Recently President Frank announced that the Student Fee Review Board is no longer allowed to allocate athletic or library student fees. Combined, he removed almost $5 million away from the SFRB’s recommendation authority. He wanted to make sure the athletic teams are competitive in the Mountain West Conference so Governor Martinez will attend games.

What exactly does that mean and why did it happen?

 The SFRB is a student led group that was created to make recommendations about how student activity fee dollars should be split amongst various organizations on campus. They make a recommendation to the Strategic Budget Leadership Team. The SBLT ultimately makes the final recommendation for the President’s approval.

Currently 50% of the total student fees are taken out of the SFRB recommendation process for debt obligations. By removing the Athletic and Library fees, the SFRB only has allocation authority over roughly 20% of the total student fees. The remaining 20% is all that is left for every student organization on campus!

The GPSA and ASUNM were startled by this new policy and asked President Frank to wait until November to propose the new policy. They needed time to prepare comments and come up with alternate proposals. President Frank agreed to wait and said “he would not propose something like this during the summer when students were not around to make comments.”

Well… he didn’t do it in the summer! Last month he made a statement that he was removing the fees from the SFRB. No comments would be accepted. He even had the audacity to claim that he never made any type of promise to GPSA or ASUNM!!!

I ask you, how do 2 elected and intelligent members of the student body remember his promise, yet he seems to want us to believe that they are lying? Why would he go back on his promise so quickly and lie to everybody?

Here is a brief timeline of events:

1. February 2014- The Board of Regents state that they believe that the “SFRB is not to be involved in the allocation of athletic or library fees” They should only have jurisdiction over student activities and student government.
2. President Frank says that there is confusion in the SFRB policy and he will work with the GPSA and ASUNM to make a proposal to the Board of Regents in March.
3. March 7- President Frank, GPSA, and ASUNM compose a joint memo to the board of regents stating that they agree to wait until November to make changes in the SFRB process.
4. March 7- VP Krebbs addresses the Board of Regents. He states that student fees make up 13% of the athletic budget. He talks about how important athletics are and that UNM athletic receives the lowest amount of student fee support in the Mountain West Conference. President Frank echo’s his comments and brags that Governor Martinez attended a basketball game.
5. In a letter dated March 28^th, but delivered April 24^th President Frank declares that he is removing the Athletic and Library Fees from the SFRB immediately.

It is clear that broken promises are permitted as long as it gets the Governor to attend a basketball game. Pressure to compete in the Mountain West Conference is an acceptable reason to take away student control of their own money! The Board of Regents and President Frank used the excuse that Athletic and Library fees are mixed with university dollars and therefore are not under the control of the SFRB. The only reason that the Library fees were included was to hide the true reason behind their deceit. They want tailgaters to actually attend the football games.

President Frank needs to acknowledge his lies! He must uphold his original promise and delay the decision until November. He should publicly apologize to the student body.

DOCUMENTATION OF THE EVENTS

Finance & Facilities Committee Minutes February 7, 2014

2) Role of the student fee review board and student fees in the UNM budget presentations. Regent Hosmer made the presentation. Regents’ approval was requested for the role of the student fee review board and student fees in the UNM budget presentations. The proposal on student fees endorses the current policy as it is written, although not always practiced. The request is that when the budget is presented to the Board of Regents, any item to which student fees contribute be presented by the University and not from the students. If the Regents determine that an adjustment to those numbers is appropriate, it is up to the University to decide how that increase is portioned between student fees and University funding. The Library is an example of a unit that is funded with both University funding and student fees. This resolution will also state that it be certain that whatever decisions the SFRB makes about items which are student funded only, such as student government, that they are not touched and that their recommendation stands and flows into the budget appropriately. In response to Regent inquiry regarding the effect on Athletic fees, Regent Hosmer stated that they would hear from the University their recommendation for Athletics fees. When the University brings the budget forward, it would show the funding stream coming from both University funds and student fees into the Athletics stream. If the Regents decided to adjust that, it is then up to the University to determine how that adjustment is applied towards University funding and student fees. Priscila Poliana stated that she believes what Regent Hosmer is proposing is what has been happening. She does believe that Policy 1310 needs to be ratified, and she believes the decisions made by SFRB have historically been accepted with very few differences. Student Government understands the process and is fully aware of it. Regent Gallegos stated that there may be some misunderstanding because procedure has been different from the policy. The only jurisdiction, as far as the SFRB is concerned, will be the matters that are student activities and student government. For entities such as Athletics and Libraries, the SFRB is not to be involved. The administration will recommend to the Regents the funding, whether it be from I&G or student fees, it is to be clear that it is understood what the intent and the result in this proposal is. Isaac Romero stated that the SFRB makes recommendations on all of the student activity fees including Athletics, Libraries, IT, and SHAC. The SFRB recommendation goes to the SBLT, to the President, and the finally the SBLT presents the recommendations to the Regents. That is the process and how it has been. EVP Harris stated that Regents Hosmer’s intent is to clarify that it is the President’s responsibility to bring recommendations forward to the Regents. Regent Gallegos and Regent James expressed confusion with the proposal as there is ambiguity in what the proposal is trying to accomplish. It was originally thought that it was going to reinsure University Administrative Policy 1310 and Regent’s Policy 4.7 that gave the Student Fee Review Board only the ability to make recommendations on student activities and student government, not for Libraries and Athletics. Regent Koch stated that the SFRB review process is rigorous and some areas should not be under the SFRB for budget recommendations. Beverly Kloeppel from Student Health & Counseling stated that she is supportive of the SFRB review process, and that getting feedback from students is important and necessary to keep departments and organizations accountable. Regent Hosmer stated that there is unintended ambiguity in the language of the proposal and did not involve the policy of authority by the SFRB. President Frank stated that this may be a policy issue because there seems to be a source of contention and disappointment around this every year if the SFRB recommendation is not fully accepted. The students put in a vast amount of hours and energy in crafting these recommendations. The process is disproportionate to the SFRB’s ability to influence. There needs to be a review of the current policies and good discussions between the Administration and Student Government. It was also recommended that Elsa Cole from University Counsel review the current policies. The President and the student leaders will review this issue and bring back a new proposal to F&F committee next month. Link to original document:  http://evpadmin.unm.edu/ff-­‐meetings/minutes/minutes-­‐2014/feb-­‐7.pdf

