https://archives.uwp.edu/files/original/15497cc6b47bc7b6f0fa1ebb6ead9e3c.pdf 0a34b7619b44f7684face1e17935e11e Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource University of Wisconsin - Parkside Ranger News Description An account of the resource Student newspaper of UW-Parkside Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Issue Volume 6, issue 20 Headline Used for newspapers, the Headline element describes the main article of the issue. Guskin usurps Seg Fees control Series Number The series number of the original collection. UWPAC124 Ranger News Text Any textual data included in the document 1 Vol. 6...No. 20• 1MIaGuskin .usurpsByRobert HoffmanNews EditorChancellor Alan Cuskin shocked students of the Segregated Feecommittee last Friday when he interpreted the laws governingstudent money allocation in such a way as to take away studentscontrol of over $430,000 of the $521,000 segregated fees budget.(Segfees is that portion of student tuition that is taken to fund variousstudent activities. Currently that figure is $58 per year per full-timestudent). In a decision that Guskin described as having been "retune-tantly taken" the chancellor laid out his plan toremedya situationthat he viewed as giving him, "responsibility but no control".Guskin felt that he was "forced into this reassessment by un-reasonable actions by the Seg . Fees Committee". These'unreasonable' actions were, according to Guskin, the manner inwhich the Seg. Fees Committee handled the Athletic budget and thecommittees refusal to recommend funding of the new Dean of-Student Life position.'AthleticsThe committee added to the athletics budget ($44,000) a noticethat in three years their budget would be zero-based, Zero basedbudgeting is a process in which eaCh program and expense is built upfrom zero. The Chancellor intrepreted the notice as "creating thepossibility that in three years the Athletics. budget will be zero. This issomething that 1 cannot tolerate". Kai Nail, a member of theCommittee and president of the Concerned Student Collective, saidthat "the Chancellor totally misintrepreted the actions of theCommittee. The possibility of the Athletics budget being zero inthree years is zero. We were forced into this action by anunreasonable Regent policy; a policy that even the Chancellor agreesis unreasonable." (The-Board of Regents establishes the policies andrules for governing the UW-System. Two years ago the Regents issueda policy paper that stated that before a university's Athletic budgetcould be zero-based a three-year notice must be given by theuniversity's Seg. Fees Committee). Guskin said that actions by thecommittee "has left us with the distinct impression that therecommendation regarding athletics may reflect either personal biasor political issues on other campuses, or both." The Chancellor alsofelt that the notice had left the Athletic program with problem forfuture planning of its programs and staff.continued on po,e 5,5eg Fees controlChancellor' Alan Guskin interpeted the laws governing student money ollocotion in0way as to take away students control of $430,000. Guskin described the actionas having been 'reluntantly token' but necessary to remedy a situation that heviewed as him, 'res onsibilit but no authorit "North Central evaluates ParksideParks ide's ability to supportgraduate programs was studiedon Wednesday, January 25, whena North Central evaluating teamspent the day evaluatingParkside.The team interviewed divi-sional chairpersons on campus,and a couple.ofteam memberseven spent the noon hour in theUnion Dining Room eating withstudents and asking them whatthey think about Parkside.According to team memberGlen Niemeyer, the students hadno complaints about theIn RussiaIWaS!l,ven thetmpr(!JJ;onfhafyour fo/ice werevery /'ost;/. andprimitive./IIdd"n,r~u;f<. Ourcampu.J cops don'feven c.curr Jvns.'academic atmosphere at Park-side. "The complaintWiSthatthey didn't like being at homewhile attending college; they eatat home, sleep at home, andstudy at home," he said, whileacknowledging that this is alsoParkside's main advantage inthat students here can holddown their jobs while attendingschool. "A community college ishere for students who, for somereason, can't get away fromhome. There are also people whotransfer back to here, becausethey like the smallness," he said.Asked if the current businessYou mea nfh.r fh.yneedno secor,trot all?professor recruttmg marketwould affect Parks Ide's abllJty tosupport a Master of Adrmnutra-ttveSCience (MAS) program, hesaid, "It's a tight market all Over.It's not Just Parks Ide's problem"Ben Creenebaum ASSOCiateProfessor-Physics and tn chargeof developing Parks Ide's masterprograms, said that althoughbusiness professors eve gettingexpensive, "we're prepared tomake the market if we - fmdsomeone we really want"The advantage of havmg agraduate bustness school, it wasmentioned,'50that Parks idewould get professorsInthegraduate business school whowould also teach undergrad-uates.Before the team left Parksidelast Thursday, they met privatelywith Chancellor Cuskin todiscuss their tentative findings.The team's ftnat report will notbe made public until April, whenRangerwillsummarize it in print.Vol. 6,-No. 2 Wed d y, b a I 97 Guskin · usurps ' Seg Fees control By Robert Hoffman News Editor Chancellor Alan Guskin shocked students