The Provost and the Fee Review Committee have got it wrong. And when I say wrong, I mean dead wrong.
As reported in Technician last Friday, “the committee will be voting on fee increase requests with a new ballot, in which the academic fees will be separated from nonacademic fees. “‘The provost does not want any academic fees to compete with any nonacademic fees,’ Tom Stafford, co-chair and vice chancellor for student affairs, said.”
What is an academic fee? There is no such thing. A “such thing” would violate University of North Carolina System policy. There are only student fees. Shall I quote the laws of the UNC Board of Governors? Yes, please. According to the UNC Policy Manual, Chapter 1000 Tuition and Fees, Section 1, Tuition Rates, Subsection 1, Establishing Tuition and Fees, Roman numeral 2, Establishing Fees: “Fees will be charged only for limited, dedicated purposes and shall NOT be used to defray the costs of general academic and administrative operations of campuses.” I added the capitalization for emphasis.
The Fee Review Committee got it wrong and will violate UNC policies if they move forward. The Educational and Technology Fee, the so-called “academic fee” must be considered with all the other fees. And any requests for student fee increases must fall within the 6.5 percent cap on tuition and fee increases set by the Board of Governors.
The ETF is to be used by colleges and schools to equip and operate computing and scientific laboratories which supplement classroom instruction. In the past I have characterized the ETF as slush fund. The provost’s office has a vested interest in the ETF, as it gives it control of 26 percent of the required student fee money. The ETF fee is the largest student fee at an astonishing $371 per year.
This is not Nielsen’s first misinterpretation of UNC policy. If you have been following state news, you know that Provost Larry Nielsen is having a rough time as of late.
UNC President Erskine Bowles placed sole blame for the Mary Easley salary increase debacle at the feet of the Provost. It doesn’t stop there – the N.C. State faculty are disappointed with him because Easley was never vetted by the traditional academic processes. There is also friction surrounding Easley’s salary, which is higher than 97 percent of all NCSU faculty and administrators.
On top of that, it was revealed that since 2002 the University has been violating the UNC policy that governs faculty and administrator salary adjustments. Apparently the Provost’s Office processed more than 1000 pay increases without the approval of the UNC Board.
How did those who are ultimately responsible for the University’s affairs handle the Easley controversy and salary-gate? Hannah Gage, chair of the UNC Board of Governors, told Bowles and the 16 chancellors to get their act together and “get our fiscal house in order.” Chancellor James Oblinger’s (the provost’s superior) punishment? A 7.46 percent raise for an embarrassing $420,000 a year. And what about Oblinger’s boss, Bowles? He will get a three percent increase to an annual sum of more than $477,000. This doesn’t seem like an appropriate response by the people’s university at a time when the people are hurting.
E-mail Andrew your thoughts on the Fee Review Committee to letters@technicianonline.com.
