We asked John Casteen, president emeritus of the University of Virginia and a former director of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, about recently signed legislation in Virginia that impacts the athletics fees colleges and universities are able to charge students. The law may be a harbinger of things to come for other states and higher education across the board.
What is Virginia HB 1897?
Virginia HB 1897 (2015), which took effect July 1, is intended to limit the percentage of athletic program budgets that can be paid for through mandatory student fees. The new law makes governing boards accountable to the governor and general assembly for fee increases to enhance varsity sports. Virginia legislators have not historically dug into the details of student fee bills. They have monitored tuition and sometimes capped it, most often in periods of reduced tax support. Generally, though, legislators have trusted the universities to set reasonable fees.
What is the context of athletics fees in Virginia?
In a 2014 report, Virginia’s Joint Legislative Audit & Review Commission (JLARC) reported that, in FY2012, athletics programs on average generated only 31 percent of the revenue required to cover their expenses; students footed the bill for the rest. In Virginia, Division III institutions without football can fund 92 percent of athletics programs with student fees, Division I institutions without football 78 percent, and Football Championship Series (FCS) institutions 70 percent.
The JLARC report, Addressing the Cost of Public Higher Education in Virginia, found steep increases in institutional spending from tuition and fees from 2002 to 2014. This included, system wide, a 15 percent increase in instruction-related costs, a 13 percent increase in support services, and a whopping 56 percent increase in auxiliary services, such as athletics, housing, dining, and security. JLARC also found fee increases for varsity sports upgrades, especially for football and basketball, in order to move from one NCAA division to another.
Auxiliary fee increases—of more than 100 percent at some colleges over the decade—can be hard to spot. Sub-items disappear into headings that simply sound reasonable: advising services, student IDs, gowns and diplomas, etc. The aggregated price for all fees rarely catches the attention of the parent with checkbook in hand.
What is the potential impact on public institutions in Virginia?
Neither JLARC nor the legislature labeled use of auxiliary fee moneys as wrong. The fiduciary judgment belongs to governing boards. The legislative issue is large increases. Arms races (athletic and otherwise) are expensive. Without donors and TV deals, not all universities can afford them, especially when loading costs into student fees becomes a suspect practice. The fees ought to be visible to those who are paying them.
Legislative determination to restrain new non-academic charges to students gelled in times when Virginia tolerated, sometimes encouraged, higher tuition to replace lost tax support for academic programs. Since 2002, tax money has declined, and tuition and fees have gone up. By law, fees become state money when students pay them. The legislature has fiduciary motives to watch spending from them.
What are the implications for boards?
The bill, introduced by Del. Kirkland Cox (R-66th District), is not anti-sports or anti-progress. It encourages boosters to ante up and makes governing boards account for spending increases from fees and for the policies behind them. It lets universities be as expansive as they can afford to be short of silently taxing students. The logic is rigorous and compelling in the context of the JLARC report. Trustees and institutional officers should read about HB 1897 (lis.virginia.gov) and expect similar studies and legislation elsewhere. Higher education should support these laws. They can make tuition and fee bills honest.
Share on LinkedIn
