On October 8, The Post published a letter from Director of Intercollegiate Athletics, Jim Schaus, who argued at length for the value of Intercollegiate Athletics (ICA). As the leaders of one of the groups that has been critical of the budgetary priority given to Athletics, we would like to respond so that there are no misconceptions about our position.
Few would disagree with the assertion that ICA adds value to a university and contributes to a positive student experience, especially on a residential campus such as our own. However, these are challenging budgetary times and the financial choices that we face in the next few years will be more severe than those we have already made. In such a moment, it is imperative that Ohio University remains focused on its core academic mission and priorities as we enter into painful discussions and difficult decisions.
Many on campus, among them faculty, deans, staff and students, have been critical of the special treatment ICA has received in recent years. Despite the fact that ICA is barely mentioned in Vision Ohio, it has fared better than other top priorities that have either been partially funded or simply ignored. Indeed, this special treatment is a large reason why Vision Ohio lacks credibility as a meaningful statement of university priorities, let alone a strategic plan for the university.
Faculty Senate was informed on several occasions by former Provost Kathy Krendl that improvement in faculty compensation was a top Vision Ohio priority. This past year, faculty and other employees received no raises and were hit with a $1.2 million increase in the cost of health insurance. Some may see this as a reasonable sacrifice in difficult economic times.
However, the argument for the necessity of cuts to faculty and staff compensation was undermined in June when Cutler Hall found $1.2 million in new base funding to help ICA decrease its chronic and ever-worsening structural budget deficit. Few failed to notice that the amount designated for ICA was almost exactly equivalent to the amount that Vision Ohio promised for reinvestment in faculty compensation ($1.2 million) or the amount of health care costs that the university shifted to employees. Athletics gained at the expense of the entire campus and at the expense of the goals and credibility of the university's strategic plan, but the campus was never informed of this decision through shared governance bodies such as the Budget Planning Council until it was a done deal.
Mr. Schaus asserts that institutional financial support to Athletics does not take away from academic units
because Athletics is funded by the student general fee, whereas academic units are funded through tuition. Although he is correct, what he neglects to point out is that Ohio University is in control of the relative amounts it charges students for tuition and the general fee. When a significant surplus of funds are available in one area, as was the case last spring when hundreds of thousands of dollars became available from the general fee, the university could decide to rebalance what it charges for tuition and general fee. It did not do so and, thus, ignored an obvious opportunity to fund strategic priorities and the core academic mission.
For several years, the special treatment afforded ICA has lowered morale and become a major stumbling block to decision-making on campus. We have had to make cuts and will continue to do so. It is hard to make difficult decisions that will impact the quality and core mission of the university, when everyone knows that one unit will receive special protection and be allowed to consistently overspend its budget by more and more every year. It is hard to argue with faculty members who ask why they should cut their academic programs when ICA can overspend. Although there are many units on campus, like ICA, that believe the university has not made sufficient investments in their programs, these units can not overspend their annual budget by hundreds of thousands of dollars as ICA has been allowed and encouraged to do.
Mr. Schaus correctly notes that ICA has made some progress in the past year: They have reduced their structural deficit; they have taken budget cuts; and they have less money to spend this year than they did last year. All of this may be true. However, we should not forget that much of the improvement in the ICA budget has come about BECAUSE THEY RECEIVED A CASH INFUSION at the expense of reducing employee compensation and ignoring academic priorities. One of these priorities, the highly successful and popular Arts for Ohio program, was supposed to receive base funding in this year's budget, but was bypassed in favor of Athletics.
We also have reservations about whether ICA has engaged seriously in budget cutting. Our head football coach makes more than double what his predecessor made five years ago. Our athletic director makes 65 percent more than the person who held that position five years ago. Football players are routinely put up in hotels the night before games here on campus. At a time when faculty professional development funds are so low that faculty have to pay for their own hotel rooms to present research at conferences - research required for their jobs at Ohio University - football players are put up courtesy of OU for home games. We hope this type of expenditure is not indicative of day-to-day spending decisions in ICA. But given a chronic budget shortfall, it's too easy to speculate that such instances demonstrate an attitude toward the university's resources that is systemic in ICA.
Although we support the efforts of ICA under Mr. Schaus's leadership to address its serious financial issues, in this budget climate our concerns come down to a simple question about values: do we prioritize Athletics or Academics? The university has already answered with its budget decisions this past year. Unfortunately, the quality of the academic experience students receive is suffering and will continue to do so until the university decides to focus its declining resources on its core academic mission.
This letter was signed by the Faculty Senate Executive Committee, which consists of Chairman Joe McLaughlin, Vice-Chairman David Thomas, Secretary Elizabeth Sayrs, John Gilliom and Tracy Leinbaugh. 4
Opinion
