From athletics and recreation fees to organization fees, the university lacks transparency when it comes to where your money is going
Each year, McMaster University and the McMaster Student Union collect over $1,400 in mandatory supplementary fees from each of their full-time undergraduate students. As tuition and supplementary fees were just due on September 25 this year, students, once again, enter a period of heightened financial stress after paying off significant balances to avoid late fees and interest charges.
However, finding detailed information on your student fees isn’t as easy as it should be.
While the MSU provides an accessible breakdown of the specific fees they manage, there is limited information available on how those funds are used by the MSU. For instance, to better understand how the organization fee, which costs students over $150, is used, you’d have to rummage through lengthy financial documents that are largely inaccessible to the average student. Not to mention, the list of fees on the MSU website is inaccurate and outdated based on the fee breakdown students can find on Mosaic or the Office of the Registrar’s website.
In comparison to the MSU’s less-than-satisfactory efforts towards transparency, though, the university lags even further behind. For McMaster-specific fees, there is little to no information available on how student funds are managed.
In comparison to the MSU’s less-than-satisfactory efforts towards transparency, though, the university lags even further behind. For McMaster-specific fees, there is little to no information available on how student funds are managed.
Take, for example, the administrative services fee which can cost up to $43 and is designated for transcripts, letters, tax form and certificate fees. Beyond that brief description in the title of the fee there are no further details on how the funds generated by this fee are used by the administrative team. What makes the unclarity of the fees even more frustrating is the fact that students are still required to pay $3 for an official e-transcript or $30 for an official paper transcript with express shipping.
This administrative service fee is just one example from that never-ending list of fees slipped onto your balance with tuition costs.
For many students and their families, the set of student fees they are required to pay can represent a significant financial burden, especially given the current economic climate.
As students at McMaster, we deserve to know exactly how our money is being spent. Creating a sense of transparency around student fees would not only improve attitudes towards fees, because students can better understand the value of their fees, but it also holds the university accountable to their budgeting, ensuring every student’s hard-earned penny is well spent.
As students and consumers at McMaster, we deserve to know exactly how our money is being spent. Creating a sense of transparency around student fees would not only improve attitudes towards fees, because students can better understand the value of their fees, but it also holds the university accountable to their budgeting, ensuring every student’s hard-earned penny is well spent.
For example, students are charged $260 for an expense labelled as the Athletics & Recreation Sports Complex Building fee. Beyond the title of the fee, there are no further details provided on where these costs are going and how they would benefit students. Without accessible information on these vaguely defined fees, students are left in the dark, unsatisfied with the dozens of unreasonable additional costs their forced to pay.
As inflation continues to take a toll on students, the burden of student fees is undeniable. Both the university and MSU need to prioritize transparency and work to build a more accessible and equitable system of student fees that better supports students and their needs.
On Jan. 17, the McMaster Students’ Union hosted a debate featuring the 2019 MSU presidentials candidates four candidates. Here are some of the highlights.
The first question of the debate concerned whether the candidates are more focused on advocacy or student life.
Josh Marando said he would be more focused on advocacy.
Jeffery Campana explained that the limited one-year term of a president would mean smaller initiatives are more important to him.
A1: Campana: Platform aims to engage students to get them more involved; focuses on both advocacy points and student engagement. "I am more out for student engagement, but I don't sacrifice advocacy"
— The Silhouette (@theSilhouette) January 17, 2019
The debate quickly turned to Ontario government’s decision to restrict Ontario Student Assistance Program grants and make some student fees optional, a move that was announced the morning of the debate.
Madison Wesley pointed to the announcement as proof of why advocacy is central to the MSU president’s role. Justin Lee and the other candidates were also quick to condemn the new changes.
Q10: Campana - "The PC government is not for students like us". The option to opt out of student fees will cause a reduction of funding to services that the MSU needs in order to thrive.
— The Silhouette (@theSilhouette) January 17, 2019
When the topic reasserted itself later in the debate, Marando noted the need for students to be “prepared to mobilize.”
When candidates were asked to outline their main platform priority areas, Wesley pointed to the need for improved mental and physical health support systems, while Lee chose his “HSR Drivers Accountability” platform point.
