Dustin Spicuzza, a colleague of mine at Western Michigan University came across a disturbing find when he filed a Freedom of Information Act request to examine the costs associated with the redevelopment of a parking lot into a picnic area. His results yielded that the university spent a total of $120,000 on the redevelopment during a budget crisis, and that the picnic area was only temporary. After publishing his findings on the internet and creating a group on facebook, many students have responded disagreeing with the use of the funds.

For those of you who may not be aware, the State of Michigan has not performed well economically in recent years, which has effected the income to the state government (which in turn affects public institutions). For the past two to three years, WMU has been forced to raise tuition greater than that of the rate of inflation to cover the budget gap left by both the state and the declining enrollment. Students like myself are now paying hundreds if not thousands of dollars more a year than what was projected to us when we originally applied.

This project originated from a necessity to maintain a level of green space at the university due to two recent construction projects elsewhere on campus to build a new chemistry and art buildings. Lowell Rinker, CFO and Vice President for Business and Finance had responded to the accusations against the spending decision by stating the following:

Hi, I’m Lowell Rinker, VP for Business & Finance at WMU. Just thought I’d add my perspective to this discussion. When the Chemistry Building went up, we lost some core green space on main campus. Many folks, including the Faculty Senate Campus Planning & Finance Council, feel that the new green space needs to be the Sangren lot….I agree. There are a couple of issues: 1) we are hopeful that WMU will recieve a capital outlay appropriation from the State to fund the long overdue renovation of Snagren Hall. When that happens, the Sangren lot will be needed for a construction lay down area for approxiamtely 18 months. 2) To do the green space right, it would take much more than the $120,000 spent….we couldn’t in good conscience spend the roughly $800,000 needed for irrigation, drainange, concrete and other items needed to create the appropriate green space, only to have it ripped up by construction processes. We are heartened to see the significant student usage so far.

While the decision to wait on the conversion of the parking lot to green space makes sense, it is my belief that the most logical decision with our budget would have been to defer any type of spending on the green space until after the renovations were completed for Sangren Hall. The only exception to this, would have been the use of funds that have no impact on student tuition and would have been lost if not spent.

I know many students talk about their tuition when they hear of misspending, many of whom do not realize that funding for specific things is generated through sponsorships, private donors, and grants. Even less students understand the complexity of the budget (I have a hard enough time working with my one FCC within WMU). For that, I agree with Dustin in the fact that simply are asking for assurance that we are not paying that extra 6.4% this year to fund un-necessary investments, and for that to be accomplished we need the planning committes and higher level executives on campus to adjust their perception, as we feel too distant from decisions at times. If you want to increase enrollment, make us your ally, not your enemy.

Even if the cash for these projects are not coming out of our wallets, we will not know the difference and think it is. We’re not seeing a 6.4% increase in the quality of our education.