A Recreationally-Oriented Health
and Fitness Center at
Florida International University
by Gary Montour
and John Pedersen
Introduction
Today health services has become the fastest growing segment of our nation's economy. The physical fitness aspect of health services received its biggest shot
in the arm from former President John F. Kennedy during
the early 1960's. Kennedy (1960, p. 13) established the
foundation for the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports with a basic philosophy: "Physical fitness is not only one of the most important keys to a
healthy body; it is also the basis of dynamic and creative
activity." Efforts of two other major organizations were
important contributors to the fitness renaissance: 1)
American Association of Fitness Directors in Business
and Industry, 2) Blue Cross and Blue Shield.
Promotional efforts by the three aforementioned
organizations has kindled a growing interest on the part
of the American people to learn about and participate in
health and fitness activities. Curiosity has caused a national fitness mania. Health clubs have sprung up all
over the country which provide year round facilities and
supervised exercise programs for those who want to
become physically fit.
The fitness industry can be divided into three areas: 1)
commercial centers that serve the general public for
profit, 2) corporate centers that serve a large number of
employees in big companies, 3) institutional centers that
serve the needs of a college or university population.
Each of these three categories has a different source of
funding (Montour, 1982) which determines the goals and
objectives that are established. This article will primarily
concern itself with the steps taken at Florida International University (FIU) to establish a student oriented
fitness center. The writers feel that the FIU model is an
innovative concept in campus fitness programming.
Historical Development of the FIU
Fitness Center
Securing Funds for Necessary
Equipment Purchases
In September 1979, FIU President Gregory B. Wolfe
allocated money from student government association
(SGA) funds for capital improvement of student recreational facilities. However, expenditure of funds was
dependent upon final approval by 35 SGA senators. This
stipulation, for those familiar with student governing
bodies, presented a complex and frustrating framework
for determining which facilities would best benefit the
FIU students.
Four special interest groups began to lobby for control
of the decision-making process. These groups included
athletics, student activities (represented by the student
government senators), recreational sports and health
services. After ten months of meetings (June 1980) with
members of each special interest group, a list of
facilities was chosen. The facilities included a fitness
center for each of Flu's two campuses. Fourteen (14)
Nautilus machines were purchased for each center
while the larger campus (Tamiami) received three sets of
Olympic
- .- free weights.
Securing Funds for Staffing and
Operational Expenses
Amendments to the original fitness center bill, passed
in June 1980, were finalized in February 1981. The SGA
passed a bill authorizing the purchase of the exercise
equipment and included approximately $10,000 for
operating both fitness centers from March 1, 1981
(Estimated construction completion date) until June 30,
1981 (last day of the fiscal year). Additional expense
monies were supposed to be generated through the sale
of non-student memberships. A Senate bill (Davis and
Lincoln, 1981) outlined the following policies:
1) Any and all currently enrolled students paying
(F.T.E.) activity and service fees as part of their
registration at FIU will have free and equal access
to the facility at all times of operation, with no
groups, teams or organizations being allowed
preferential time reservations.
2) The number of non-student memberships and appropriate rates shall be established by the Athletic
Committee of SGA with Senate approval.
3) All alumni of FIU would be allowed free use of the
fitness centers.
The reader should recognize that a handful of powerful
SGA senators pushed this bill through the senate without
giving ample thought to future financial ramifications.
One should also remember that this recreationallyoriented fitness center was a new idea, and the novelty
of the concept cultivated confusion.
The students had just passed-a bill with no provision
for funding after June 30, 1981. Rather than attempt to
administratively halt the students (which would have
caused further delays in the center openings) the
authors chose to remain silent. The strategy was to open
the fitness centers and allow student demand upon the
facility to determine how many, if any, outsiders would
be allowed to purchase memberships. If the student demand upon the facility was substantial it was felt the
Davis and Lincoln legilsation (1981) could be repealed.
The next four months (March-June) were the most
critical for completing the FIU fitness center. Securing
an operating budget for the 1981-82 academic year
meant making decisions on use by students, faculty1
staff, alumni and the outside community. The authors instituted an initial policy restricting use to FIU students
and alumni as written in the language of the senate bill.
Facultylstaff and the outside community were excluded
in order to adequately assess student demand. These
policies were established with the hope that sufficient
student demand existed and the financial needs of the
fitness centers could be met through student funding
sources. Two student funding sources were identified as
budgets with a high potential for fitness center funding:
1) SGA activities and service fees and 2) health services
fees.
Funding Structure
-
2) Reservations can be taken in person or by phone.
3) Only two names can be taken per reservation.
4) Students with reserved times who come late must
be rescheduled if center is crowded.
Students were asked to show their FIU identification
cards and sign in before entering the facility. This data
was carefully monitored and used in preparing the budget
request.
Fitness Festival and Wellness Brochure as
Major Promotional Tools
The student activities office planned a full week of
fitness activities in conjunction with the opening of the
fitness centers and a statewide "Fitness Week." Guest
lecturers were contracted to speak in the centers as a
means of introducing the facilities to the student body.
Lecturers included well known Olympic weight lifters,
nutritionists, exercise physiologists and other health
oriented professionals.
A brochure was compiled that included advertisements
for the fitness center, student health services, counseling
services, and recreational sport activities. The front page
of the brochure explained how each of the advertised activities contributed to student wellness. Eight thousand
copies were inserted into an issue of the student newspaper to ensure maximum visibility.
