After contentious debate, the Student Fee Review Board decided to slightly cut Athletics funding.

According to the unofficial SFRB worksheet, 2.2 percent of last year’s funding is being cut — more than $33,000, or $2.32 per full-time student. However, Athletics relies on about $1.5 million in student fees for just a little over 5 percent of its total budget.

Also, because an enrollment increase is projected for next year, the amount of student fees going to Athletics could potentially increase, as more students equal more student fees.

Before the deliberations, GPSA President and SFRB Chair Lissa Knudsen sent an e-mail addressed to “community leaders” cautioning the board against funding programs that didn’t directly relate to the University’s mission.

“If we invest in programs which support education, we believe the state will see a return on our investment,” she said in the e-mail. “I also believe that investing in programs which do not correlate with retention and graduation rates, in these economic times, would be fiscally irresponsible.”

In a Jan. 29 special election, 86 percent of graduate and professional students voted to recommend that their student fees be diverted from Athletics. As a result, Knudsen suggested cutting the program as much as possible.

“I believe that there are reasons that Athletics should be sent a message with regard to the way that they’ve been using the funding that they’ve been given,” she said. “We still do not have a clear understanding of where Student Fee Review Board money is going. We don’t have an itemized budget. We requested that, and I think the fact that they’re not complying with that request is grounds for probation.”

The SFRB is only allowed, per their policy, to put a program on a 5 percent “probationary” cut. Knudsen cited the Sept. 20 Locksley/Gerald altercation and perceived misuse of student funds as cause for probation.

However, the four undergraduate SFRB representatives opposed the 5 percent cut. ASUNM President Monika Roberts said the benefits of Athletics have been overshadowed by recent events drawing bad publicity.

“Athletics brings a lot to this University. … I fully support Athletics,” she said. “I know there are a lot of bad things going on in Athletics right now, and it seems like that’s what’s getting all the publicity, but if you look at what’s going on, there’s a lot of good things going on.”

Roberts said the successes of the men’s basketball team — which are often sold out at home games — and Ski teams make the case to fully fund Athletics.
Rather than cutting by 5 percent, then, Knudsen then suggested cutting 22 percent of that 5 percent to symbolize the portion of graduate students who didn’t want their fees funding Athletics. Graduate students make up 22 percent of the total UNM student body.

Cole Vertikoff, an undergraduate who sits on the Board in a non-voting capacity, said he’s familiar with many graduate students who attend Lobo games and support Athletics, so a complete withdrawal of graduate student funds might not represent graduate students’ opinions.

“I would want to make sure you’re not alienating the student body. (GPSA) poll results are up to your interpretation,” Vertikoff said. “If no graduate money was going to Athletics, then I would feel that graduate students shouldn’t get free tickets.”

Knudsen corrected Vertikoff’s characterization of the special election as a “poll” before saying that GPSA could create an account solely to give graduate students tickets to sporting events for free.

“This is something that I’ll have to run by the council, but I think it would be a better use of our money to actually pay for those tickets outright,” she said.

“Right now, we’re buying tickets for $1.5 million, which works out to $300 a seat. I think we could use that money a little better.”

The board settled on the 2.2 percent cut, which does not represent a withdrawal of graduate money. Instead, the SFRB methodically cut recurring funding by similar margins in light of the economic crisis.