Spring Break
EDITORIAL: Student funds go to waste
Lack of communication
Editorial | 9/9/08
Posted online at 3:30 AM EST on 9/9/08
Poor planning and lack of communication have cost Brandeis students $19,000 in Student Activities Fee and Athletics money. After the Club Sports Council spent thousands of dollars irrigating the field by the commuter rail, the University converted the field into a parking lot for construction workers.
Neither party is wholly responsible for the loss. Each organization should have been more attentive to the other's project.
In order to avoid the loss of its funds, the Club Sports Council could have been more vocal with the University about the importance of its project. A more assertive attitude would have served the council better, considering the money at stake.
Had the University been more conscious of the irrigation efforts, it could have worked out alternative plans for parking. It could have moved the construction workers' parking off campus, a decision that would have cost the University about "$5,000 to $10,000," according to Vice President of Campus Operations Mark Collins. The University also could have provided the workers with passes to park in the overflow lot at Charles River Lot. Either way, student funds would have remained safe.
The idea to renovate the practice field was a good one. The field was so unplayable that it was never used by a varsity team. With the varsity sports teams occupying the major fields, there's almost no space for club sports to practice. In an e-mail to the Justice, Director of Athletics Sheryl Sousa said that as compensation, club sports teams have priority in using the renovated Chapels Field. Unfortunately, this is not enough.
Mr. Collins said the University needed to sacrifice the field in order to save money, but by working to save University funds, money designated for student use was squandered. Better communication would have benefited all parties.
The lack of communication persists. Ms. Sousa wrote she had heard no complaints from Club Sports Council members regarding the wasted funds. Yet Jacob Bockelman '09, one of the council members who voted on the allocation of the funds, said he was upset by the loss of students' money and the lack of communication between Athletics and the University.
The University is making the right decision to pledge to pay for the field improvements once the area is no longer needed for construction parking, but it still has shot itself in the foot.
Instead of spending $5,000 to $10,000 dollars, they must spend at least $19,000 dollars to redo the irrigation and finish renovating the field. This indicates the University understands the importance of renovating the field. Eventually, club sports will benefit, as they would have if the field was never converted.
Neither party is wholly responsible for the loss. Each organization should have been more attentive to the other's project.
In order to avoid the loss of its funds, the Club Sports Council could have been more vocal with the University about the importance of its project. A more assertive attitude would have served the council better, considering the money at stake.
Had the University been more conscious of the irrigation efforts, it could have worked out alternative plans for parking. It could have moved the construction workers' parking off campus, a decision that would have cost the University about "$5,000 to $10,000," according to Vice President of Campus Operations Mark Collins. The University also could have provided the workers with passes to park in the overflow lot at Charles River Lot. Either way, student funds would have remained safe.
The idea to renovate the practice field was a good one. The field was so unplayable that it was never used by a varsity team. With the varsity sports teams occupying the major fields, there's almost no space for club sports to practice. In an e-mail to the Justice, Director of Athletics Sheryl Sousa said that as compensation, club sports teams have priority in using the renovated Chapels Field. Unfortunately, this is not enough.
Mr. Collins said the University needed to sacrifice the field in order to save money, but by working to save University funds, money designated for student use was squandered. Better communication would have benefited all parties.
The lack of communication persists. Ms. Sousa wrote she had heard no complaints from Club Sports Council members regarding the wasted funds. Yet Jacob Bockelman '09, one of the council members who voted on the allocation of the funds, said he was upset by the loss of students' money and the lack of communication between Athletics and the University.
The University is making the right decision to pledge to pay for the field improvements once the area is no longer needed for construction parking, but it still has shot itself in the foot.
Instead of spending $5,000 to $10,000 dollars, they must spend at least $19,000 dollars to redo the irrigation and finish renovating the field. This indicates the University understands the importance of renovating the field. Eventually, club sports will benefit, as they would have if the field was never converted.
Be the first to comment on this story