Tomorrow and Tuesday students at USU will vote on whether to substantially raise the mandatory athletics fee paid with tuition. The proposed increase undermines the central mission of Utah’s land grant university- to provide the children of Utah’s rural, working and middle class families with an empowering education at a research intensive University.  That mission has blessed hundreds of thousands of lives directly and millions indirectly.

Save the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day  Saints, no other institution has had such a profound influence for good and improvement in my family’s history. On my father’s side, my Dad was the first college graduate in the Grover family in nearly four centuries in this country.  On my mothers side, my great Grandfather, Lyman Rich, was a professor at USU who revolutionized the dairy industry.  Both of my maternal grandparents are USU grads.  My grandpa ran a construction company that built Romney Stadium, the Spectrum and the Fine Arts Center.   Both of my parents attended USU.  All of my siblings have or will graduate from USU.  My wife is also an Aggie. Since graduation, I have donated time and money to USU.  I hope that my children will also have the opportunity to attend USU.   If a geneticist were to map my DNA, it would map as follows: T-R-U-E-A-G-G-I-E.

It is those ties to USU that has me worried every time I hear about a fee increase. Every fee increase at USU makes a college education less accessible to rural, working and middle class Utahns.  Accessible college education is the foundation of our economy.  It is also the most probable means to individuals achieving the American dream. USU has been empowering individuals who have limited financial resources since 1888.  Like many of you, I paid my way through USU by working (at least two, and at one point three jobs).  I would be heartbroken if one day it was not possible for an individual to pay their way through school at USU because tuition and fees became too large a hurdle. I fear that inch by inch, fee increase by fee increase, we are approaching that threshold.  Wouldn’t it be tragic if the next great engineer for NASA or the next U.S. Senate Majority Leader were deterred from USU and a college education simply because they didn’t have the financial means to pay for all the increases in tuition and fees?

I have followed the debate about this subject. Athletic Director Scott Barnes, whom I am overall very impressed with, has made some arguments based on faulty logic.  Additionally, many of the claims lack substantive evidence. These arguments beg for logic and refutation.

Athletics is NOT the front porch of the University

From Sunday’s Herald Journal:

Tiffany Evans, director of USU’s Student Involvement and Leadership Center, said she feels involvement in top-level sports helps build a sense of community on campus.

“As our colleagues in athletics have said, athletics is the front porch of the institution — it’s visible” Evans added.

If there really was a correlation between athletics and academic performance at USU, the past 30 years of football would have reduced the institution to an unaccredited community college.  There simply is no correlation (or causation).  USU is a great academic institution in a way that is completely independent of  athletics.  USU’s history shows that even if you have the worst football team in the entire free world, you can still be an international leader in engineering, education and NASA experiments. Even with a scant athletic budget and no meaningful fan base outside Cache County, the business school can emerge as an internationally recognized institution.  If this “front porch” argument were true, there would be decades of evidence of academic impediments at USU. Instead, we see a school that is a crown jewel.

The Athletic Department will respond to my argument with anecdotal evidence. They will either cite Cinderella stories, like George Mason, or BCS schools that have shown a correlation between athletic performance and academic prestige (most often through increases in applications).  Stories like George Mason reflect exceptions to the rule.  They are outliers.

There is evidence that having a successful “big time” college football program produces increases in donations form alumni. However, comparing USU to BCS schools is like comparing apples to oranges.   BCS schools have nation wide fan bases.  They are on national television every week.  They are on SportsCenter daily.  USU is not and never will be a big time or BCS level football program.

I challenge the Athletic Department to produce peer reviewed studies and evidence that schools similar to Utah State in conference affiliation, media market and fan base have a correlation between the quality of academics and athletics.  They will not be able to produce such evidence because it does not exist.  There is no correlation.

Rent Seeking Behavior: USU’s Program is at a “Tipping Point”

From Sunday’s Herald Journal:

According to Utah State University Athletic Director Scott Barnes, all of the school’s sports are in financial crisis. Currently, the program is running at a $2.3 million annual deficit, which Barnes said began because USU didn’t budget enough money for the transition to Western Athletic Conference membership four years ago.

“We’ve reached a tipping point,” Barnes said on Tuesday. “We need to overhaul our funding model.”

