Scanned using Book ScanCenter 5033

IFC, Athletics go he head in tense budg Dan Martin Jennie Clark As it had in each of the previous 10 years, the 1991 -92 Incidental Fee Com­ mittee fought PSU's administration over the issue of athletic funding. It was a war that did not end until well after the committee finished their term July 1. "I felt that this was not about athletic funding, but about student empower­ ment. We (the IFC) got together and worked it out and made our recommenda- j tions. I felt they (the administration) should have respected them," said IFC ^ Member Dan Shea. In early Oct. 1991, the Oregon State Board of Higher Education proposed to bail out the state's three major university athletic programs, which had in­ curred some $6 million in debt since state general fund money was pulled : from athletic budgets in 1982. The proposal flew directly in the face of across- the-board 20 percent cuts from Property Tax Limitation Measure 5, which would slash $1 billion from the general fund in 1993-95. On Oct. 30, the IFC and student government conducted a poll of 278 stu- i dents on the issue. According to the survey, 52 percent felt that athletics should take a budget cut, while 54 percent said they had not even attended an athletic event in the past year. The IFC began reviewing the 92-93 budget requests in mid-Jan. PSU's ath­ letic dept, which was responsible for about $1.6 million of the debt, agreed to i forego a "cost of living" increase for the coming year and leave dollar amounts at current levels, effectively accepting a two percent decrease. The IFC was not satisfied, and the war began. The IFC recommended a five percent cut to athletics, or about $62,000. , PSU athletic programs on average receive about 38 percent of all incidental Dan Martin One of the many round table discussions the IFC had throughout the year. 90 1