During today’s modified Student Assembly (SA) meeting, Vice President Susan Murphy ’73, Ph.D. ’94 held an extended Q&A with students during which she revealed further information and several bombshells regarding the highly controversial student health fee.
Seated next to two Forensics Society members moderating the Q&A on behalf of the SA, Murphy was immediately asked to divulge the true cost breakdown of the $350 health fee. According to her response, $150 will go to “expansion of health services,” $130 will go to paying for the increased staffing necessary to provide these services, and $70 will go to paying back a 2-year loan taken out specifically to pay for Gannett’s increased staff.
Murphy explained how in the 2009-10 academic year the University significantly increased the size of Gannett’s staff because a H1N1 outbreak on campus and that year’s cluster of student suicides put large pressures on the student health center. According to Murphy, at the time the University secured “one-time funding” to pay for this increased staff, but this unnamed source of funding only lasted three years.
When a student later asked how much Gannett’s debt is, Murphy responded, “over $4 million.”
Murphy also said “none of the fee” will not fund the physical expansion of Gannett’s facility, a project estimated to cost $55 million. Philanthropy and budget cuts across all colleges and the administration will fund that project, according to Murphy. She did say, however, that “part of the new costs are related to maintenance of the new Gannett building.”
In the course of the discussion, two students asked how the University might help students unable to afford the fee. Murphy initially suggested taking out student loans, and then spoke at length about how some students can use a portion of their personal allowance stipends associated with financial aid packages, which tend to be about $1000 according to Murphy. The Vice President also argued that the fee benefits students by lowering their out-of-pocket expenses, though it seems what she meant is that it lowers the out-of-pocket expenses of those who would otherwise incur in excess of $350 in health expenses at Gannet over the year. A quick read of the facial expressions of students in the audience indicated thorough disagreement over the net benefits of the fee, as well as general derision regarding the suggestion students take out additional loans.
Many students asked similar questions regarding the perceived lack of transparency surrounding the drafting of the health fee policy and its communication to students. Students belabored the lack of student input in the decision-making process, and asked Murphy if, moving forward, the University will do more to include students in policy and administrative decisions. Murphy initially sparred with student questioners regarding the claim the administration acted “dishonestly,” asking them to expound on this claim. Ultimately, the Vice President deemed criticism of the lack of transparency as “fair” but said it was a “difference of interpretation” regarding whether the administration was completely honest in its communications regarding the fee. Murphy said the administration’s communications were “not meant to obfuscate.”
As reported in our initial article on the announcement of the fee, at last week’s SA meeting, University President David Skorton said all of the fee as going to “operational costs.” Though this phrase is open to some degree of interpretation, debt expenses are generally not recognized as “operational costs.” Even if, as Murphy pointed out, the money provided by the 2-year loan goes to funding Gannett’s operations, no business would account for debt expense under the operating expenses heading.
Later, Murphy stumbled into what will most likely be the biggest negative take-away from the event. In responding to criticism regarding the lack of student involvement in the health fee policy origination, Murphy said, “You’re here to be students. It would be unfair to burden you [with information regarding the student health fee]… some information is not appropriate for students.”
Though Murphy did talk at length about student “focus groups” that were involved in the decision-making process, many students were visibly and audibly angered by this response. In the open forum that followed the Q&A, students expressed disagreement with Murphy’s claims. Fight the Fee protest organizer Michael Ferrer ’16 said Murphy’s claims “are an insult to [students’] intelligence.” Another Fight the Fee speaker said students are capable of thinking on their own and are capable of working with administrators to craft University policy. This same speaker, currently unidentified, also categorized much of what Murphy said during the hour-long Q&A as “bulls***.”
At various points throughout the discussion, Murphy revealed details about the University’s financial health and budget. Though Fight the Fee protesters argue the University is awash with available funds due to its multi-billion dollar endowment, Murphy stressed the precarious nature of the University budget. While Cornell does have a large endowment, the Ithaca campus of Cornell currently does not have a balanced budget, with operating expenses exceeding operating revenues by about $89 million in the last academic year. Murphy listed several reasons why this is the case, including increased faculty hiring and renegotiation of union contracts. The mentioning of increased costs due to unionized labor stirred several students in the audience. Murphy also said Cornell’s endowment-per-student is considerably lower than peer institutions’ and that this explains why the University does not in fact have large amounts of funds available. Using data from Cornell’s 2013-2014 financial statements, Cornell’s endowment-per-student is approximately $260,000 (this factors all 22,000+ Cornell students, not just undergrads). According to Murphy, this figure is about 1/20th that of Princeton’s. Using various data sources, it actually appears the ratio is only 1/10th.
Murphy also confirmed the University will raise tuition next year.
Yo Cornell: Obama has consequences!