And by over-hauling the funding model, Barnes means engaging in rent seeking behavior. The Athletic Department can’t force boosters to pay more.  It can’t force the State of Utah to pay more.  But there is one constituency that can be forced to pay more- the students.  Students.  Tragically, the group of people least likely to directly benefit from the increase and most likely to be harmed by it.

“But Tom, no one is going to be deterred from attending USU because of a $243 athletic fee.”

True.

$243 here for Athletics and $150 here for another fee coupled with regular tuition increases add up. By accepting one fee increase after another, we risk nickle and diming a USU education out of the reach of the families of rural, working and middle class Utahns. If the fee does not directly advance the central mission of USU, it should be closely and skeptically scrutinized.

The Athletic Department will correctly note that relative to other Universities, USU’s athletic fee is small.  However, that is not the standard by which we should judge the fee.  Other Universities do not have the same demographics as Utah.  Utah has larger families and lower wages.  These create a greater burden on the student to fund their college education.  The standard by which we should judge the fee is whether it can be afforded by the working students at USU.

While tuition and fees go up at USU, wages for college jobs do not. Take a look at the Help Wanted Section in the Herald Journal. Most of the jobs college students at USU qualify for pay around $8 an hour.

My Dad was the first person in his direct line to graduate from college.  He arrived in Logan with no resources to help him except working.  My Dad worked through school at USU.  It wasn’t easy, but he made it happen.  My Dad’s degree from USU has allowed him to acheive the American dream for my family.  If we continue to raise fees that are not central to USU’s mission, will the next guy in my Dad’s shoes be able to improve the position of himself and future generations of his family?

Why should the Athletic Department be immune from this economy?

Other Departments at USU have been reduced to skeleton resources or eliminated completely.  These departments, unlike Athletics, advance USU’s central mission directly. Why should the theatre and music departments be consolidated while the Athletic Department is allowed to mitigate the economic sting through a fee increase?

While I sympathize with Scott Barnes, his financial crisis is not unique.  It is the same crisis faced by every other Dean and department head at USU.  Unlike Barnes, they dont’ have the option of engaging in rent seeking behavior.  They simply have to find a way to make it work.

Vote for preserving an accessible education at USU, Vote NO on the Athletics fee increase!

If you are a student I urge you to vote down the Athletics Fee increase. If you like the idea, nothing is stopping you from donating $130 extra a year to the Athletic Department.  You are not voting on whether you should pay $130 extra a year.  You can already do that.  You are voting on whether to force your peers to pay an extra $130 a year.  Are you comfortable in making that decision for them? How can you be certain they can afford it?

If you are not a student, I urge you to contact the students that you know. Let them know there is no correlation between athletics and academics.  Tell them the “front porch” argument is sham. As Aggies we must preserve the ability of future generations to acheive the American dream through a college education.  A college education at USU should always be available to anyone willing to work for it (like my Dad).

Today and Tuesday, students at Utah State University will vote to determine whether they want their fees to increase $65 a semester to enhance the budget of the athletics department.

The issue was covered in depth in Sunday’s Herald Journal by a great Kim Burgess article. Athletics Director Scott Barnes will be on For the People at 4:10 this afternoon to talk about the increase and his department’s reasoning behind the request.

I oppose the student fee increase. I can’t stress enough how bad an idea I believe it is and how wrong it is for Utah State University at this time. And at the same time, I respect Scott Barnes and the job he’s done so far at USU. He is truly in a lose-lose situation with this proposal. The truth is though, men like Scott Barnes will be long gone while students at USU will still be paying the consequences of a fee increase such as this.

When Mr. Barnes is on the air tonight, you will hear phrases such as “tipping point” and “athletics is the university’s front porch.” You’ll also hear arguments that USU athletics is experiencing financial extremes, i.e. when compared to other schools of similar enrollment and budgets, USU raises more money on their own than most others and has lower student fees than most others.

These may be realities, but they are not relevant, because no matter how much you compare USU to Louisiana Tech, Fresno State, Boise State, Ohio University, Western Michigan or whichever other schools names are thrown out, one simple fact remains: We’re Utah State, not someone else.

The argument is thrown out that athletics enhances the student experience, and I absolutely agree with that. There are some great times at athletics events, but here again, is it the responsibility of the student body as a whole to fund these experiences at a level higher than they already are? For me, the proper way for students to show their appreciation for the experiences they gain through athletics events is by joining the booster club after graduation or, heck, during school.

