[Vision2020] Turf

Thu Mar 31 10:27:26 PST 2005

Donovan, et al,

Donovan is correct on several counts, in my opinion.  Many so-called 
dedicated funds can be undedicated with the consent of the original 
group/agency providing the funds.

Since the "turf fund" is ASUI money, they should be given the say-so about 
how those funds are used or reallocated.  Surely such a clever accountant as 
Kenten could have found a way to redistribute these funds without running 
afoul of the so-called tuition rule (which the university only gives a wink 
and a nod to anyway).

When and my wife worked at the UI, dedicated funds were undedicated without 
the original donor's consent; other times they obtained that consent by 
promising repayment to the original purpose, but afterward failing to make 
good on that agreement.

Hoover built up an incredible amount of "Administration Building" overhead 
in terms of personnel.  While I think I understand part of the reasons that 
some Facilities and HR personnel were targeted (years of mismanagement, 
without corrective oversight from above), I do not understand why the 
presidential umbrella personnel body count has not been significantly 
reduced.

The reduction of facilities personnel will have long term results.  The UI 
is a long ways behind in needed maintenance.  What they needed to do was to 
replace/reeducate some of the poor performers in facilities management and 
HR, not take the chicken-shit/easy way out.

I wonder if the rationale and effects of the soon to be served academic cuts 
will follow the same pattern.  Let's hope in these cuts we will see 
administrative bloat reduced.

Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
deco at moscow.com

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Donovan Arnold" <donovanarnold at hotmail.com>
To: <hayfields at moscow.com>; <rforce at moscow.com>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 12:35 AM
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Turf

> Heather,
>
> Dedicated funds can be undedicated. The trouble is that people only agreed 
> to pay those funds for the purpose of that project. If we establish a 
> habit of undedicated funds we create distrust.
>
> When I was in ASUI we voted to take dedicated funds that were suppose to 
> be used to fix the soccer ball field and used them to establish the 
> wireless internet system at UI, but only for a one year time frame. 
> Personally, I think that was a wise decision to vote that way because I 
> think it overall benefited the University in a more academic way. We also 
> asked the students first who paid those monies. However, I think doing 
> that all the time eventually means that people do not want to pay fees to 
> certain causes because they distrust that they will be used for that 
> purpose and we lose the ability to raise funds for other needed projects.
>
> In essence, it is lying when fees are undedicated for the purposes in 
> which they were taken. I think if we wanted to use funds for another 
> purpose it should be discussed and voted on first by the students that 
> paid into it.
>
> I am not saying this because I agree with funding that turf, I do not 
> personally. However, it is the money of the students and they should be 
> the ones that decide how their money is spend. To collect and say it is 
> going to be spent on A but it is spent on B instead, is not a good idea.
>
> Take Care,
>
> Donovan J Arnold
>
>
>>From: <hayfields at moscow.com>
>>To: <rforce at moscow.com>, <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Turf
>>Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 04:12:33 GMT
>>
>>Pardon me Ron,
>>Although I hate to quote the Argonaut, the Tuesday, March 29th edition
>>quotes Tom McGann (Kibbie Dome Manager) as stating  the money would come
>>from the Kibbie Dome Turf Replacement fund.   Mr. McGann also proposed a
>>$5 fee increase to reestablish the Outdoor Recreation and Athletic Field
>>fund, which the ASUI turned down.  Mr. McGann stated theat "he recently
>>discovered that the Dome management had $1.4 million in the Kibbie Turf
>>Replacement fund.  And here is what I consider the kicker.  "$200,000 is
>>transferred into the fund annually from debt reserves, which are funds
>>set up as a safety net to campus budgets".  Right- which budgets?  The
>>article goes on to state further that as the indoor turf will not need to
>>be replaced for at least 5 years (by which time the fund will have
>>swelled to $1 million with the annually replaced money)they
>>felt"comfortable" allowing the project to go forward.  And that includes
>>the wrought iron gates! So if you can dedicate debt reserve money to a
>>project, clearly you can "undedicate it" . If the fund currently has
>>enough money to replace the INDOOR turf (the project that it was
>>originally intended for) why not move that 1.4 million into getting the
>>trash emptied and not slapping dedicated workers in the face?
>>
>>The beacon of the north is slowly being extinguished for the sake of the
>>neon lights of athletic glory.
>>
>>Heather Jordan
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------------------
>>This message was sent by First Step Internet.
>>            http://www.fsr.com/
>>
>>
>>_____________________________________________________
>>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>                http://www.fsr.net
>>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
>
> _____________________________________________________
> List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the 
> communities of the Palouse since 1994.   http://www.fsr.net 
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
> 