Joint Memo from President Frank, GPSA, and ASUNM with November promise

To: Board of Regents

CC: EVP David Harris, Provost Chaouki T. Abdallah From: Dr. Robert Frank, UNM President, Priscila Poliana, GPSA President, & Isaac Romero, ASUNM President

Date: March 5th, 2014

Subject: Timeline on Policy 1310

At the last Finance & Facilities meeting, on February 7th, 2014, Regents expressed their concerns with respect to the process through which students make recommendations on the allocation of student fees, underlined in Administrative Policy 1310. After that meeting, student leaders spoke to President Frank and asked approval to make recommendations on 1310. Once approval was granted, they called for a special meeting and brainstormed with a diverse group of stakeholders as a means of identifying possible areas of improvement to Policy 1310. The group concluded that a reasonable solution is dependent on (1) clarifying the scope of student input and (2) enhancing the role/participation of our advisors as our mentors throughout this process. With these objectives in mind, the working group produced a revised version of 1310 and presented it to President Frank on February 20th. The core changes proposed are the substitution of the Student Fee Review Board (SFRB) name to Student Fee Advisory Committee (SFAC) and the inclusion of our advisers as voting members in final recommendations. Dr. Frank met with student leaders in several occasions to discuss these proposed changes and look into the best path forward for the student fee recommendation. Both parties agree that any changes on 1310 ought to preserve community input, promote efficiency and advance our University’s mission. As such, our recommendation is that a collaborative working group – with representation from administration, student leaders, and community – be formed to engage in the student fee recommendation process and analyze areas of improvement. As to the timeframe, we concluded that changes during Summer and early Fall would not allow enough time for meaningful input. Consequently, both parties are confident that the collaborative working group can present a thoughtful recommendation to the Board of Regents by November, 2014. As we continue this dialogue, it is worthwhile to remember ASUNM President Mark Hartman (1986-1987) who, in collaboration with administration, in founding the Board described, “The purpose of the Student Fee Advisory Board is to improve communication between the University administration and the student body on issues involving fees. The Board should be used as a means of providing an avenue of student input to the board of Regents, on the collection and uses of student fees.” Attached you’ll find the original Policy.

Sincerely,

President, Robert Frank

GPSA President, Priscila Poliana

ASUNM President, Isaac Romero

Finance & Facilities Committee Minutes, March 7, 2014

8. Presentation of FY15 Athletics Department Budget.Paul Krebs made the presentation. Information was provided to the Regents’ on the FY15 Athletics Department Budget. The mission, core values, and goals were discussed. The graduation rate for Athletics is at 55%, which is higher than the UNM average. When VP Krebs started, there were major issues with academics, and since then they have greatly improved. Student athletes had a record GPA of 3.25 and there are 38 student athletes that have a cumulative GPA of 4.0 or better. Athletics has also had 3 national finishes in Women’s Cross Country, Men’s Cross Country, and Men’s Soccer. UNM is ranked 17th in Learfield Sports. The revenues and expenditures for the Athletics program were discussed. They are good stewards of the money they receive, much of which is donations and gifts in kind. Student fees make up 13% and State funding makes up 8% of the Athletics budget. UNM receives less state funding for athletics than NMSU and we continually try to request a number that is equal to

their state funding, some progress has been made. Regent Koch commented that people don’t realize that Athletics is the largest, except for HSC, in raising private funds from the community. Corporate sponsors are close to $5 million, fundraising is a little over $3 million, gifts in kind are $1.6 million, and we may have another large gift coming in of $1.5 million. On the ticket sales the budgeted revenue it represents 4 components including Men’s and Women’s Basketball at $5 million, Football at $1.9, and $100K for all other sports. The two biggest expenses for Athletics include personnel and grant in aid. Regarding the Mountain West Conference, UNM receives the lowest amount of support from student fees and state funding. Athletics continue to receive support from community because the value of athletics is that they engage the community. Marc Saavedra stated that the money we receive for Athletics comes from individual Legislators Capital Outlay and Severance Tax Bond, and each House member this year received roughly about $800K. UNM Athletics received funding for the weight room, soccer complex, a new van for the ski team, and a few other small projects. The total was close to $2 million for state funding for Athletics. Governor Martinez has been attending games, which is great support for our University and allows for people to engage with the Governor.

Link to original document: http://evpadmin.unm.edu/ff-meetings/minutes/minutes-2014/march-7-14.pdf

Memo from President Frank to GPSA and ASUNM that ignores the November promise made earlier