendations, and defend any items which were denied. Any guest of the general assembly may also give an opinion. Finally, the general assembly votes yay or nay, and the decision is final. Sometimes the club gets what they asked for. Sometimes they get some of what they wanted, and sometimes they’re denied.
Even senate’s own budget undergoes this process. Each committee makes a budget and goes through the process like a club. Their budgets are explained in the general assembly so any Park community member can voice concern.
If a little student organization asking for a couple hundred bucks has to go through a weeks-long process of enduring line-item scrutiny and defending their budget from critical eyes, why aren’t the organizations receiving thousands of dollars from fees required to go through the same process? Where is the system of elected eagle-eyed students to ensure PSAB or RHC isn’t wasting student money?
It doesn’t matter if the current officers are ethical people who never waste student money. It doesn’t matter if there is a staff member watching over the club. Those people won’t be here forever, and there is no way to guarantee future officers and advisers will be ethical people who would never waste money. That’s why we have the senate allocations process - so 16 peer-selected students can watch over the clubs on behalf of the student population.
It doesn’t matter if the fee is a great idea, or if the activities will be both educational and entertaining to all who attend. It doesn’t matter if the students enjoy having access to laundry all semester.
What matters is the student body has no way to check in on PSAB or RHC. They are two branches of student government who don’t open their budgets for scrutiny like senate does. They get mandatory money from the students but don’t have any accountability for it. They handle - or will handle - over $10,000 per semester in student funding, all by themselves, but don’t have the transparency obligations of a club with a $200 budget.
The Stylus calls for the same accountability from PSAB and RHC as the students get from any club who receives senate allocations. When PSAB was a senate committee, then called Campus Activities Board, we knew how much money they had and what they planned to do. When RHC was a student club, we had access to their line-item budget when they applied for allocations. Let’s go back to that level of transparency.