What we have on campus now is a department who openly says they didn’t plan well enough entering the WAC and they now run a $2 million-plus budget deficit. They’re asking for a bailout much like several U.S. companies have from the government. They’re asking for their constituents, the student body, to bail them out through a compulsory tax. We don’t like this on the national level, and we don’t like it here.

Today, if you’re a USU student, log on to https://vote.usu.edu and vote against this measure. If you aren’t a student, but know someone who is, tell them to vote against it.

Some things are just not right. This is one of them.

In the coming weeks, we on the KVNUFTP staff are going to start discussing strategic goals to expand the blog and, as a result, expand the radio show more statewide. We are thrilled to reguarly be ranked among the most influential political blogs in Utah by BlogNetNews, but we want to continue to build our audience and are asking for your help in letting us know what you’d like to see more of, and what we can do better.

Below is a little poll with a few options of things we think we can do. We want to know where to set our priorities, so go ahead and vote for what you’d like to see (you can select more than one thing) and if you want, leave a comment with a few thoughts.

Please know that we’ll really, really, REALLY appreciate any feedback you can give.

 Loading ...

As most of you know, when I went to Washington D.C. in January for the Inauguration, I was one of thousands of people who got trapped in the 3rd Street Tunnel and was unable to gain admittance to the event, even though I had a ticket.

The Joint Congressional Committie on Inauguration Ceremonies announced they would do something to “make it up” to everyone who didn’t get in, and about three weeks ago, I received a little gift pack from the JCCIC. It contained autographed photos of Obama and Biden, a color print of the ceremony, an official invitation, a program from the event and a copy of Obama’s speech. It certainly wasn’t something that would make up for the event, but it was something and I appreciated it.

So imagine my surprise Friday when I see another Senate envelope in the mailbox. This time, I received the exact same packet again, only it was from Sen. Bob Bennett’s office (he is on the JCCIC). The only difference between the second packet and the first was this one included a personally signed letter from Bennett and a DVD of the ceremony. The moral of the story is, however, it seems the right hand wasn’t talking to the left, and perhaps a lot of people received multiple packets.

Kind of funny, really.

Misty Fowler over at Saintless has a well thought out post in “Dear Gov, Please Veto the Video Game Bill.”

Misty is referring to HB353, a Video Game Truth in Advertising bill, which woud basically do the following: Any business who advertises themselves as family friendly and says they don’t sell mature/violent video games to minors would be fined up to $2,000 if they were caught violating their pledge, selling mature/violent video games to minors.

This seems, at face value, to be a “hmph” bill that’s like, “So what?” Let the businesses that want to make the pledge make the pledge, put their money where their mouths are, and not sell games.

But it’s interesting to see the perspective of Misty, a parent. Her argument is let me parent my kids, you can stay out of the way government.

Misty is calling on people to tell Gov. Huntsman to veto the bill, but what does Northern Utah think?

An interesting move this week from President Obama to Iran, sending a video over with Farsi subtitles seeking to open a conversation if Iran will “unclench its fist.”

Opinions about this move from Obama will likely vary and only time will tell if this turns out to be just another small attempt to open lines of communication with Iran or if it is just the start of substantial work to bring Iran back into step with the rest of the world.

Interestingly, the video coincided with an Iranian holiday celebrating new beginnings with the start of Spring.

After more than a month of issues, we are officially podcasting again. New episodes of For The People and Full Court Press are already available, and Crosstalk episodes will be available starting tomorrow, as well as Aggie postgames, call in shows and whatever else comes along.

Here are the links to the feeds that are up and running now (or will be tomorrow).

For the People: http://www.cachevalleydaily.com/podcast/feeds/ForThePeople.xml

Full Court Press: http://www.cachevalleydaily.com/podcast/feeds/FullCourtPress.xml

KLZX’s Great Unsigned: http://www.cachevalleydaily.com/podcast/feeds/GreatUnsigned.xml

Crosstalk: http://www.cachevalleydaily.com/podcast/feeds/Crosstalk.xml

If you are a subscriber through iTunes, these should all automatically update. Thank you for your patience as we went through a difficult time with our servers.

THE WAR IS OVER! RIGHT?
Cache Valley Peace Works commemorates the 6th anniversary of the War in Iraq

LOGAN, Utah — Cache Valley Peace Works will hold a day of speakers and movies at the USU Taggart Student Center auditorium and a peace vigil in downtown Logan on March, 20 to remember the 6th anniversary of the War in Iraq.

