A few years ago, a student complained to the then-Dean of JHBC about a student fee in the Public Administration Department that was outdated and poorly structured. The Dean agreed with the student, deactivated the fee, and told the Department to return the next year with a new, more appropriately structured fee. The Department took two years to redesign the fee that was substantially lower, but more broadly based, and whose purpose fit current professional and market needs. That is a responsible model for approaching mandatory fees.
This year, the Santos Manuel Student Union mandatory campus fees are $1,001 per year for all students, generating about $17 million annually. It does not include ASI, which has two separate mandatory fees or the recreation center, whose funding comes from tuition. It is the third highest student center fee in the system, whose average of about $550 per year. In 2020, the student union fee was less than $450, but the new, massive 120,000 sq. foot Student Union North (equivalent to about 2.5 football fields) incurred $90 million in debt that students would have to pay back over three decades. Is a $1,001 fee a good value for the average student?
The SMSU reports approximately 200,000 annual walk-throughs across its South and North facilities. With roughly $17 million collected each year in mandatory student fees, this works out to about $85 per entry. For perspective, a single supermarket may see 500,000 customers annually. A student who spends time in the Union four days a week throughout the academic year might reasonably conclude the $1,001 annual charge is worthwhile. Most students, however, enter the building only about a dozen times per year, equivalent to roughly $102 in proportional benefit. That disparity helps explain why many students, once they learn the full amount of the fee, respond with surprise and often frustration.
What is the source of this dilemma? Massive overbuilding using local debt. We never needed 120,000 additional square feet of space. Huge buildings are expensive to build, staff, and maintain, and we are not a rich university. In fact, I wonder if the “average” student who fully understood the costs involved would not have emphatically voiced opposition.
Is the SMSU Board trying to rein in costs, avoid fee increases, and potentially even reduce fees? No. The Board accepts the automatic 3.5% increase each year and figures out how to spend and invest its “corporate” portfolio. In a recent Finance Subcommittee meeting, the committee approved a goal of $33,000,000 in reserves since it considers the current $22,000,000 in reserves inadequate despite the tiny risk to its mandatory fee stream. With such reserves, the SMSU Fund could operate for three years, paying for its debt service, staff, and maintenance if the University were to close its doors entirely!
Such lush resources inevitably lead to finagling and mismanagement. In 2024, the SMSU Board made a 3 million dollar, 14-year, zero-interest loan to the Department of Housing and Residential Education (DHRE), which was also a victim of extravagant overbuilding (which cost the General Fund more than $50,000,000 in transferred debt service). DHRE, a self-support fund, needed money to cover its operating costs as well as place some of its debt off the books. However, zero-based loans are a blatant violation of Education Code 89760 on interfund loans. Not surprisingly, the SMSU Fund is under formal investigation by the Chancellor’s Office.
What can be done now? Of course, the overbuilding cannot be undone, and decades of debt service are inevitable. However, the SMSU Board could begin to rein in costs in order eliminate cost increases and potentially even lower the student union fee. That is, the Board could begin to think about ways to save money rather than just how to spend and invest it. By reducing its reserves over five years and cutting costs, the Board could easily cut fees by between $100 and $200 a year. But that will not happen on its own.
I return to the story about the student complaint that led to a fee reduction in my Department. Just one student with a good argument! Imagine if 10 students were really active in complaining, or 50 students merely registered their concerns. When you have such an enormous fee for the use of a couple of buildings, non-users, such as students taking many online classes or graduate students who primarily take night classes, have a particularly strong argument. In my humble opinion, the student union fee is shockingly excessive and mismanaged. However, it is up to students to request lower fees controlled by students and better management of funds used for students.
Dr. Montgomery Van Wart, PhD, is a Professor of Public Administration at California State University, San Bernardino, and the awardee of the CSUSB Outstanding Research Award. A three-time recipient of the Chester A. Newland Presidential Citation of Merit from the American Society for Public Administration, he has spent decades researching public sector ethics, leadership, and accountability, the very principles at stake in the student union fee debate.