We all know tuition is expensive, but did you know the university is charging you over $1,000 in segregated fees on top of your tuition every year?
The Student Services Finance Committee, a branch of student government, is responsible for dispensing some of this money. SSFC has jurisdiction over a portion of these fees that provide funding for programs like the Associated Students of Madison, bus passes and student organizations.
A lot of students complain segregated fees are too high. For the most part, I agree.
If segregated fees remain at current levels, your typical four-year UW-Madison student will pay an extra $4,000 by the time he graduates.
Yet much of the discussion about maintaining or even reducing segregated fees is focused on student organizations funded through the General Student Services Fund, which represents only a fraction of the $40 million segregated fee budget.
The simple truth of the matter is that GSSF groups and high segregated fees aren't directly correlated.
Historically, SSFC has been so concerned with the ballooning cost of the GSSF because it's one of the few areas in which the committee has authority to limit spending. To prevent the fund from continually increasing, SSFC has tightened the criteria in hopes of denying access to the money. The committee has also distanced itself from many student organizations in the process.
But student organizations are hardly to blame for high segregated fees, even if their budgets number in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
See, the segregated fee debate is surprisingly similar to the federal budget deficit dilemma. Congress and the president can propose cuts to small programs across the board, but we all know the big money is in entitlements and defense spending.
In the same vein, allocable segregated fees that provide money to GSSF groups are the earmarks, while non-allocable segregated fees are the Social Security and Medicaid of our campus. Cutting a bridge to nowhere might be good for symbolism, but it has little impact.
Non-allocable segregated fees make up the brunt of the money tacked on to your tuition—over $32 million in 2010-'11. This money goes toward programs like UW Recreation Sports, the union and University Health Services. They're also under the jurisdiction of the chancellor, with little room for input from SSFC. If we ever want to see our segregated fees decrease, SSFC needs to fight for more authority over the non-allocable budget.
The highly targeted GSSF student organizations, by comparison, accounted for only $1.4 million this year, or 3.5 percent of the total budget. From 2009-'10 to the current year, the total GSSF budget saw an intentional 5 percent reduction, which amounted to a $74,141 cut spread over 17 different student organizations.
ASM's own internal budget costs students more in segregated fees—$1.7 million this year—than all of the GSSF organizations combined. In its defense, a good chunk of that money goes to events grants that benefit many student groups outside the GSSF. Still, ASM's budget increased by 8.9 percent, or $140,145, last year.
Of course, there are the non-allocable student fees, which increased by 5.9 percent this year, or a whopping $1.8 million—completely erasing the savings from any cuts to student organizations.
So who's really to blame for high segregated fees? Obviously non-allocable items cost students a lot, as does student government itself. You can debate the merits of both, but one thing seems abundantly clear: GSSF student organizations are not the big players in the segregated fee game.
SSFC can tweak eligibility requirements and direct service definitions until it's blue in the face, but at the very least, it needs to recognize what's at stake. We're not talking about $40 million; more like $1.4 million.That's about $34 per student in additional fees, or $2 per GSSF group.
So ultimately, SSFC has to ask the tougher questions when it comes to funding student organizations. Yes, we're paying more money in segregated fees, but it's also empowering thousands of students to participate in organizations that can have a profound impact on the rest of their lives.
Is this a worthwhile tradeoff? I think so.
In the past, I've commended SSFC for sticking to its criteria for the sake of uniformity, but I've also questioned some of its specific requirements related to the direct services student organizations provide. In some cases, the criteria are far too prohibitive. In others, they're too ambiguous.
We can't continue to let the segregated fee debate focus on student groups, because they're simply not to blame for high costs.
SSFC needs to open its doors. The committee should reach out to student organizations and communicate with them face-to-face about how best to provide a service to the campus. SSFC should also fight for more authority over the giant non-allocable budget. If that ever happens, students can rest easier knowing their money is being put to good use.
Dan Tollefson is a candidate for the Student Services Finance Committee. You can vote online Monday through Wednesday at asm.wisc.edu.