of the Segregated Fee committee last Friday vyhen he interpreted the laws governing student money allocation in such a way as to take away students control of over $430,000 of the $521,000 segregated fees budget. (Seg. fees is that portion of student tuition that is taken to fund various student activities. Currently that figure is $58 per year per full-time student). In a decision that Guskin described as having been "relunc-tantly take~" the chancellor laid out his plan fo remedy a situation that he viewed as giving him, "responsibility but no control". Guskin felt that he was "forced into this reassessment by un-reasonable actions by the Seg. Fees Committee". These 'unreasonable' actions were, according to Guskin, the manner in which the Seg. Fees Committee handled the Athletic budget and the committees refusal to recommend funding of the new Dean of ,Student Life position. ' Athletics The committee added to the athletics budget ($44,000) a notice tnat in three years their budget would be zero-based. Zero based budgeting is a process in which each program and expense is built up from zero. The Chancellor intrepreted the notice as "creating the possibility that in three years the Athletics.budget will be zero. This is something that I c;annot tolerate". Kai Nall, a member of the Committee and president of the Concerned Student Collective, said that "the Chancellor totally misintrepreted the actions of the Committee. The possibility of the Athletics budget being zero m three years is zero. We were forced into this action by an unreasonable Regent policy; a policy that even the Chancellor agrees 1s unreasonable." (The-Board of Regents establishes the policies and rules for governing the UW-System. Two years ago the Regents issued a policy paper that stated that before a university's Athletic budget could be zero-based a three-year notice must be given by the university's Seg. Fees Committee). Guskin said that actions by the committee "has left us with the distinct impression that the recommendation regarding athletics may reflect either personal bias or political issues on other campuses, or both." The Chancellor also felt that the notice had left the Athletic program with problem for future planning of its programs and staff. continued on page 5 Chancellor Alon Guskin interpeted the lows governing student money allocation in 0 way as to toke away students control of $430,000. Guskin described the action as having been 'reluntantly taken' but necessary to remedy a situation that he viewed as him, 'res onsibilit but no authorit '. North Central evaluates Parkside Parkside's ability to support graduate programs was studied on Wednesday, January 25, when a North Central evaluating team spent the day evaluating Parkside. The team interviewed divi-sional chairpersons on campus, Rus.s/a I 3/ven the tmpress;on fhof your fol/ce were very ho.sMe and primifive. I and a couple of team members even spent the noon hour in the Union Dining Room eating with students and asking them what they think about Parkside. According to team member Glen Niemeyer, the students haa no complaints about the /le ltde, nof iu/fe. Our Campus cops don 'f even carry 3vns.' academic atmosphere at Park-side. "The complaint WilS that they didn't like being at home while attending college; they eat at home, sleep at home, and study at home," he said, while acknowledging that this is also Parkside's main advantage in You me.an fhot fhe y need no se.cur, fy af all? I that students here can hold down their jobs while attending school. "A community college is here for students who, for some reason, can't get away from home. There are also people who transfer back to here, because they like the smallness," he said. Asked if the current business prof s or r cruit,n mark t would aff t Park 1d ' b1lit to support a Ma ter of dminl'tra-tive cience (MA ) program, he said, "Its a tight mark tall ov r. It's not JU t Park 1d ' probl m." Ben Green baum As o ,ate Professor-Phy ics and in charge of developing Park 1de's mast r programs, aid that although business profe sors are getting expensive, "we're prepared to mak~ the market ,f we -find someone we really want." The advantage of having a graduate business school, 1t was mentioned, 1s that Parkside would get profes ors in the graduate business school who would also teach undergrad-uates. Before the team left Parkside last Thursday, they met privately with Chancellor Guskin to discuss their tentative findings. The team's finat report will not be made public until April, when Ranger will summarize it in print. Wednesday, February 8. 