Daily Egyptian Politics Editor

The Undergraduate Student Government rejected a resolution opposing an increase in the student athletic fee after hearing from administrators and members of the largest student attendance in a year.

SIUC Chancellor Donald Beggs addressed the Student Senate and a crowd of about 70 rowdy students, most of whom opposed the athletic fee increase, and explained the background of the proposal.

Members of the raucous crowd occasionally yelled sarcastic comments as Beggs told about the Athletic Department’s $380,000 deficit that partly resulted from a lack of an increase in the athletic fee for 10 years.

Another factor in the deficit was an Illinois Board of Higher Education recommendation that all state-funded universities stop using state-allocated money for athletics. Though the plan never was approved formally by IBHE, SIUC heeded the recommendation and removed state dollars from the Athletic Department’s budget.

Instead, student money in form of a fee was instituted to pay for student athletic expenditures. The fee was initiated with a condition that the Athletic Department not ask for an increase unless necessary.

Last spring, the University proposed an $80, four-year increase to bring the Athletic Department out of its deficit and provide more scholarship funding for athletes.

After the spring student government elections, USG President Dave Vingren, Graduate and Professional Student Council President Tim Hoerman, SIUC Student Trustee Pat Kelly, former GPSC president Mark Terry and GPSC Vice President Ed Ford launched a campaign to quash the fee increase.

In June, SIU President Ted Sanders and SIUC Chancellor Donald Beggs compromised with the student leaders. In exchange for a $20 fee increase, the administration promised a campus-wide study of the athletic fee. However, at the June Board of Trustees meeting, the compromise was tossed to the wind when the board voted to approve the increase.

Since that time, Beggs studied the Athletic Department’s budget and developed parameters within which the department should operate. Now, a $60 increase over four years is being touted by administrators and some student leaders as a victory in reducing the athletic fee increase.

However, USG Evergreen Terrace Senator Chet Lunsford, who sponsored the bill to oppose the fee increase, said student concerns had not been fully incorporated by both student government and administration.

Lunsford, who also has opposed the fee increase since it was proposed last spring, was backed by the majority of the audience, which became more vocal with each passing minute.

Athletic Department Director Jim Hart also spoke to the crowd, telling them of the strong correlation of University athletics and school pride.

You may scoff at that now, but you will find that may change after you’ve graduated, he said.

Hart also said the Athletic Department would not get additional fee increases after the four-year increase except to compensate for inflation.

After the presentation, USG Vice President Megan Moore opened the floor for concerned parties to voice their opinions of the fee increase and query Beggs and Hart.

Brent Jason, a senior in engineering from Algonquin, said the quality of SIUC athletes is low to mediocre.

A lot of athletes who come here finish here, he said. They are not that talented. It seems like a waste of money to me.

The crowd cheered at Jason’s remarks, and Moore repeatedly banged her gavel in an attempt to return order to the meeting.

Carla Lunsford, wife of Chet and a junior in hotel-restaurant management from Rockford, explained to Beggs the hardship of paying increased fees.

I have to work two jobs to go to school, she said, When I get behind on my bills, it gets tough. I would gladly pay to go see the Salukis play if it meant a reduced athletic fee.

About 15 members of the audience expressed their dissatisfaction with the fee increase before one student defended it.

Andy Bosak, an exercise science major from St. Catharine’s, Ontario, and member of the men’s track and field and cross country teams, said he owed his education to the Athletic Department and chastised the crowd for its complaints.

A lot of you I’ve seen in the bars on the weekends, he said. The athletic fee is probably less than what you’ve spent on booze.

The crowd, which previously had bordered on rude behavior, came unglued and began vehemently booing Bosak’s words.

Several other students voiced complaints, until Rob Taylor, a spokesman for Students Organized Against the Athletic Fee increase, began attacking Vingren and the majority Action Party in USG for reneging on campaign promises.

They were promising us a better deal, but we didn’t get it, he said.

Taylor became increasingly frenzied as he accused Vingren of selling out the undergraduate student body and not holding administrators to the campus-wide study in the defunct June compromise.

Taylor then left the room, and was followed by Vingren. Vingren said he told Taylor that he wanted to respond to the criticism.

I think that’s extremely weak, the fact that he stood up there and criticized me with harsh words, and then bolted, Vingren said. He was too weak to face me.

Hoerman then spoke in Vingren’s defense, and praised him for his work for USG.

Dave Vingren has, as far as I can tell, upheld every campaign promise, he said. People who are complaining need to open their eyes and see what’s going on.

Vingren, in his presidential address, urged the Senate to reject Lunsford’s proposal while declaring his own distaste for a fee increase.

This isn’t something I cuddle up with in my bed and drool over, he said.

Vingren also told the senate and the audience that student activism would better serve issues of academic advisement, technology improvements and landlord-tenant relations.

When the resolution finally reached the floor, nearly 2 1/2 hours after the meeting began, additional debate began.

Lunsford, who had until that point emotionally called countless points of order and information through the various phases of the meeting, calmly argued for his bill while noting his disappointment in the dissolution of the June compromise.

I’ve been lied to, he said. I can’t figure out who it is, but I’ve been lied to. I didn’t sit in the inner circle, but I shared their pain when the Board of Trustees approved the increase.

He concluded his argument with condemnation of rejecting his resolution.

If you oppose this, you are saying you are in favor of a fee increase. I strongly urge you to vote in favor of this resolution.

Mark Terry who was allowed to rebut the argument by the senate, called the opposition to the increase a wasted effort and urged the senate and student activists to follow Vingren’s advice and concentrate on other issues. He also chided the protesters’ actions.

I admire their idealism as I do in small children, he said.

Finally debate ended, and voting was at hand. Lunsford spearheaded a motion for a roll-call vote, which narrowly passed.

The Senate finally voted 14-8 with one abstention to oppose Lunsford’s legislation.

Lunsford said he was disappointed by the outcome.

Students shouldn’t have to stand for this fee increase, he said. The senate seems to have ignored many of its constituents.

Vingren said he was content with the decision, after the tumultuous, marathon meeting.

I’m glad we are able to move on to higher priorities, he said.