The events will feature a special guest speaker, Stephen McNeil, the Assistant Regional Director for Peace Building, Relief, and Youth Work with American Friends Service Committee, a non-sectarian Quaker organization that received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1947. He is on the Board of Directors of the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) in Washington, DC, a Quaker lobby in the public interest, having served as chairman and now serving as head of the fundraising efforts. He is also an expert on Afghanistan.

USU Taggart Student Center Fountains
9:00 a.m. – 4 p.m. Eyes Wide Open and Cost of War Exhibits from the American Friends Service Committee
4:15 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.: Starting point for a walk to the peace vigil (50 N Main St)

USU Taggart Student Center Auditorium
11:00 a.m. – 12:20 p.m. Movie: “The Ground Truth”
12:20 p.m. – until gone FREE Pizza outside the auditorium
12:30 p.m. – 1:20 p.m. “The War Is Over! Right?” presentation by Stephen McNeil followed by Q&A
1:30 p.m. – 2:20 p.m.: “Understanding Afghanistan” presentation by Stephen McNeil followed by Q&A
2:30 p.m. – 4:10 p.m.: Movie “Why We Fight”

Downtown Logan
5:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m.: Peace Vigil, east side of Main Street between Center St. and 100 North
6:30 p.m. Potluck Dinner, followed by “Understanding Afghanistan” presentation by Stephen McNeil, at Cache Valley Unitarian Universalist Fellowship, 596 E 900 N., Logan.

Rob Miller will appear on Doug Wright on Friday to talk about saving newspapers.

Before that, perhaps in an indication of life’s priorities, Rob Miller will appear on KVNU’s For the People TONIGHT from 4 to 6 to add his pithy commentary to the show on topics ranging from newspapers to, well, anything else that comes up.

We’ll also try and, once again, persuade Miller to start providing a weekly commentary as a liberal counterpoint to the Mero Moment.

A Box Elder County dispatcher confirmed to KVNU that a chunk of roof collapsed today at the Proctor & Gamble plant that is under construction in Box Elder County. Three workers inside the area were rescued via safety harnesses and were taken to a Box Elder County hospital, but reportedly were in good condition. We’ll have more details as they become available.

Here’s how The Salt Lake Tribune summed the event up:

Three workers received minor injuries Thursday while installing a roof at a Proctor & Gamble plant in Box Elder County. Construction crews were installing a section of roof when a corner dropped below the three, said Box Elder County Sheriff’s Chief Deputy Kevin Potter. The roof section did not hit the ground, Potter said, but swung three workers on harnesses. They received mostly bumps and bruises, Potter said.

D-News runs through a report out from a D.C. based non-partisan think tank titled “The 2006 Swift Raids: Assessing the Impact of Immigration Enforcement Actions at Six Facilities.” The report estimates that at the time of the raids (including the Hyrum raid), 23% of Swift’s employee base was comprised of illegal immigrants, and cites a 40% turnover rate as the primary reason employers “chased” illegal immigrants for employment at their plants. But even more interesting was a connection drawn between Swift’s efforts to “union-bust” in the 90′s, and the circumstances that eventually lead to the nation-wide raids.

The study also showed that despite claims to the contrary, worker pay has a small impact on what consumers would pay for meat. Research by the U.S. Dairy Association indicated that wages and benefits for production workers account for 7 percent to 9 percent of retail meat prices.

That means that if wages and benefits were increased by one-third, consumer prices would increase just 3 percent, Kammer said.

One local researcher attributed many of the immigrant problems to strong-arm tactics employed by companies years ago.

“Tracking history of labor in the meatpacking industry, they went in and they busted unions,” said Pam Perlich, senior research economist at the University of Utah’s Bureau of Economic and Business Research. “They turned them into factories with unskilled labor with very repetitive, very high risk, very awful work and drove the unions out.”

“They weren’t constrained by ethics, they were just trying to make money,” Perlich said.

I agree they actively drove the unions out (and probably could have avoided many challenges if they hadn’t), but I can’t see any certainty that union existence at the plant would have changed the nature of the repetitive, high risk tasks involved at a meat packing plant and lack of applicants. Unions may have created higher pay, and better work environments to entice potential employees, but by nature much of the work would remain undesirable to a great number of people seeking jobs. Would improved wages/benefits/conditions from unionization have made the difference in attracting workers? Are there just so few people willing to do this kind of work that illegal immigrants were the company’s best (or only) option to overcome high turnover, or is this a simple case (as U of U’s Perlich claims in the article) of ethics taking a back seat to greed?