19182e9 Fee .Editor's Note: The following is the prepored stotement Chancellor Alan Guskin delivered tofmembers of theSegergated University Fees Allocation Committee.For the 1978-79segregated fee budget, our major concerns are segregated feeallocations, it is my judgment that students havenotwithfunding levels. but rather with policy considerations the responsibility for developing segregated fee attocations thatthat directly involve a clarification of the roles and affect those programs that have been traditionally defined to beresponsibilities of the Chancellor and students as related to the student activities, t.e., student government, student newspaper,determination of the segregated fee allocations. The budget student programs. These are areas in wllich students, for thesubmission recommended by the Segregated Fee Committee most part, can act independentiy of urnversny staff members.and student government takes issue with the following:On the other hand, the Chancellor will have responsibility fora, An administrative reorganization that has been accom- developing thestudent segregated fee allocations in the areas ofplished within the dollars recommended by the student administration and operational staffing and in those areas incommittee (in fact,withfewer dollars).which University staff members develope program activities forb. The continuation of one of the most successful campus students, Le., athletics, intramurals, housing, and health.programs _ the athletic program. The committee, without Of the 16 programs that make up the attached administratively-anyspecific justification, has requested the possibility of a recommended segregated fee budget, eight are viewed as beingzero athletic budget within a three year period. In fact, essential components of a complete university program and,members of the committee gavehigh marks to the Athletic therefore, their maintenance is judged to be important for theDirector for the program and then, inexpiicably, voted health of the university. These budgets have been developed byagainst the very program they seemingly supported. This the Chancellor in consultation with students.has left us with the distinct impression that the recom- Theremaining eight pregrams arejudged to be primarily studentmendation regarding athletics may reflect either personal activities, i.e., activities in which students act independently ofbias or political issues onother campuses, orboth. We can- University staff members and, therefore, the responsibility fornot accept this reqommendation regarding a thedeveiopment of these budgets rests with the Segregated FeeUniversity-wide program Which not only serves some 300 Committee and student government in consultation with thestudents directiy, but many hundreds, and probably Chancellor. it should be noted, however, that the Chancellorthousands, indirectly.Itmay be that the athletic program reserves the right to make the final determination, subject toservesmore students than anyother non-academic program Board approval, on the total segregated fee budget and the totalat the University.amount allocated to the area defined as student activities.We cannot accept either of these recommendations. Moreover, The two sets of programs are:thedeliberations that produced these recommendations haveled AreasRequiring Continuing Support for Compiete Universityus to seriously reassess the relationship between the studentProgramsegregated fee committee and the administration, or, more Debt Servicespecifically, the Chancelior. Aclarification of responsibilities of Union Operationsthe Chancelior and the students-is in order.HealthCisrificafion of the Roles snd Responsibilifies of the ChancellorAthleticsand StudentsasRelated to the Determination ot Segregated FeeIntramuralsBudgetsBuilding CostsThis clarification will be based upon those sections of the Housingstatutes which deal with "the Chancellor" and "Students." The Child Care CenterChancellor, under 36.09(3), SUbject to Board policy and inAreas DefinedasStudent Activitiesconsultation with the faculty, ..... shall be responsible for... Performing Arts&Lecturesadministering associated auxiliary services; and administering Programming - Unionall funds, from whatever source, allocated, generated, or Parkside Activities Board ProgrammingIntended for use of their institution."Parkside Student Government AssociationAccording to 36.09(5), "Students, in consultation with the Segregated University Fees CommitteeChancellor and subject to the final confirmation of the Board, Student Group Supportshall havethe responsibility for the disposition of those student Student Coalitionfees which constitute substantial support for campus student Student Newspaperactivities."Budget Allocation Plan Recommendationior1978-79Following these sections, our clarification of roles and respon- The budget recommended by the administration, in addition tosibilities is:the above clarification of responsibilities, recommends $20,650a. The Chancellor has a fundamental role and responsibility less than the student-recommended budget with a$120fee levelfor the allocation and administration of all campus re- instead of the $125.50 requested by the student plan. 'All of thesources and programs, including those funded by student reductions that have led to the saving of $20,650 are in thosesegregated tees.programs judged to be administrative responsibility. The planb. Subject to Board approval, students shall have set forth by the administration wili approve the levelsresponsibility for developing that portion of those seg- recommended by the Segregated FeeCommittee for the studentregated student fees which constitute substantial support activity programs, which students have the responsibility forfor campus student activities. This shallbedone in con- developing.sultation with the Chancellor.c. SUbject to Board approval, the Chancellor shall have re-sponsibility for the maintenance of a complete universityprogram necessary for the health of the university as awhole. Therefore, a budget for those areas