Marando said he is focused on making students feel welcome, and Campana spoke about his plan to place free menstrual products in all-gender bathrooms.
On the subject of off-campus housing, all the candidates said they were in favour of the new MSU landlord rating system.
Marando pushed the need to continue supporting landlord licensing, while Wesley and Lee talked about continuing housing education programs for students.
The discussion became more heated when candidates were asked to critique an opponent’s platform point.
Marando pointed to the logistics of Campana’s on-campus ice rink proposal.
Campana, Lee and Wesley criticized Marando’s proposed increase of the maintenance budget and various advocacy goals.
A6: Wesley - Most critical of Marando's point on lobbying to freeze tuition. Previously, OSAP is a provincial legislation issue, problem is that there are entire groups of lobbyists that dedicate time to this and they haven't gotten very far.
— The Silhouette (@theSilhouette) January 17, 2019
One audience member asked how the candidates would increase campus safety.
Ideas ranged from Wesley’s call for improved police response to the need to upgrade lighting and fix emergency poles on campus, put forth by Campana and Lee, respectively.
A7: Wesley - Student safety big concern. Main issue is that Hamilton police have not been involved, advocating for students to Hamilton police important. If we have concrete advocacy coming from the school, we may be able to change a lot for the better.
— The Silhouette (@theSilhouette) January 17, 2019
When asked about sexual violence on campus, all of the candidates agreed that training for students, Welcome Week reps and staff needs improvement.
Marando pointed out that none of the other candidates’ platforms addressed sexual violence.
Campana countered by saying that the issue could not be fixed in a one-year term.
A11 Rebuttal: Campana - Didn't address the issue in his platform because it is not a problem that one president can fix. Several different groups across campus must be involved; it is not enough to put a "bandaid solution" on a platform
— The Silhouette (@theSilhouette) January 17, 2019
The candidates were also given the opportunity to explain what made them unique.
Marando cited his comprehensive MSU experience. Campana did the same while stressing his experiences outside the MSU.
While acknowledging their relative inexperience, Lee and Wesley stressed the creativity of their platform and noted that they represent the only ethnic minority candidate and only female candidate, respectively.
The full debate can be found on the MSU Facebook page.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
By: Kaiwen Song
As a student who only just began to recognize just how expensive going to university is, I decided to investigate exactly where my money is going. Looking through McMaster’s supplementary fees list, I became indignant on behalf of the student body about all the fees we automatically pay. Even just counting the HSR Bus Pass, the Athletics & Recreation Activity Fee, and the Athletics & Recreation Building Fee, each student pays $1555.28 in total at the end of a four-year program, based on current fees. There are two main issues I am concerned about.
The supplementary fees do not consider individual need.
It seems unfair to make all students pay all components of supplementary fees regardless of whether students actually wish to use certain services during their undergraduate experience. As someone who enjoys jogging in the fresh air, I will never take advantage of DBAC. By paying a higher monthly rent to live in nearby student housing and commuting home every weekend, I do not foresee using the HSR. Neither will commuters who use GO Train services and people with their own cars. Why shouldn’t these students be able to opt out of these fees?
The supplementary fees do not consider individual level of income.
It’s quite different to ask a person who’s ineligible for OSAP due to a high family income to pay an extra $1000 per year than to ask someone who relies on OSAP and accumulates thousands of dollars in debt every year to do the same. Many students come from lower-income families, and every dollar counts, especially if they are going towards services that won’t be used. At the current minimum wage of $11, students need to work 91 hours in order to compensate for just these supplementary fees. It makes certain students’ goal of paying for their tuition, meal plan, and residence much more unrealistic.
So why does McMaster do this to their students? According to the MSU’s VP Finance, it comes down to utilitarianism. By making these fees mandatory to all, McMaster is able to offer each individual student an extremely reduced price. For example, a monthly bus pass from HSR is currently $87. Without McMaster’s mandatory bus pass, students would need to pay $696 to use HSR during the 8 months of school. You might think that it’s not your responsibility to make sure that the people who use these services get a lower price. Unfortunately, theories like utilitarianism are very complex, and a satisfying conclusion may never be reached.