The report provides insight into the challenges Swift faced, and and I think answers a lot of these questions, or tries. It’s a long read, but if you have the time, check it out.

Date: March 18, 2009
From: Dan
To: Jason
Subject: KVNU Topic Idea – How do we want to limit our government?

Hey Jas, long time no see. You had me shouting at the radio in my office yesterday! I don’t get to listen often, but when I do I agree more with Marc and often Tyler. Rarely you! But you make me think, and the show has even changed my mind on few things I’ve believed since high school, which is the reason for this email.

What do we even mean when we say “I’m for limited government”? Many mean “don’t raise my taxes.” Others mean “stay out of my private affairs.” But it seems for too many, the phrase means only “I vote for Republicans.” Democrats long ago embraced the idea that government should do more for people, but not since the 1950′s have we seen a Republican Party which fought for limited government, yet no one seems to notice. 2003-2006 we saw some of the most expansive growth in programs and even the powers of the Executive office, with a Republican president, and a Republican controlled Congress. G.Bush Sr. passed the Disabilities Act, a good thing, but also one of the largest expanses since the 1960′s. No one objected, because it was the right thing to do. But it was by no means limiting government.

This is not a “return to the roots” rally cry for my conservative fellows. I think limited government has been diluted through a natural process of a growing country that must account for and deal with larger issues. I like roads, schools, and law enforcement, and those who argue turning such institutions over to private industry are being naive. So what do we mean when we say “limited government”? Do we even know? What would we give up to get it? And why? Keeping in mind what we see happening with the banking industry, what aspects of our prosperity are we really willing to give over to private industry? Or are we just repeating the chant out of habit?

Is this something people really think about and then believe is the best solution, or is it something we’ve learned to repeat mindlessly that leads us to vote poorly, sometimes even against our own best interests and values? Or do we really have a clear picture of what we think works best, and will make personal sacrifices in our quality of life to get it? Is it a convenient phrase to use in an argument, or do we really want it to happen? Even watching our state legislature, the answer isn’t clear at all.

I think all of these questions would make for a wonderful discussion, and I would like to hear other Cache Valley voters describe IN DETAIL what sacrifices they would make or ask their children to make to have a truly limited government.

Thanks for the lively discussions.

Dan

Since November 2008, meetings with individuals and neighborhood groups in the 10th West (2nd south to 6th south) area, a proposal has been made that UDOT acquire 17 properties, allowing space for necessary lane travel, sidewalks and “buffer zones.”

According to Logan Mayor Randy Watts, of the 17 property owners involved, 14 have expressed a desire to sell, one owner has asked for more information, and of the remaining two, one is in forclosure and the other belongs to an out of state homeowner who has not yet been reached.

The stated goal is to provide a design that doesn’t require expensive “upgrades” just a few years down the road.

We’ll be discussing the announcement and inviting your feedback today at 4:40.

There has been a lot of attention given to Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC) for his request to divert stimulus money to pay off the state’s debt instead of paying for government programs; the request has since been rejected by the White House.

And yet, Utah lawmakers are also temporarily “turning their backs” on some of the stimulus money.

From the Salt Lake Tribune:

Utah lawmakers are turning their backs — at least for now — on more than $61 million in federal stimulus money targeted at helping the state’s surging unemployed ranks.

To snag the money, the Legislature would have had to change state law, extending benefits to about 4,200 jobless Utahns — part-time workers, those who quit jobs to accompany a spouse who is changing employment, or others — who don’t qualify now.

But Utah legislators, pinched for time in the 2009 session, balked at changing the law, fearing that employers, already grappling with a poor economy, would get hit with more unemployment taxes to cover the costs.

“Any time you have to run legislation and change your state policy and code for one-time money, that doesn’t make a lot of sense,” said Senate Majority Leader Sheldon Killpack, R-Syracuse. Lawmakers have to either kill the program when the money is gone or find a way to fund a benefit “you don’t want in the first place.”

