Health service fee request questioned
February 19, 1991
Some confusion was expressed over the way a 32 cents University Health Service fee increase was presented at a fee study committee meeting Monday.
Accountancy Professor Jon Engstrom and Student Association President Rob McCormack questioned the way the equipment component of the fee was presented by the President’s Fee Study Committee.
Last year’s itemized equipment provision showed a need of about $60,000. This year, a figure just over $70,000 was issued, despite the fact the proposal for equipment needs is independent from year to year, according to Rosemary Lane, University Health Service director.
“Our assessment is made from a zero-based budget beginning,” Lane said.
Engstrom said he understood and supported the increase despite the fact the health center has $100,000 less in revenue to work with because they were forced to move for asbestos removal.
Engstrom said, however, the way the itemization was given could be misinterpreted.
“The way the request was presented makes it look somewhat shady,” Engstrom said, adding, “but it really isn’t.”
Engstrom said he noted the $10,000 difference between last year’s equipment allowance, and this year’s equipment estimate is on top of last year’s request.
Lane replied that any surplus funding will be used to offset increases in salary and inflationary adjustments. She also mentioned the nature of technological advancement causes a constant demand for equipment modification and updating.
“Am I to understand that the money requested for equipment provisions is being siphoned off into other areas?” McCormack said.
Lane said that when new equipment is not needed for a given year, the Health Service Committee does in fact ask for less.
“Anything we could cut, change, or cancel has been explored,” said Dana Mills, University Health Service associate director.
Mills said all fee increase requests are made to provide for a subsistence level of operations.
The current 32 cents increase request does not make any provisions for salary increases or inflationary adjustment, Mills said.