Let's Put Athletics on the Table

lewleadbeater.com

notes from the edge

Home

Email Me

				THE
Column Archive				VIRGINIA GAZETTE
				WILLIAMSBURG, VIRGINIA
Let’s Put Athletics on the Table				March 9, 2002

As a result of the 6.8 billion dollar shortfall in the state budget over the next 2 ½ years, the College of William and Mary will lose approximately 16.4 million in taxpayer support. To counter this drastic cut in funds, the college has taken nothing less than Draconian measures to meet its goal of a 7% reduction in 2002-03, followed by an 8% reduction in the following year.

According to the “Potential Operating Budget Reductions” emanating from the Provost’s office, 13 faculty positions will be eliminated, faculty research support will be reduced, the masters programs in Psychology and Chemistry will be phased out, and college support for the Muscarelle Museum will cease. In addition, library funds will be reduced by 5%, support for the Bureau of Business Research will be reduced or eliminated, and the college subsidy for the Concert Series will go by the boards. As President Timothy Sullivan said, “Everything is on the table.”

But is it?

For instance, the report suggests eliminating only 12 “staff” positions. “Staff,” of course, includes anything from custodial workers and grounds keepers to librarians to the president himself, though one suspects his position is secure. It also includes a myriad of deans, associate deans, assistant deans, assistants to the deans, assistants to the associate deans and assistants to the assistant deans. In addition to these, there is a plethora of directors, associate directors, assistant directors and all their assistants.

Are all of them “on the table?” Probably not.

But perhaps the biggest chunk of “staff” that is off the table is that which comprises the Athletic Department. This group of well over 100 people consists of directors, coaches, assistant coaches, trainers, sports psychologists, coordinators, marketing specialists, and, of course, a director of business affairs.

To maintain this melange, the aggregate student body pays over 5 million dollars a year, or $884 per person, though this doesn’t begin to cover the cost to the college of running this multi-tentacled program. According to the latest audit of intercollegiate athletics, which was conducted in April of 2001, the cost of sustaining this program is over 9 million dollars, with a $340,460 deficit in the fund balance for the year. Of the two oxymoronically labeled “revenue sports,” men’s football took in $1,705,112, while it expended $2,050,674. Men’s basketball had operating revenues of $647,503, and expended $730,104. The correctly named “non-revenue sports” had total operating revenues of $947,913 and total operating expenditures of $3,436,035.

While there is nothing to indicate that the audit is not on the mark, it does seem to be somewhat tentative. It begins, for instance, with the statement that “we have audited the financial statements of The College of William and Mary…” Later on, however, it indicates that certain “agreed upon procedures” with the college “do not constitute an audit made in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards.” Hence, the auditors “do not express an opinion on any of the accounts or items referred to above.”

Whatever the "agreed upon procedures" are, the numbers seem to be clear. Despite the claim that the athletic program attracts contributions from alumni for scholarships and special projects, such as the new baseball park, it is obvious that this program places a tremendous burden on students who are now paying athletic fees equal to half their tuition. And if proposed tuition hikes go into effect, this burden will be even heavier. More than anything, then, the athletic program should be "on the table.

Even if a fraction of the outrageous student athletic fee went toward things educational and cultural, there would, perhaps, be no need to close the Muscarelle or, for that matter, axe successful graduate programs. Yet, suggestions by faculty members to this effect seem to be going nowhere.

This is not to say, of course, that the college is incapable of scrutinizing and revamping what are potential fiscally unsound programs. In 1999 and 2000, for instance, it launched what was called project ARIA at an estimated cost of 9.5 million dollars. This program, which was meant to replace the outmoded and outdated in-house student information systems, somehow went awry. According to the audit conducted by the Auditor for Public Accounts for 2000, the college was, for various reasons stated in the report, simply insufficiently prepared to carry out the project, and a substantial amount of money was lost, much of it to consulting fees.

However, this program, now called project MAST, has, according to Gary Kreps, the associate Provost, been carefully and successfully reworked. To limit the financial loss, parts of the old project have been incorporated into the new, and within a few years the college should have in place, thanks to new software and a better working relationship with SCT Banner, an administrative system that will link together student information services, financial resources and human resources.

If, then, the college is capable of rescuing itself from financial difficulties with a project such as this, why not put other fiscally questionable programs, such as athletics, on the table for thorough discussion?

The prime mission of the college is to provide its students with the broadest educational and cultural experience possible. Cutting academic programs, eliminating faculty positions and closing museums should be as far away from the table as they can get.