The lobbying efforts and policy decisions made during
the four month crisis period (March-June) proved to be
fruitful. The SGA and health services budgeting sources
approved a total operating budget of $53,000 ($33,000
from SGA and $20,000 from health services) for the
1981-82 academic year. Monies were approved with one
stipulation, the fitness center would service all FIU
students equally and show no favoritism towards special
interest groups.
Obtaining money from the SGA depended on two factors: 1) documented evidence of high student usage, and
2) a well prepared and professionally presented budget
request. However, the governing body of the health services budget needed to be convinced that the fitness
centers could be incorporated into their future Future Direction
"wellness" programming. "Wellness" is a term used to
University-wide Committee Establishes
assess an individual's level of health as it relates to
physical, psychological, social and spiritual vigor Future Policy
The writers, in conjunction with the SGA president,
(Brynteson, 1978). Wellness programming strives to proselected
members for a campus-wide fitness center comvide a holistic perspective on preventive health care
The Wecia' interest groups
mittee
(August
through a lifestyle that includes regular exercise, proper
represented
included:
student
activities, athletics, recreanutrition, proper rest and methods of dealing with stress
tional
sports,
health
services
and
an assistant to the viceand relaxation.
president for student affairs. Any and all policy changes
are directed to this committee before being implemented.
Student-Oriented Policies Were Established
Currently the Flu fitness centers are operating at near
Each week more and more FIU students began to capacity (approximately 900 users per week). The opera.-.>-utilize the fitness centers~.wntil~long.waiting-lines.began~to-.-tional.hours
run-Monday-through-Friday, 11:00 AM-9:30
frustrate student users. Several of the athletic teams PM; and Saturdays 11:OO AM-6:00 PM. The faculty and
began scheduling after practice workouts further com- staff at FIU have been offered access to the facility at a
plicating matters. The writers implemented several reser- reasonably reduced rate. The FIU fitness center has
vation policies to prevent any group from monopolizing become the center of attention for recreational enthusithe center.
asts. Discussions are already under ways for purchasing
1) Reservations can be made only one day in advance. another line of Nautilus equipment to handle the increas-
52
..&"-&
Montour
ing user demand. Preparations for establishing university
coursework and other activities in line with student
wellness are near completion. Members of the fitness
center staff include students from the physical and occupational therapy departments, along with physical
education and athletic training majors. Students teaching
students about health and fitness make Flu's fitness
center a unique concept in recreational programming.
Bibliography
Byrnteson, P., Fitness for Life. Journal of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, January 1978, 49,
37-39.
Davis, J. and Lincoln, L. Senate Bill: Fitness Center ONE
MORE TIME!!! Paper presented at the meeting of the
Student Government Association at Florida International University, Miami, Florida, February 1981.
Kennedy, J. The Soft American. Sports Illustrated, December 1960, 13, 15-23.
Montour, G. M. Designing Curriculums for Managers of
Health and Fitness Centers Using Job Analysis. Unpublished manuscript, 1981. (Available from Florida
International University, Recreational Sports Office,
Tamiami Trail, Miami 33199).
Thesis Abstract
May, Barry Robert, Ph.D , A Study of Herzberg's Motivation-HygieneTheory of
Job Satisfaction as it Relates to Academic Personnel in Selected Small Liberal
Arts Colleges [ I 9783.
Problem
The primary objective of this study was to investigate
the Herzberg Motivation-Hygiene Theory relating to job
satisfaction and dissatisfaction of academic personnel
at selected small liberal arts colleges. One of the subproblems was to determine the relationship between the
satisfaction and dissatisfaction factors thought to be important by the academic personnel and the following
demographic variables: age, sex, highest degree held,
years in higher education, years of service at present institution, present academic rank, tenure status, type of
position held, academic division, and administrative
level-cabinet level versus supportive level. Another
sub-problem was to determine if the factors of
Herzberg's Motivation-Hygiene Theory relating to job
satisfaction and dissatisfaction were the same as those
associated in this investigation. An additional sub-problem was to determine the relationship between the types
of critical incidents described by the academic personnel for the satisfying and dissatisfying experiences and
the above demographic variables.
Methodology
The subjects who participated in this study were from
eight regionally accredited institutions of higher learning. Four of the colleges were Wesleyan and the other
four were randomly selected from the Christian College
Consortium. A questionnaire was sent to 497 academic
personnel. The sample consisted of 345 subjects or 69.4
percent who returned usable questionnaires.
Each subject was asked to describe an incident or sequence of events, and then to indicate the importance
attributed to each of the sixteen factors as sources of
satisfaction or dissatisfaction. The frequency with which
each item was indicated as present in the incidents or
experiences was taken as a measure of its importance.
Each of the null hypotheses was stated and tested by
means of chi-square (p .05).
Principal Findings
The three highest ranking factors for the satisfying experiences were work itself, achievement, and interpersonal relations (subordinates). The four most important
dissatisfiers for the academic personnel were lack of
achievement, policy and administration, lack of recognition, and personal life. Significant differences appeared
between all sixteen sources of job satisfaction and
dissatisfaction considered to be important by the
academic personnel. In comparing the several
demographic variables with the sources of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction, 19.1 percent (61 of the 320
possibilities) were found to have significant differences.
In comparing the demographic variables with the types
of critical incidents for the satisfying and dissatisfying
experiences, eleven of the twenty possibilities (55 percent) were found to have significant differences. Based
upon the findings of this study, only partial support for
the Herzberg Motivation-Hygiene Theory can be expressed for the subjects in this investigation.