To the Editor:
We are writing to respond to a letter written by Andrew Ivers in your November 2, 2006 issue.
We take exception to the self-serving nature of the letter. We are disappointed that The University News has chosen to publish a letter that is filled with errors of fact and looks at the issue from such a narrow perspective.
From the beginning, we have worked on the student leader stipend issue with honesty and good faith and considered the issue to be one of fairness. In our December meeting (not April), no students argued that the system we had used for years was not fundamentally flawed. That system did not award funds based upon personal merit, the difficulty of the position or the amount of time required of the position. That system also only awarded stipends to six leaders. Essentially, the past system rewarded students who came to the institution without University Scholarships. In fact, from 1998 through 2002, no stipend funds were given to the editor(s) of The University News due to the fact that they were already fully funded in scholarships. Not one of those student editors complained about not being compensated.
We believe that the final plan, which was implemented in August, accomplished two goals: 1) Stipends were awarded to student leaders based on the value of their work combined with their financial need. 2) A committee will open the process to more student leaders. No longer will only a small group of organizations benefit from this stipend. A more open process will allow a wider variety of leaders to benefit from stipends.
Without reliving the entire process regarding the student leader stipends, we would like to point out the following errors in Mr. Ivers’ letter:
1) The meeting with the student leaders occurred in early December, not in April as Mr. Ivers writes. We wanted to give fair notice to student leaders long before personal decisions needed to be made regarding running for office. A second meeting in May, also not in April, gave students the opportunity to give input to expanding the scholarship to other organizational leaders.
2) Neither Mr. Ivers nor any other student leader was asked to approve anything. We solicited their advice and invited them to participate in the process. We are perplexed that Mr. Ivers recalls approving the plan.
3) We never told the student leaders that the amount of funding would be the same as previous levels. In fact, we told them quite the opposite. The pool for funding would be determined by full time enrollment.
4) The stipends posted to student accounts in a timely manner by the end of August. We doubled checked with the financial aid office and found absolutely no problems. More so, not one student leader spoke to either of us regarding a problem getting their stipend.
We appreciate the opportunity to respond to the letter written by Mr. Ivers. In a collegial and educational community like Saint Louis University, spirited discussion is what makes an engaging learning environment. We however would ask that it not sink to the level where we engage in name-calling.
John Baworowsky
Associate Vice President
Enrollment and Academic Services
Phil Lyons
Vice President
Student Development