Legislators explored whether they could include a sunset date in the revisions, to have the expanded benefits expire when the federal money runs out, and were told they could not. It was unclear whether they could come back and just repeal the program later on, so they did nothing this session.

While it may not be popular with many on this site, I see the wisdom in approaching this stimulus money cautiously. What needs to be acknowledged is that when the flow of federal money stops, this state will be required by the provisions established through acceptance of the stimulus money, to continue funding these expanded benefits.

It is also interesting that South Carolina’s appeal to pay off the state debt was rejected. What happens when the money stops coming in? Will different states be able to handle paying for these benefits? I think that it is worth investigation.

- Marc

US News:

At Quinnipiac University, golf, women’s volleyball, and men’s outdoor track have been eliminated. The cheerleading program has been upgraded to varsity level.

Pepperdine dropped its men’s varsity track program this year, and its women’s swimming and diving team will be cut next year.

Northern Iowa will drop baseball, saving about $400,000. The cost savings will help eliminate the athletic department’s $600,000 deficit, caused by a 9 percent cut in state funding.

The University of Vermont will eliminate softball and baseball after this season. Because of a 6.5 percent cut from the general fund, Vermont’s athletic department projects a $1.1 million gap between revenues and expenses next year. Forty-three students will be affected, and six employees will be let go. Existing scholarships will continue to be awarded.

In early January, Western Washington University announced it was dropping its 105-year-old football program. The elimination of the Division II team would save $450,000 and allow the school to maintain less-costly sports programs.

Not all the sporting news is bad: Thanks to student interest, Valparaiso has started golf and women’s bowling, and Mesa State College in Colorado is adding men’s golf, men’s swimming and diving, and women’s lacrosse.

Interesting times that will demand creative solutions.

Somehow I came upon this site (badpaintingsobarackobama.com), which is dedicated to providing some of the worst paintings of the 44th President of the United States. While some paintings aren’t too bad, many are silly, absurd, and downright hilarious.

Enjoy.

- Marc

Paul Mero just emailed me this great quote.  I share it with the public, but in particular those who were hurt or offended by what HBO did this week.  It is difficult to see something that is so sacred sensationalized and cheapened for the sake of entertainment.

But was it actually cheapened or comprimised?

“Even though everyone may discover what goes on in the temple, and many have already revealed it, the important thing is that I do not reveal these things; they must remain sacred to me. I must preserve a zone of sanctity which cannot be violated whether or not anyone else in the room has the remotest idea what the situation really is… No matter what happens, it will, then, always remain secret: only I know exactly the weight and force of the covenants I have made – I and the Lord with whom I have made them – unless I choose to reveal them. If I do not, then they are secret and sacred no matter what others may say or do. Anyone who would reveal these things has not understood them, and therefore that person has not given them away. You cannot reveal what you do not know!”

- Hugh Nibley, The Temple and the Cosmos, p. 64

I know that it does not take the sting away from what happened this week, but it’s important to remember that for those to whom the Temple is sacred, the Temple remains sacred.

This will not be the last time this happens. Others will note the publicity and reaction that HBO received and follow suit.  Remember this quote when that happens.

-Tom

I will be live blogging the Utah State University athletics student fee increase town hall meeting that is taking place at noon today in the Taggart Student Center auditorium on the USU campus. As a recap, athletics is looking to increase student fees by $65/semester, with all that going to support the budget of the athletics department. Currently the athletics department receives about $56.75 a semester in student fees.

12:40: Barnes: Not everybody is a sports fan, not everybody agrees with this, but look at it from the perspective of what it does for your degree. Athletics is one of the pieces because it’s so visible. Athletics at a high level contributes greatly to the student life experience. Feel free to call with questions. Thanks for playing.

12:37: What happens if the fee isn’t approved? Barnes: “We don’t have a plan B.” Can’t cut sports. “We’d have to find other ways (to find money).” Already operating at the 75th percentile of self-generated revenue. “We would have to regroup and decide where else to go.”

He brings up why don’t you charge students to come to the games? “They would be charged more than a fee and we would receive much less money.”

12:31: Student asks what staying in the WAC does for USU. Barnes asks if we want to be Weber State or Southern Utah. You walk away from opportunity if you leave the WAC. (For the record, I think all the talk about having to drop down is bunk. It’s all a scare tactic.) Now Barnes is suggesting a drop to DIVISION 2. Athletics is the front porch of the university and needs to be a substantial part of the school.

