Former student society
senate member Keith Wil-
son charges that the col-
lege administration _ inter-
fered with student polit-
ics in regards to the pro-
posed athletics levy.

“I don’t care if you print
this,” said Wilson, after a
senate meeting that saw
athletics students disrupt
procedings. when he opp-
osed a motion for DCSS
support for the athletics
levy.

“It was at a meeting
with Mr. Gerry Della
Mattia (Dean of Educa-
tional and Student Ser-
vices),” said Wilson. “He
said to us, in effect, that if
the student society didn’t
impose an athletics levy,
then the college would:”

“T told him he was out of
line,” said Wilson.

But Della Mattia says he
did no more than consult
with the student society
executive. “I asked their
opinion,” said . Della
Mattia.

“It wasn’t appropriate
to ask for their approval,”
he said, adding, “that
would be co-optative.”

 

“I think there was rea-
sonable support although
they weren’t overjoyed at
the prospect,” he said.

He said he has asked for
college management  ap-
proval of the athletic levy
structure for presentation
at the Dec. 18th College
Board meeting.

Della Mattia, who said
he has talked about the
levy with Director of Ath-
letics, Betty-Lou Hayes
for the last two years,
would have signing auth-
ority for the new athletics
budget, with Hayes acting
as administrator.

Based on Della Mattia’s
recommendation of $1.00
per course to a maximum
of five courses, the levy
will raise approximately
$35,000 per year, accord-
ing to college researcher
Doug Talling.

He bases the figure on
this fall’s enrollment fig-
ures which includes sum-
mer students. The  esti-
mate may be off on the
low side by a small am-
ount, adds Talling.

When added on to the
$25,000 the athletic  de-

 

 

College interference
charged over athletic levy

partment currently __ re-
ceives, the estimated ath-
letic budget for °87-’88
would be approximately
$60,000, a figure athletics

See “Levy”, page 2.

Students

clash

over $1.00 - $5.00
athletic levy

Stories by Rob Hancock,
John McDonald,
Jennifer Whiteside

The Dec. 4th Special
General Meeting of the
student society turned
into a “three-ring circus”
as athletics students
clashed with other  stu-
dents over the passing of a
controversial motion.

The motion called for
DCSS support for an Ath-
letics department pitch to
the College Board asking
for their own $1.00 per
course student levy to be
applied to all Douglas
College students.

The SGM turned ugly,
as did a _ recent senate
meeting over the same

 

 

Dec. 4th SGM: controversy is centered on the precedent
of an administration-controlled levy above and Pe

normal tuition fees.

 

 

 

subject, when opponents
to the motion attempted
to block it with a proce-
dural attack on President

and Chairperson Scott
Nelson.
Observers said athlet-

ics students reacted with
jeers and catcalls even-
tually. forcing the motion
through with the help of
Chairperson Scott Nel-
son, whom they called
“an obvious athletics
supporter”.

Athletics students char-
ged the minority opposi-
tion to the motion with
using “stall tactics” while
the minority called the
athletics students be-
haviour “flagrant abuse of
procedural democracy”.

Proponents for athletics
pointed to the DCSS and
Other Press levys as just-
ification for student
society support of the
proposed levy.

Opponents argued that
support for the levy
would “set a dangerous
precedent” in allowing
the College administra-
tion to charge students for
what they should be fun-
ding themselves.

Some other important
motions were  oversha-
dowed by the lengthy,
heated debate.

A financial agreement

with the Other Publica-
tions Society, passed at an
SGM last year was over-
turned and replaced with
an offer of a $23,000 loan

See “SGM”, page 2.

 

 

What other departments think

 

 

 

 

 

At the heart of the dis-
pute over the athletics levy
is the precedent-setting
nature of an administrat-
ive levy above and beyond
current tuition fees.

Does this pave the way
for other departments, al-
so in need of larger oper-
ating budgets, to push for
their own levy?

Kevin Barrington-
Foote, chairperson of the
Arts and Humanities de-
partment, says that in
principle, he has no objec-
tions to the levy.

“I am concerned that
there hasn’t been enough
attention given to other

departments,” said Bar-
rington-Foote.

Dorothy Jones, director
of the theatre department,
says she is “is very dis-
tressed” and she doesn’t
feel the levy “is in any way
fair.”

Jones says that just as
some athletics students
don’t use the theatre and
performing arts facilities,
there are theatre students
that never use the athletics
facilities.

She also wonders about
faculty members using the
athletics facilities. “Are
they being levied?” asks
Jones.

Blair Fisher, director of
Douglas College’s stage and
concert bands, says he is
“surprised that the ath-
letics department is being
singled out.”

“I can see a need for
funding,” says Fisher.
“Travelling and perform-
ing is a part of life for
groups that visibly interact
with the community on a
continuing basis,” he says.

Fisher adds that the
issue should be looked at
comprehensively; he sug-
gests a travel and compe-
tition levy that could be
accessed by other depart-
ments.

e