By Stephen George
A new hope for ACCESS?
The Adult Commuter Center-Evening Student Services center held a student forum last Tuesday in conjunction with a pivotal Student Government Association Senate meeting to continue debate over the value of the center in the face of its possible closure.
Students, faculty, staff, and several SGA senators discussed the function and purpose of the ACCESS center with a panel composed of SGA President Chris Marlin and ACCESS supporters Monica Linton, a senior political science and women’s studies major; physical therapy graduate student Shawn Vickery, and former SGA President Jason French. French has been present throughout the debates as a historical perspective on SGA’s original intentions in funding the ACCESS center.
Under French’s presidency, a three-dollar per-student per-semester fee was added to tuition so that SGA could afford to fund the center, which currently has roughly a $93,000 budget. Discussion over whether the fee was intended “primarily” or solely for funding ACCESS has been a recent issue.
“The fee was put in place to fund ACCESS,” French said, countering Marlin’s contention that money from the fee was not solely intended to fund the center. “If we’re going to take the ACCESS center away from the students who fund it, the fee should be given back to them.”
The SGA platform on the issue has been thus far that if the services offered by ACCESS are to continue to blossom, alternate funding must be developed to account for SGA’s lack of funding ability.
“The services could be transitioned into a university-funded location,” Marlin said, citing an SGA concept that ACCESS could be integrated into the REACH program, which receives its funding from the university. “There are some duplications of services” between REACH and ACCESS, Marlin said. “I see an excellent opportunity over there. I’ve had some discussions with them. They believe, initially, that the potential is there.”
Marlin also gave what is possibly the most definitive statement on the situation thus far. “The name ACCESS will probably dissolve,” he said. “Focus will be placed on REACH.”
Just hours following the forum, the SGA senate passed a proposal to further investigate both ACCESS and REACH with the objective of authoring a proposal by the November session.
ACCESS director Barbara King, who has remained confidently quiet at the forums, was pleased with the outcome. “I thought it went well,” she said. “It sounded like they were open to studying the situation,” she said of the senators. “There seemed to be a lot of open-mindedness.”
“I left the meeting feeling more hopeful than when I came in,” she said.
In a separate interview, King expressed some of her views on the debate, especially on the issue of the additional funding SGA would free up by closing the center. “I think if the money was set aside for that purpose, then if it’s not used for that purpose, the students have a right to know what purpose it’s going to be used for,” she said. “If they’re not happy with that, they have a right to a refund.”
“It’s just like if you go to the grocery and you buy something you think is one product, and when you get it home, the box is empty, you’re going to want your money back,” King continued. “That would be the analogy I would put it to. If you’re not spending the money the way it was supposed to be spent, either give it back or give me something better for it.”
King went on to discuss the employment situation at ACCESS. King and Program Assistant Donna Holmes are the center’s only paid employees. Although the center is funded by SGA, the two are considered employees of the university.
“This is a unique situation for student government and for this unit,” she said. “There are student activities fees that do support other positions at the university, but technically, we follow all the same employment policies and procedures as any other employee of the university.”
Marlin has also asserted that SGA would possibly oversee reinstating King and Holmes into another university unit if the center were to close. But King contends that because the two are university employees, that is not a feasible option.
“That’s why it’s not at anyone’s liberty to say they can move an employee to another unit,” she said. “It’s not SGA’s decision to move an employee to another unit. That other unit has to have the funding; they have to open that position up to anybody else that wants to apply. These are the regular employment procedures.”
“It’s not within his power to do that,” King said of Marlin’s assertion. “It would have to be worked out with that unit. If I were that unit, I would want some funding to back that up.”
According to King, Marlin and other senators have made little effort to visit and experience the ACCESS center. “To my view, not very extensively,” she said. “Not enough to speak to the services. I’ve not noticed any of them using the services.”
King also said that Marlin told her, in a September 18 meeting, that the center would be closed.
“As near as I can quote him: ‘I’m not going to beat around the bush. This center is going to be closed down sooner or later.’ That’s what he said to me. So what he’s saying to other people, I don’t know,” she said.
Marlin could not be reached for comment this week.
King said she would like to see a compromise reached between SGA and ACCESS.
“I don’t think it would be impossible, if you get everybody together,” she said. “I would think it would be a logical next step.”
