MSA Fees Face Future Challenges

by Jacob Oslick

For several years, organizations affiliated with the U-M campus “right,”such as the College Republicans and the (now defunct) New Frontier Party, have argued for abolishing the mandatory fee MSA assesses on all students. Interestingly, to the great surprise of many students, several candidates in the recent MSA elections claimed that fees were already voluntary. In total, six candidates replied in Michigan Review endorsement questionnaires that fee refunds were available upon request, including then Vice-President and Students’ Party (SP) presidential candidate Sarah Chopp. Specifically, Chopp and her running mate, Sumeet Karnik, claimed “any student who wishes may come to MSA and obtain a refund for their student fees, an option we wholly support” (a few days later, Chopp clarified that she meant that, if elected, she would work for refundable fees). Similarly, SP candidate Jeff Omtvedt insisted “students may receive a refund by filling out a form.”

However, the desk staff at the MSA office disputed this information, arguing that the $5.69 per semester fee is mandatory and not refundable. Accordingly, they claimed no such form existed. A few days later, these statements were backed up by Angela Armstrong, the MSA Administrative Coordinator in the Registrar’s Office. In a letter to the candidates Armstrong wrote, “The fees are mandatory and are not refundable by MSA or the Registrar’s Office.” Ms. Armstrong suggested the confusion may have arisen due to a never-implemented ballot proposition passed in the Winter 1998 election. The proposition, which would have increased the fee to fund a student regent petition drive, was declared illegal at the state level last summer. Unlike the current fee, this proposed fee increase would have been refundable upon a student’s request. SP MSA Rep., and misinformed candidate, Mark Sherer blamed “inexcusable ignorance” about the subject. However, Sherer noted that he had been misinformed of the fee structure by past members of MSA. Quite likely, this would date the start of the misunderstanding to before last year’s fee increase referendum.

In response to the new information, some candidates are mobilizing to fight the fee. Mr. Omtvedt announced to the Review that he was “enraged” and declared that “if elected, I will work diligently to rectify this situation and ensure that refunds will be available to dissatisfied students.” However, other candidates disagreed with this sentiment. In their questionnaire responses, several candidates, all of whom knew the fee was mandatory, expressed marked opposition to refundable fees. MSA Representative and Blue Party candidate Peter Handler remarked that refundable fees would “create the problem of students taking advantage of services without having paid for them.” Likewise, independent candidate Jim Secreto argued, “Without the student fees, many of the activities that make this university a great place to attend would be on longer.” Taking a more pessimistic look, SP candidate Ann Yeager stated “Given MSA’s recent behavior, it is doubtful that anyone on this campus would voluntarily donate to its efforts.”

If Mr. Omtvedt succeeds, it would mark one in a series of setbacks for mandatory student fees across the country. Most prominently, in a case brought by University of Wisconsin-Madison (U-W) students, the 7th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last August that such fees are unconstitutional at a public university. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the U-W’s appeal. If it upholds the verdict, the Court would abolish mandatory fees used to fund political groups at all public colleges in the country. Already, in a 1995 case, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor questioned the constitutionality of such fees. A similar case was also filed against the University of Minnesota in February of 1998 , and is now working its way through the legal system.

Even without resorting to the courts, students have achieved some success in limiting student fees. For instance, through a student ballot referendum, students at the University of Texas succeeded in abolishing a mandatory fee used to fund TEXPRIG, a Ralph Nader-sponsored consumer group. Even for the general fee here at Michigan, such a measure could theoretically succeed. According to Article VII, Section G of the Michigan Student Assembly Constitution, the “fee may be raised or lowered by a majority vote of the Assembly and a vote of a majority of students voting in a general election, or by a petition signed by 500 students currently enrolled at the Ann Arbor Campus of the University of Michigan and a majority of students voting in a general election.” Thus, even without Assembly support, motivated students could organize an anti-fee campaign, and get a refundable fee question on the next election ballot. MR

This article was published in the 31 March 1999 edition of The Michigan Review (Volume 17, Number 9).
For questions or comments, see the Contact Information page.