funded fromsegregated fees but requiring continued maintenance forthe health of the university shall be developed by theChancellor in consultation with students.Although student advice will continue to be sought on all(Itshould be noted that the administration has considerable~oncern about some of the budgets within those areas which arelisted, as stude~t activities.' We feel that some activities havequestionably high levels of support given general studentInteres,t,and others havelower support than they should. We areaccepting the budget in these areas as proposed by theSegrega,ted Fee Committee and the student government as agood f,alth.m3asureof our intent to implement the distinctions.madeIntrus memorandum.ADMINISTRATIVE PLAN SEGREGATEDFEES 1978/79'rlury Responsibility77/7878179PSGA RceOl'llllendedAdMin. ~~ReguestAdmlnistrlltive•BUdget01ffereneePositionXDebt Service$100,000$105,500$105.500XPerforming ArtstLee.8.0008,512$105.500-,Acc.ent on Enr! ehment8.000-a.oeoXSubsrdy4.500$ -4,500Union Operations171,000218,599-o-XProgr ..... lng9.00013,1602D't,OOO- 9,60019/j, /j00XPAl PROGRAM15,00012, SOD12,500XHealth22,33920,000XAthletics22,600H.IOe30,000- 3,10020.000XIntr_uriillh44,00049.00044.00026,90030,20035,04132.30044.000XOS'"4,5004,85032,300XSUFAl: - AdIlIln. Support3,500X22,000*-0-5003,500Child CAre Center4,40012.522500XBuildIng Costs6,0001,6002,8502,8506,000XStudent Groups17.05020,0002,850XStudent Coalition2.9508.91318.25018,250XStudent Newsp.per11,00010,5657,4007.400XHousing13,00010,70015.26012.70013.000- 3.4509,250$474.000$560.219S525.000$-20,650!\evenlJll!lS'iM 351)SllI!'aMIrSession$u.eccS 41,800Ac.doIlIllc Yur$'-t,800432.200515.600483.200$ 41,800<,"t."'462.550134125.50'20Wednesday, February 8, 1978 eg Fee Editor's Note: The following is the prepared statement Chancellor Alon Guskin delivered to members of the Segergoted University Fees Allocation Committee. For the 1978-79 segregated fee budget, our major concerns are not with funding levels, but rather with policy considerations that directly involve a clarification of the roles and responsibilities of the Chancellor and students as related to the determination of the segregated fee allocations. The budget submission recommended by the Segregated Fee Committee and student government takes issue with the following: a. An administrative reorganization that has been accom-plished within the dollars recommended by the student committee (in fact, with fewer dollars). b. The continuation of one of the most successful campus programs -the athletic program. The committee, without any specific justification, has requested the possibility of a zero athletic budget within a three year period. In fact, members of the committee gave high marks to the Athletic Director for the program and then, inexplicably, voted against the very program they seemingly supported. This has left us with the distinct impression that the recom-mendation regarding athletics may reflect either personal bias or political issues on other campuses, or both. We can-not accept this recommendation regarding a University-wide program which not only serves some 300 students directly, but many hundreds, and probably thousands, indirectly. It may be that the athletic program serves more students than any other non-academic program at the University. We cannot accept either of these recommendations. Moreover, the deliberations that produced these recommendations have led us to seriously reassess the relationship between the student segregated fee committee and the administration, or, more spec1f1cally, the Chancellor. A clarification of responsibilities of the Chancellor and the students,is in order. Clarification of the Roles and Responsibilities of the Chancellor and Students as Related to the Determination of Segregated Fee Budgets This clarification will be based upon those sections of the statutes which deal with "the Chancellor" and "Students." The Chancellor, under 36.09(3), subject to Board policy and in consultation with the faculty, " ... shall be responsible for ... administering associated auxiliary services; and administering all funds, from whatever source, allocated, generated, or intended for use of their institution." According to 36.09(5), "Students, in consultation with the Chancellor and subject to the final confirmation of the Board shall have the responsibility for the disposition of those student fees which constitute substantial support for campus student activities.'' Following these sections, our clarification of roles and respon-sibilities is: a. The Chancellor has a fundamental role aAd responsibility for the allocation and administration of all campus re-sources and programs, including those funded by student segregated fees. b. Subject to Board approval, students shall have responsibility for developing that portion of those seg-regated student fees which constitute substantial support for campus student activities. This shall be done in con-sultation with the Chancellor. c. Subject to Board approval, the Chancellor shall have re-sponsibility for the maintenance of a complete university program necessary for the health of the university as a whole. Therefore, a budget for those areas funded from segregated fees but requiring continued maintenance for the health of the university shall be developed by the