However, students have the power to decide whether they wish to continue to pay these mandatory supplementary fees. Issues like this can be called to a vote through a petition signed by at least two per cent of full-time undergraduate students, or a vote of at least two thirds by the Student Representative Assembly (SRA). If either condition is met, a vote regarding whether the student fee should changed or not will occur.
It’s very easy to blame McMaster or the MSU for setting up these fees in the first place. However, it is their job to make decisions to try to benefit the student body based on the information available to them. Fees that I consider ridiculous may be considered absolutely necessary by someone else. Unfortunately, even with these structures in place to determine the opinion of the student body, they are often underused.
This issue is important to me, and it may be important to you. However, no one will ever know unless we speak up. If the majority of the student population is against my views, I’m totally fine with that. But if the majority of the student population simply doesn’t vote, then a change needs to come. I, for one, am through suffering unnecessary fees in silence.
Despite last term’s vote by the SRA that MSU members would no longer pay part-time fees during summer sessions, the McMaster Association of Part-time Students has plans to continue collecting these fees anyway. The two organizations are now at odds with each other in terms of what will happen with student fees this upcoming summer.
A December media release from MAPS opposed the MSU’s stance and outlined preliminary plans for a “summer advocacy program” based on survey results as a suitable way to spend summer student funds.
MAPS president Andrew Smith said the program “will be designed to identify aspects of the summer academic term that may be changed to improve the student experience of our members.” Smith suggested this will specifically entail comparing the summer session with the fall/winter term, course availability and comparisons to other universities.
Some aspects of the media release, however, don’t hold water under further scrutiny.
MAPS claimed, “Between the date of this agreement (1986) and last year, the MSU decided that their membership lasts for twelve months of the year (they decided this unilaterally). They say because of this, full-time students should not have to pay student fees if they take courses during the summer, and they want this change to happen for this May.”
In actuality, the MSU amended their bylaws at an SRA meeting in 1988, clarifying their 12-month membership. Kyle Johansen, MAPS' executive director from July to December 2013 was at that 1988 meeting as an SRA Social Sciences representative and spoke in favour of the amendment, suggesting that “full” be added regarding MSU membership holders in order to be clearer.
Another claim by MAPS that the University might not be able to “identify MSU versus MAPS students during summer session registration” was also refuted in recent conversations the Silhouette had with the Office of the Registrar.
Additionally, after reiterating that the original MSU-MAPS agreement always intended for MSU members to be reimbursed for summer fees, the release goes on to say that in May 2014, “To temporarily deal with the MSU's demands, at least for this year, MAPS would refund summer student fees to MSU members, upon request.”
Jeffrey Doucet, VP (Finance) of the MSU, disagrees with MAPS’ ability to collect such fees.
“Collecting the fee would be effectively ignoring the MSU’s governance mechanism,” he said. “It was the SRA that empowered MAPS to first collect the fee and now the SRA no longer views the fee as legitimate," Doucet said.
It is unclear as to why, historically, MSU members have not sought – or, perhaps, known that they could seek – reimbursement of summer session fees.
“MAPS has no record of the MSU ever exercising that option,” Smith said.
At the time of the Sept. 29, 2013 meeting in which the SRA voted unanimously to break from the 1986 agreement, MSU President David said repeated attempts had been made for eight months to meet with MAPS and renegotiate the agreement.
“We’ve done everything we could to negotiate in good faith,” Campbell said. He described unilaterally breaking from the agreement as “our only option.”
The University's administration is unclear in terms of how the two organizations will resolve the conflict. Associate VP (Students and Learning) Sean Van Koughnett said, “There is no specific process to determine the final outcome of this situation, but rather, the outcome will be determined over the next two months in large part through any further discussions between the two student organizations and based on the wishes of our students.”
After paying tuition, many students may not know what happens to their money. But organizers within the McMaster Students Union are working to see that changed, and show students what happens to their fees.
The finance committee of the MSU has proposed changes to a bylaw that would see student groups have their levies put up to referendum on a regular basis. The bylaw in question deals specifically with the five non-MSU, non-university organizations that currently receive a portion of student funding.
“What this bylaw essentially does is give [students] more information on where their money is going,” said Daniel D’Angela, MSU Finance Commissioner and Social Science SRA representative.
