One-thousand two hundred and ninety two. This is the number of students that have been silenced. This is the number of students deemed not important, for on April 10, 2009 the democratic system was ridiculed by the same government established by this university to uphold it.
On April 13, the Daily Forty-Niner reported that the Cal State Long Beach Student Fee Advisory Committee voted 7-3, with two members abstaining, to “[R]ecommend that President F. King Alexander consider implementing a new campus-wide fee after the committee deliberated over the Beach Legacy Referendum results…”
How is it that this committee, in all its infinite wisdom, decided students were not fit to choose their own destinies and in turn failed to uphold the will of 60 percent of the student voting population?
Why praise students for the 18 percent voter turnout — as opposed to the typically less than 10 percent for general elections — when their will is completely disregarded? This vote has effectively made a mockery of the electoral process at CSULB and put the will of one man before the will of 3,898 of his constituents.
Though the recommendation is not binding, its message to the student body is clear. The simple fact that this committee is comprised of 12 members, with only four of them being students according to SFAC’s webpage, is a serious problem.
Moreover, the fact that only Associated Students Inc. President Erin Swetland, Vice President Christopher Chavez and a third undisclosed member voted against the recommendation — with no open opposition coming from other student representatives — speaks volumes about our current elected student government.
How is it that ASI Treasurer Brian Troutner defended his vote by telling the Forty-Niner, “I think the president can make a good decision as to what is a fair amount to tax students,” when the decision had already been made by our students? The proof of irresponsibility is in the comment “to tax students.”
The SFAC’s decision has basically put in jeopardy the electoral process at CSULB. It disenfranchises the 3,898 students that chose to take the time to vote on an issue important to them.
“It’s understandable how they won’t trust us … Students saw this as an opportunity to affect how the university is run…,” answered Chavez to the question of how this will impact ASI and future elections. “Honestly, after this I was questioning the validity of our system.”
With this said, I call on President Alexander to give the power back to students by siding with those students that decided the vote on the BLR.
Politics aside, this is a matter of showing students that their will should be respected and honored. Such blatant disregard for the CSULB student body is unacceptable. Why ask us for our opinion when in the end our voices are to be silenced?
Mizraim Martinez Medina is a senior computer science major and a contributing writer for the Daily Forty-Niner
I’m for sure going to the protest. I can’t believe the school is so lopsided. If students had voted yes, Pres Alexander would have signed it immediately. He’s just taking time to try to let students “forget” and then he’ll sneak it in. Let’s not let this happen. Bring all your friends, faculty, advisors. NO MEANS NO PROTEST..April 23, 11:30-12:30 at the Speaker’s Platform (grassy area in front of bookstore!)
It’s sad that the school says students don’t care about things, but when they do care about fees like this the school does not respect our voices.
They saw our vote and ignored it, now let them see our faces and hear our voices “NO MEANS NO”
No Means No Rally this Thursday, April 23rd from 11:30 – 12:30pm at the Speakers Platform (grassy area in front of the Bookstore).
If we let fee increases happen without the students voting in favor of them, fee increases will come in the future without regard to what the students want. The purpose of student referendums is so fee increases happen that the students want and are in favor of. These types of fees are supplemental to academics and provide additional services to the students. Thus, it makes since if the student body votes NO to anything above academics that their vote should be honored. Why should we be forced to pay for supplemental activities when we don’t want to. The students voted in favor of the $44 ASI fee; the students voted in favor of the $50 USU fee; the students even voted in favor for the $110 Rec and Wellness Center fee. Thats a real legacy. What Legacy is there with a fee the students voted down?
I completely agree with the argument about “Semantics” I feel entirely left out by any other interpretation of my vote. Nothing in the referendum or the voting process mentioned negotiation. This conversation wouldn’t exist if the vote went the other way, now would it? Respect our vote/recommendation and insist F. King do the same. “No, means no.” What is soooo hard to understand with that?
Semantics, they recommended an artistic interpretation of what the students were clear about. The students voted no, and they left wiggle room. As a parent “No, means no.” What is so hard to understand? It’s not philosophy, biology or engineering; No, means no!!!! There’s a reason the word ‘no’ is so abrupt and succinct. It’s because ‘no’ is usually not interpreted as ‘maybe’. In other words, they were weak, except for Erin and Chris. The fee F. King could come up with based on the enormous student voice is zero new fee/tax. By allowing the student voice to be airbrushed in any way, the SFAC violates the purpose of the referendum. WE SAID NO with inflexibility as per the democratic process!!!!!! SFAC belched.