12:30: Scott Barnes is back. Says Big Blue Scholarship Fund has increased 100 percent in recent years (Really?) and they didn’t go to the university for football coach salary increases (That’s true and should be applauded.) 

12:23: Jeff Crosbie, assistant AD for business operations, takes the stage to show some graphs. USU student fee collections right now are below most other comparable schools except Fresno, Temple, Nevada and LaTech. All schools compared to are WAC and MAC schools because of similar enrollments and budget sizes. Miami (OH) has the largest at more than $14 million in student fees a year. (Incidentally, Miami of Ohio tuition is $11,000 a year for Ohio residents, incidentally, I can’t find a breakdown of Miami of Ohio’s fees that lists an athletics fee…I mean, I can find breakdowns of their student fees, but none that itemize athletics.)

12:20: Says USU increased its football revenue 100 percent last year. How many other programs can say they did that? Student asks Barnes how that is affected by there being only 5 home football games this year. Barnes responds that it will be a one year thing, there will be six games every year starting in 2010. Barnes references the new fundraising program with 80 volunteers. 

12:17: We need this now, Barnes said, to maintain WAC and D1-A status and to assist in balancing and stabilizing our annual budget. He uses the term “tipping point” again. (Go read “The Tipping Point” by Malcolm Gladwell) We have the lowest budget in the WAC and need to improve that. When comparing to similar sized budgets, USU is near the 75th percentile in amount of revenue generated through donations, ticket sales, TV sponsorships, etc…(I wouldn’t know this because the latest public budget available online for USU athletics is from 2005. USU needs to be more transparent with its budget)

12:16: Scott Barnes back on stage. Throws out the “athletics is the front porch” analogy. References a Board of Trustees meeting at Rice University where the benefits of diversity through athletics was discussed. Now quotes Ross Peterson by saying Aggie basketball is one of the things students remember most about their time at USU.

12:15: “Why now?” Winn: We’re going to see decreased enrollment at USU because of the economy (I beg to differ.) So, if we invest in athletics, it’s the No. 1 way to mitigate the problem because if we’re more successful, more people will want to come here.

12:12: Every CEO in the country that’s an athletics fan, they know the name Utah State right now, Winn says. Because of successful athletics, people have a better chance of getting hired. Now, Winn is presenting the argument that 40 percent of seats in the Spectrum and 25 percent of seats in Romney are reserved for students. He says that’s a $3.9 million value in seats each year. Why doesn’t the university sell the students tickets? Because attendance would go down, Winn says. (Hence the need to implement a compulsory, involuntary tax that students have no choice about.) 

12:09: They aren’t getting more money from institutional support, and they’re making great progress in self-generated revenue, Barnes says, and they need to continue to work hard. Barnes introduces Jeremy Winn, a member of a student ad-hoc committee group (and I believe recently elected the ASUSU athletics vice president for the next school year.)

Jeremy Winn talks about the benefits of having a successful Division 1 athletics program. “The quality of life is enriched.”

“I visited some friends here in Logan in the Fall of 2007, I grew up my entire life, my whole family was University of Utah fans…after being in the Spectrum for 5 minutes, I knew that I needed to come up here to Utah State and be an Aggie.” He applied, and has been here and is an Aggie through and through now.

Aggie athletics is a unifying force, Winn says, in Cache Valley. It can’t be duplicated by anything else. All the alumni of Utah State have bragging rights right now. (Commentary: All on the current budget, mind you.)

12:07: Barnes says we’re at a tipping point and USU needs to reverse a trend of growing their annual deficit. USU is at the NCAA minimum of sports (16) and can’t drop any sports. They’ve done as much as they can as far as removing landlines from football offices, reduced administrative travel, participated in furlough program. “We are taking cost cutting measures, even looking at a paperless media guide moving to next year.” They now need to look at revenue streams.

12:05 – Scott Barnes, athletics director, is starting this thing by saying they presented the PowerPoint to the Board of Trustees recently. There are three main revenue streams for athletics: Athletics generated funds, institutional support (state funds) and student fees. So far, he’s met with at least 13 different student groups from the A-Team to the Greeks.

Tribune:

Fees are proliferating at a time when many families are watching their own spending. Four of Utah’s larger school districts have proposed increases for the next year: Granite, Salt Lake, Jordan and Canyons.

