Student Fee Referendum: March 20-22

("Money - Savings" by 401(K) - 2012 via Flickr)

The Student Government Association (SGA) will hold a student-wide vote on a proposal to raise the mandatory Intercollegiate Athletics Fee on March 20 to 22, according to its website

The proposal, which a team of UT-Tyler administrators presented to SGA on Feb. 6, would raise the mandatory per-semester credit hour (SCH) fee from $16 SCH to $21 SCH over the next three years. It would also raise the per-semester maximum from $240 to $330 over the same three years.

If student voters approve the proposal this spring, then full-time students (15 credit hours) would pay a maximum per-semester of $270 in 2024, $300 in 2025 and $330 in 2026. If the proposal passes, then all students (with some exceptions) would pay a minimum per-semester of $108 in 2024, $120 in 2025 and $132 in 2026.

Voting will begin at midnight on March 20 and end on March 22 at 5 p.m.. Students will receive a link to the ballot from SGA via their patriot email, according to SGA’s website.

During the presentation to student government, Athletics Director Howard Patterson, presenting a comparison between UT-Tyler’s athletics fee and other institutions’, told student government, "There is a need to increase our fee."

He said while UT-Tyler now garners about $3.3 million annually in student fee revenue since the fee’s increase to $16 SCH in 2016, the athletics programs’ expenses have risen since transitioning to NCAA Division II.

"That [$3.3 million annual fee revenue] was wonderful when we were D3. But once you go D2, now you add scholarships, you add that humongous map we have travel to….Our expenses for travel, for transportation, for food and lodging have gone up tremendously," he said.

Patterson also cited the economy as a contributor to expenses.

"This fee [increase] helps decrease the amount of money that the institution is putting into athletics," he said.

In his presentation, Patterson showed the University currently pays roughly $2.4 million annually from designated tuition to subsidize the athletics program. This subsidy is in addition to revenue from both the athletics fee and The Student Services Fee.

However, according to the proposal, if students approve, then the fee increase would reduce the University’s financial subsidy from to $2.4 million annually in FY23 (Fiscal Year 2023) to approximately $1.1 million in FY26. "So there is a positive impact on the institutional funds by this referendum passing," Patterson said.

Currently, the athletics program’s operating revenue is 47 percent athletics fee, 35 percent institutional aid and 18 percent other revenue, Patterson said. If students approve the proposal, then he projects operating revenue to change to 65 percent athletics fee, 17 institutional aid and remain  at 18 percent other revenue by year 2026.

Patterson cited some of the benefits to an athletics program as promotion and enhancement of the UT-Tyler brand, contribution to the traditional college experience, having shared facilities such as the campus gym and PHE available to all students, the creation of job opportunities for students and enhancing student enrollment and funding through The Flutie Effect. The Flutie Effect is a theory that successful sports programs promote the University’s popularity and lead to greater student enrollment and, as a result, greater available funds from tuition and fees.

Patterson also said successful athletics programs contribute to student diversity and promote life-long connections with alumni.

Within student government, both former and current athletes spoke positively about the athletics program in the Feb. 6 meeting.

Student Body President Chloe Dix, a former UT-Tyler athlete, said, "As someone who came to The University of Texas at Tyler wanting to be an athlete…[the University’s D2 status was] a huge difference, one that I made that determined the whole school that I was going to attend."

Senator Allison Schwartz of Honors College, a current tennis player, said, "No [college I visited] felt quite like home, but UT-Tyler did. Seeing the tennis team and how much diversity they bring to this campus was really important to me. I just feel like even though we’re all from different cultures, different countries, we’re a family. I think that is something that is very unique about UT-Tyler."

However, Student Body at Large Senator Robert Bennett asked a number of questions to the administrative team that appeared designed to challenge the team’s narrative about athletics’ cost and to hold the administration accountable for its decisions regarding athletics.

For example, Bennett asked questions like "Do we have any hard data that The Flutie Effect had an impact on our campus?"

Patterson replied, "No."

He also asked, "Could you go a little bit more in-depth about the process in which we went from D3 to D2 and what sort of student feedback we received?"

Patterson replied, "You bet. We got a new president. He said, ‘We’re going D2.’ What else you wanna know?" Patterson said to laughs in the room.

"That’s basically it the way it happened," he said. "He said, ‘We’re going D2.’ I don’t remember doing any focus groups at all. And I know we didn’t talk dollars. Because [Chief Business Officer] Dwain [Morris] has continually asked me, ‘How were you gonna fund this? How were you gonna fund that?’ And I don’t know the answer."

"So it was a unilateral decision made by administration?" Bennett asked.

"I wouldn’t say administration," Patterson replied.  "I would say by a president."

Senior Vice President for Student Success Ona Tolliver, who also attended the meeting with the administrative team, said that, having reported to former UT-Tyler President Michael Tidwell, "the University was prepared to elevate the student experience. That was one of the most significant reasons." She said the University also felt student athletes were "ready for a new challenge" after D3 success. The University started the process towards D2, she said, but "then COVID happened". This had a fiscal impact on the institution and on how students "engage with each other," she said. Only "in the last year and a half" have many students started to feel comfortable gathering with each other again, she said.

During the meeting, Patterson said "I wouldn’t mind having football here. I just don’t see the possibility financially." The minimum investment is $60 million, he said.

When it came time address the question of whether to place the fee proposal on a student ballot, Bennett proposed the assembly table the discussion until members had time to speak with their constituents.

Dix told the assembly, "I don’t want there to be a misconception [that] this is athletes versus non-athletes. At the end of the day, we are all one student body. From my perspective, I would like for all of us to stand up for all of us. I believe all of you are adequate representations of your constituents, whether you feel like it or not. So, more power to you, I guess I’m trying to say. The decision is adequate to be made in this room. I understand speaking to your constituents is always a good idea, but maybe channel that energy into the education that’s been brought to us."

Bennett then moved to table the discussion "and the subsequent two votes you discussed" to Feb. 20 meeting. His motion died for lack of a second. (Meaning, no other member supported his motion.)

SGA Chief Justice Ashlyn Mattern said, "There is no harm in putting it on the ballot." SGA’s chief justice participates in senate discussions. Mattern is a UT System Student Regent applicant.

Senator for Liberty Landing Tyler Paige said, "We should use this time to discuss the issues at hand rather than push them back for another day. We have this time. Let’s use it."

The assembly voted overwhelmingly to advance the fee proposal to a student vote, Bennett being the only visible member in the room who voted against it.

Education & Psychology Sen. Eliza Mercado carried the motion. Dix is also a student regent applicant.

X:@jhescock12

Feature Image: "Money - Savings" by 401(K) - 2012 via Flickr