On Oct. 25, students at UTSA will be able to vote on a proposed referendum that aims to increase the mandatory athletics fee. The proposal would increase the fee by $1.50 per credit hour for the next five academic years. The fee is currently capped at 12 credit hours with a maximum fee of $240; the proposed increase would raise the maximum fee to $330 for those taking 12 credit hours.
Roadrunners do not have the best track record when it comes to passing fee increase proposals — the last time an athletics fee increase was put to vote, students overwhelmingly voted it down.
It seems like this time may be no different, with many Roadrunners questioning why they cannot vote to “use their tuition on things that matter.” Issues with campus services, parking, outdated facilities and low department funding have been cited as topics of interest when it comes to the allocation of additional funding — with athletics being noticeably absent from pressing issues.
This fee increase comes at a time when college students are burdened with high tuition costs and living expenses. Most struggle to pay tuition and rely on government or private loans, or work in addition to their classes to offset the cost. Why should athletics receive more of this money intended to assist with student’s education?
The answer to this question is simple: they should not. While this initiative boasts the potential benefits of an increase in funding for athletics, most of these benefits are purely hypothetical and built on the assumption that more funding will bring more success.
Additionally, there has been no breakdown provided on where this additional funding will be used. Yes, it has been stated that the funding will benefit all athletic programs and other spirit organizations such as ROTC and SOSA; however, we do not know how much funding will go to each program. 90% of it could go to football, and the other 10% could be divided up into all the other programs.
Overall, the proposed athletics fee increase is being presented with a lot of fluff and little substance about the purpose of the funds or the actual benefits it will provide. If UTSA really wants everyone to win, more needs to be disclosed about how everyone will win. Roadrunners want to know how their money will be spent, who will receive it and see benefits as a result. As it stands, the proposal is tone-deaf, vague and fails to provide an actual, tangible reason why Roadrunners should support it. In its current state, Roadrunners should not approve the athletics fee increase until the university reveals this information and explains exactly how your money will be spent to further your experience at UTSA.
Voting for the proposed fee increase will take place from 8 a.m. Oct. 25 to 11:50 p.m. Oct. 26 on rowdylink.utsa.edu.
Camerino I. Salazar, MS • Oct 26, 2023 at 9:52 pm
I agree with The Paisano’s editorial to vote No on the proposed athletic fee.
I am also writing to inquire if The Paisano has looked into UTSA outsourcing its environmental services staff to save “costs.” – I recall during a graduate course I was taking one evening in the fall of 2019, my professor remarked on how disappointing it was that UTSA elected to outsource these services.
Search for the following, and you will see what I am writing “MS Building custodial services transfers to ABM, effective January 2, 2019 – UTSA Facilities.”
So UTSA would like more money but not money to pay staff who make some of the lowest wages, to begin with.
Additional documentation makes evident that such services are no longer paid by the state, which for employees means no Teachers’s Retirement or other benefits that UTSA administrators and staff receive.
So then, these former UTSA employees are now paid by a national janitorial company that probably pays lower wages and benefits. So, who suffers? As usual, those who are not able to advocate for themselves.
Yet, Campos, who makes almost half a million a year, is asking students with loans to go ahead and “pay up” because if they do, everyone wins! Well, that is bogus; the ones who will benefit from these fees include Campos, the third highest-paid employee at UTSA.
Search for “open payroll,” and you can find her salary, around $462 thousand a year.
UTSA should consider asking administrators to pony up and who can stand to take a pay cut to support athletic fees.
Institutions of higher learning should be in the business of reducing inequality, not making it worse.
Camerino I. Salazar, M.S.
Graduate Student