The fee hikes are largely limited to “electives,” such as summer school, football and band. The kind and amount vary by district. Without them, education officials say, cash-strapped schools might have to cut back on extracurricular offerings.

“This is not a money-making scheme. It’s let’s do the minimum while still being able to pay the bills,” said Dave Stoddard, executive director over high schools at Jordan District.

How the fee increases affect the average student, though, is hard to say.

Utah’s kindergarten-12 schools collected $71 per student in 2008. But high-schoolers bore the brunt. And while some students paid nothing — those exempted as low-income — others shelled out $400 or more to participate in cheerleading, dance and high-dollar sports.

On the outset, it seems reasonable for students to pay additional fees for elective activities, but fees for “text book rental” and “science labs” should stop, as these are tools to aid in education, not frills, and are often mandatory elements of a class. Where do we draw the line? How do schools — without a standard for reporting fees to the state — determine what is an “extra” activity, and what augments a students education. Football, cheerleading, even the high school band cost parents extra, and I think that’s fair if their child wants to be involved. But what about art, music, or even debate?

And if the fees continue to grow, will these programs shrink or even disappear? Will the same happen if schools aren’t able to charge the fees? Does it matter?

A recent Pew Research poll has found that President Obama’s approval rating has dropped from 64% to 59% in nearly a month, and that his disapproval rating has “jumped” from 17% to 26%. Now certainly the contrast bewteen Obama’s approval rating and that of his predecessor must be noted.

Nevertheless, Bush also rode a similar tide of high popularity early on in office and to be honest,  it was at a similar point that his popularity began to sink also. Pundits and journalists will trumpet Obama’s high approval rating, and yet, it isn’t much different from that of other historical presidents shortly after the inauguration. But it has surprised even me how Obama’s popularity is following the trend established by earlier presidents like George W. Bush.

From Bloomberg:

President Barack Obama’s approval ratings are slipping as Americans fret about the economy, two polls found.

A March 12-15 survey conducted for CNN by Opinion Research Corp. found Obama’s approval rating dropped 3 points from late last month and 12 points from early February. A Pew Research Center poll taken March 9-12 found that Obama’s approval rating slipped to 59 percent from 64 percent last month.

While Americans still generally support Obama’s handling of the economy, more questions are cropping up, according to the polls. The Washington-based Pew Research Center found that more than half of Americans disagree with a proposed change to Medicare that would have wealthier seniors pay more for drugs.

“The fact that the scope of his policy agenda is daunting has probably given some people pause,” said Michael Dimock, Pew’s associate director for research. “There are signs in this poll that people are cautious.”

The CNN poll found that Obama’s overall approval rating declined to 64 percent from 76 percent in a Feb. 7-8 poll. His disapproval rating climbed to 34 percent from 23 percent.

While 59 percent of Americans approve of Obama’s handling of the economy, they give him higher marks for the way he has dealt with Iraq, Afghanistan, terrorism, education and energy policy. The smallest percentage — 57 percentPresident Barack Obama’s approval ratings are slipping as Americans fret about the economy, two polls found.

A March 12-15 survey conducted for CNN by Opinion Research Corp. found Obama’s approval rating dropped 3 points from late last month and 12 points from early February. A Pew Research Center poll taken March 9-12 found that Obama’s approval rating slipped to 59 percent from 64 percent last month.

While Americans still generally support Obama’s handling of the economy, more questions are cropping up, according to the polls. The Washington-based Pew Research Center found that more than half of Americans disagree with a proposed change to Medicare that would have wealthier seniors pay more for drugs.

“The fact that the scope of his policy agenda is daunting has probably given some people pause,” said Michael Dimock, Pew’s associate director for research. “There are signs in this poll that people are cautious.”

The CNN poll found that Obama’s overall approval rating declined to 64 percent from 76 percent in a Feb. 7-8 poll. His disapproval rating climbed to 34 percent from 23 percent.

While 59 percent of Americans approve of Obama’s handling of the economy, they give him higher marks for the way he has dealt with Iraq, Afghanistan, terrorism, education and energy policy. The smallest percentage — 57 percent — approve of the way Obama is handling health-care policy, according to the CNN poll.

Do these numbers mean anything? I find it alarming for Obama that his popularity is meeting such a steady decline after the enormously unpopular President Bush. And it will be interesting to see how the reaction to the AIG bonuses further influences that popularity.

- Marc