They voted to not recommend a $95/semester increase, but for F. King to come up with a fee that he thinks is fair to keep up with rising costs.
I am not sure if you misquoted the article or if the article was confusing about what occurred, but I heard they voted to recommend to NOT implement the $95 fee…
not to mention the majority of the people who spoke out against the blr are working minority students who would be hit in the pocketbooks by this whopping fee increase. to disrespect the student vote be just another clear example of institutionalized racism.
I hope the next ASI doesn’t become management’s lap puppies. Wishful thinking?
When Doug Robinson subverted the fee advisory committee with his puppeteering it sent a two-pronged message to students. Not only doesn’t their voice matter in the decision to reject the fee, but their election process for ASI is inconsequential also. He brutalized Erin and Chris to the point that his message is that not even or student government is legitimate in administration’s eyes. From here on in, ASI should be taking the helm and leading protests. After all, they are supposed to be the voice and representation of the student majority; the voters who overwhelmingly said “no” to BLR. If they don’t, it will show students exactly whose be ASI sleeps in.
To the “Your name-Get over it” knucklehead—–The advisory was as equally “uninformed” as you are dumb ass. It was the committee’s obligation under Executive Order 1034 to make sure the student population was completely informed about all aspects and potential consequences. They absolutely did NOT meet that requirement. Erin Swetland and Chris Chavez are on the committee and had access to inside information. They smelled that things are not right with this fee and vocally objected. They were extremely INFORMED. Robinson stunk the place up with hegemony by determining that their informed requests would be silenced. The SFAC was so completely manipulated as to have a “blind vote” about their recommendation, even though all other prior votes were not blind. That was foul beyond comprehension. Not only did Robinson besmirch the student will on the BLR, he shamefully slapped down our two highest and most dedicated elected student leaders. That tells us that Robinson vehemently and abusively disrespects students. Unfortunately, he won’t be fired. Hopefully President Alexander will be of clearer conscience and recognize students as important to the university. If not, anticipate demonstrations at both Brotman Hall and CSU headquarters in Long Beach. I’m sure the media coverage of those protests will improve CSULB’s public image.
Management should have been open and honest with students by telling that the referendum was ADVISORY only. If they had, the thing probably would have passed because students would have been less agitated. Athletics is an important part of student life, but it can hardly be argued that the majority of students are attracted to a university because of its sports programs. They are attracted by academic degrees at an affordable price.
When you aren’t transparent and only offer peripheral and residual promises that their education will be enhanced by throwing money at sports, you insult their intelligence. An alternative strategy would have been to ask them for such a fee to improve academic programs, which would free up a lot of money to improve athletics programs. Instead, administration tried to slide a fee through with slick public relations gimmickry and hardly tangible fabrications. The prime tactic should have been to ask the city and state to invest. The city community was listed as a prime beneficiary; why didn’t they sell this concept to city voters then? A new soccer stadium would be the state’s real property, making that the state a prime beneficiary. Why didn’t they ask for a CSU commitment to improve property value? Meeting Title IX requirements is part of the spin. They could do that at an extremely small fraction of the fee with a one-time fee, rather than one that drains future students in perpetuity. We’re in the midst of an international economic crisis. Tapping into already strained family budgets to provide athletic scholarships that most students won’t qualify for, building mini sports palaces and all of the other “Rah-rah” sales pitch hardly appealed as an emergency need.
ASI did NOT tell students that their budget was strained and that they would have to cut positions until AFTER the survey lost. That also could have been tended to with a one-time investment at a meager fraction of the BLR. It’s been done similarly and effectively right here at CSULB in the past.
The bottom line is that administration should have been honest and ASI should have been less secretive about the BLR. Until student communities are respected as intelligent people, the consequences will be divisive and we’ll never overcome the image of being a commuter campus. Students will maintain the mindset of “I’m only here to get mine and get out because this campus doesn’t really care about my concerns.”
My advice to ASI and the president; next time be truthful and transparent, like Cal Poly San Luis Obispo was during the referendum they ran at the same time. If you override the student voice on this, brace for an incredible backlash in the form of protests. A revolt against administrative chicanery will hardly improve CSULB’s public image.
Get over it. The students’ vote was ADVISORY, not to mention mostly uninformed. The comittee’s vote was completely informed. The fee comittee did what was best in the long run for the school. Get out of your bubble and look at the big picture.