Chancellor in consultation with students. Although student advice will continue to be sought on all segregated fee allocations, it is my judgment that stud~nts have the responsibility for developing segregated fee allocations that affect those programs that have been traditionally defined to be student activities, i.e., student government, student newspaper, student programs. These are areas in which students, for the most part, can act independently of University staff ~~~bers. On the other hand, the Chancellor will have respons1b1hty for developing the student segregated fee allocati~ns in the areas ?f administration and operational staffing and rn those areas rn which University staff members develope program activities for students, i.e., athletics, intramurals, housing, and health. Of the 16 programs that make up the attached administratively-recommended segregated fee budget, eight are viewed as being essential components of a complete university program and, therefore, their maintenance is judged to be important for the health of the university. These budgets have been developed by the Chancellor in consultation with students. The remaining eight programs are judged to be primarily student activities, i.e., activities in which students act independently of University staff members and, therefore, the responsibility for the development of these budgets rests with the Segregated Fee Committee and student government in consultation with the Chancellor. It should be noted, however, that the Chancellor reserves the right to make the final determination, subject to Board approval, on the total segregated fee budget and the total amount allocated to the area defined as student activities. The two sets of programs are: Areas Requiring Continuing Support for Complete University Program Debt Service Union Operations Health Athletics lntramurals Building Costs Housing Child Care Center Areas Defined as Student Activities Performing Arts & Lectures Programming -Union Parkside Activities Board Programming Parkside Student Government Association Segregated University Fees Committee Student Group Support Student Coalition Student Newspaper Budget Allocation Plan Recommendation ;or 1978-79 .. The budget recommended by the administration, in addition to the above clarification of responsibilities, recommends $20,650 less than the student-recommended budget with a $120 fee level instead of the $125.50 requested by the student plan. All of the reductions that have led to the saving of $20,650 are in those programs judged to be administrative responsibility. The plan set forth by the administration will approve the levels recommended by the Segregated Fee Committee for the student activity programs, which students have the responsibility for developing. It should be noted that the administration has considerable concern abou1. some of the budgets within those areas which are listed. as stucie~t activities. We feel that some ~ctivities have ~uest1onably high levels of support given general student mteres_t, and others have lower support than they should. we are accepting the budget in these areas as proposed by the Segrega_ted Fee Committee and the student government as a good f_a1th _m~asure of our intent to implement the distinctions made in this memorandum. AOHIN_'..5TRATIVE PLAN SEGREGATED FEES 1978/79 Prl ry Respor,s I bl 11 ty 77/78 78/79 PSGA Rcconmended Adollft, ~ ~ Request Budget 01 fference Administrative Posit I on X Debt Service $100,000 $105,500 X Perfor:,I ng Arts & lee. 8,000 8,512 $ 105,500 $105,500 Accent on Enrichment 8,000 8,000 X Subs I dy 4,500 $ -4,500 Union Operations 171,000 218,599 -o-X Progra Ing 9,000 13,160 204,ooo -9,600 194,400 X PAS PROGRAII 15,000 22,339 12,500 12,500 X Health 22,600 33,108 20,000 20,000 X Athletics 44,ooo 49,000 30,000 • 3,100 26,900 X lntr• urals 30,200 35,041 44,ooo 44,ooo X PSCA li,500 4,850 32,300 32,300 X SUFAC -A.-ln. Support 3,500 X 22,000* -o-500 3,500 C lld Care Center 4,400 500 X Bui I ding Costs 12,522 6,000 1,600 2,850 2,850 6,000 X Student Groups 17,050 20,000 18,250 2,850 X Student Coa 11 t Ion 2,950 8,913 18,250 X Student ·ewspaper 11,000 10,565 7,400 7,400 X Housing 13,000 10,700 15,260 12,700 13,000 -3,450 9,250 S474,ooo $560,219 $525,000 $-20,650 S<;n4. 35? ~evenue s r Session s •1.eoo $ 41,800 Aude•lc Year $ Ji.1,800 li32, 200 515,600 • 483,200 $ 41,800 ~t. 116 462,550 134 125. 50 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The Parkside Ranger, Volume 6, issue 20, February 8, 1978 Description An account of the resource Student newspaper of the University of Wisconsin-Parkside, Kenosha, Wis. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1978-02-08 Subject The topic of the resource College student newspapers and periodicals Student publications University of Wisconsin-Parkside--Newspapers Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Newspaper Language A language of the resource English Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Kenosha, Wisconsin Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available University of Wisconsin-Parkside Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource The Board of Regents of the University Wisconsin System chancellor alan guskin faculty graduate programs segregated fees segregated university fee allocation committee (SUFAC)