The groups that fall under this category are Ontario Public Interest Research Group, McMaster, Engineers Without Borders, Incite Magazine, the McMaster Solar Car, and the McMaster Marching Band. The money these five groups collect from the student body amounts to $10.86 for each full-time student.
And despite the enthusiasm of key players within the MSU, the groups affected have come out in vocal opposition of the motion.
“It’s an inefficient way to consult students,” said Lexi Sproule, co-president of the McMaster chapter of Engineers Without Borders of the proposed system.
Under the changes, EWB and the other four organizations would have their levy put on the presidential ballot as a referendum for students to vote on every three years.
“It’s not very in-depth feedback,” said Sproule. “Even if you get approved, you don’t know if students have any issues with how you run things. It’s so much energy for feedback that’s kind of superficial.”
Proponents of the referendums disagree.
“I don’t think that once every three years having to spend two weeks going out and telling students about what you do, I don’t think it’s that taxing,” said Jeff Doucet,
EWB currently collects 37 cents from every full-time undergraduate student. While not making up their entire budget, the approximately $7700 it receives goes directly to funding students participating in the Junior Fellowship Program, a four-month volunteer placement overseas.
While the dollar amount per student is small, the effect the potential loss is on some of the organizations is significant.
“[Without the levy] I don’t think we’d be able to operate—that’s what keeps us going,” said Yuvreet Kaur, one of eight student board members of OPIRG McMaster.
OPIRG McMaster is one of a network of organizations across the province, which promotes social justice issues through grassroots organizing and through the funding of student and community-led working groups.
Of the five affected groups, OPIRG currently collects the largest fee, at $7.57 per student. However, the fee is refundable within three weeks of the drop and adds date in September.
“We give students the opportunity to take that money if they need it or if they don’t support the work we do,” explained Kojo Damptey, also on the OPIRG Board.
”We’re the only organization on campus that does that.”
The threat of OPIRG McMaster losing its funding is not unheard of; other OPIRG chapters across Ontario, including those at the University of Toronto and at Queen’s University, have come under scrutiny through NOPIRG campaigns, which aim to abolish the system of contributing student fees to the organization.
In the case of Queen’s, NOPIRG organizer Stuart Clark told the Queen’s Journal he was opposed to the levy because of “the use of publically available funds for certain activities that don’t reflect the values of the entire community.”
Mac’s chapter, however, feels that its values align very well with the university.
“Our current president [Patrick Deane] talked about forward with integrity—we’ve been doing that for two decades here,” said Damptey. He emphasized that the working groups funded by the group, which address a range of social justice issues, are the product of student ideas.
“There are certain working groups that a lot of the McMaster population is familiar with,” echoed Board Member Sabeen Kazmi. “Other groups…like the McMaster Farmstand and MACycle started under OPIRG.”
OPIRG and the other four organizations involved are seeking not only to make students and SRA members aware of their role on campus, but also to voice their opposition to the process of the bylaw changes being made.
Sam Godfrey, co-editor-in-chief of Incite Magazine, expressed her concern with the idea of a referendum to determine fees.
“It’s hard to measure worth…by whether the majority of students read [Incite]. If you only funded things that the majority wanted, you wouldn’t have the same kind of community at Mac.”
However, D’Angela said that his impression was that the groups were in support of amendments.
“I met with them midway through the summer, the fee holders, and overwhelmingly, I’d say they agreed with increasing with transparency,” he said.
Sproule explained that while EWB is completely supportive of financial transparency, no mention of the proposed changes was made.
“All we heard was ‘great job’…what are we supposed to do with that? If we’d heard they had concerns, we’d be happy to change things,” she explained.
The bylaw changes were made within the Finance Committee but did not involve any further consultation with the groups.The process of amendment also didn’t involve notifying the groups when the motion was set to go to the SRA for voting; a system that was met with concern by OPIRG, Incite, and EWB, but to others was not problematic.
“If the finance committee decides to make a change because they feel we need more democratic input, should they notify the groups in advance that they make their change, before it goes public? I’m not sure if that will change the conversation that much,” said Doucet.
The discussion on the proposed changes will continue at the upcoming SRA meeting, scheduled for Sunday, Sept. 29.
Despite the opposition raised by the five groups, who are expected to present at the meeting, D’Angela and Doucet stand by the Finance Committee’s suggestion.
“If students want to have democratic input, referendum is the most efficient way to do so,” said Doucet.
“We think that the students are smart, they are intelligent people and they’re able to weigh the pros and cons of any single vote,” explained D’Angela upon being asked about the effectiveness of a referendum.
“We think that students are able to make decisions if you give them the right information and give them the important information.”
After being fired as the executive director of MAPS in January, Sam Minniti is alleging that he’s the victim of wrongful dismissal. He’s suing MAPS, McMaster University and some of his former colleagues for more than $500,000 altogether in damages.
The University and MAPS are now each in the process of reviewing their legal options. This is the second major lawsuit McMaster University has been named in during the past year.
Court documents dated Monday, May 27 state that Minniti is seeking the following:
Against MAPS and McMaster University:
$225,000 for wrongful dismissal and breach of contract/unpaid wages
$88,116.75 for unjust enrichment
$100,000 for mental distress and punitive damages
Against former MAPS president and board members:
$88,116.75 for unpaid wages and vacation pay
In 2012, the University’s audit of MAPS spurred concerns about the organization’s business practices and spending. Of the organization's revenue of $507,035 in 2011, more than $300,000 went to salaries and benefits. Minniti himself received $101,117 in retroactive back pay and a $12,000 bonus in addition to a substantial raise the previous year. Minniti was fired in January amid allegations that he spent MAPS funds on personal engagements.
But the court papers Minniti has filed tell a different story. He claims he was approached by McMaster’s chief human resources officer with the prospect of an updated job description. Minniti claims his raise and back pay were endorsed by the MAPS board of directors, and that the board later notified him they were not in a position to deposit the second half of the back pay.
Citing a series of purported letters between himself, then-president Jeanette Hunter and the board of directors, Minniti maintains he was only fired because he chose the rest of his back pay over his job. Minniti claims he could not forgive the rest of the back pay because he had purchased a home and refrained from exploring other job opportunities.
Despite being criticized for receiving retroactive back pay, Minniti claims he’s still owed $88,116.75 in wages not paid to him under a contract that he says MAPS broke.
Although MAPS and McMaster University are independent organizations, Minniti has named both as corporate defendants.
“McMaster is reviewing its options but is surprised to be included in a statement of claim by someone who was not a University employee,” wrote McMaster spokesperson Gord Arbeau. “Now that the matter is before the courts, we cannot provide further comment.”
MAPS’ legal counsel has not provided any comment.
Since the MAPS spending scandal was brought to light, Minniti has remained largely silent about his position. He has not commented thus far on the lawsuit.
Reports of Minniti’s lawsuit sprung up a day after the McMaster board of governors voted to stop collecting fees temporarily from part-time students. MAPS president Andrew Smith said MAPS is consulting with the University on by-law revisions and anticipates the suspension will be lifted by early fall.
MAPS's budget is funded entirely by student fees. Without other sources of revenue, any legal fees would need to be paid with monies collected from part-time students.
Minniti’s full statement can be found here.
For all of the Silhouette's MAPS coverage since the spending scandal broke, click here.
This article was updated on June 17 at 20:33 ET.
McMaster University will stop collecting MAPS fees from part-time students following a vote by the Board of Governors Thursday morning.
The McMaster Association of Part-Time Students came under public scrutiny earlier this year over its spending practices and lack of fiscal transparency. After firing its executive director, Sam Minniti, MAPS elected a new board in February.
At the June 6 BoG meeting, the University administration recommended that fee-collection for MAPS be suspended, citing that the new board has not yet met the expectations laid out for them at the beginning of their term.
"We don’t believe we can continue to collect the fees when MAPS has not ensured transparency, accountability and clarity on the services it provides in return for student fees," said Provost David Wilkinson, in a release.
As of now, part-time students (registered in less than 18 units) will not be required to pay $7 per unit to MAPS come fall.
The University has held fees collected from MAPS members since last summer and will continue to do so. Some of the fees will go toward sustaining MAPS operations.
