Dear Editor,
This letter addresses misrepresentations in Daniel Palay’s
commentary published April 13.
Palay wrote he “served as the student co-chair of [ARSFAB]
for the past three years” and that Athletic, Recreation and Sports Facility
Advisory Board was created in 2004.”
We created ARSFAB in 2005; its original charter is dated
April 18. Palay didn’t attend an ARSFAB meeting until 2006. He has been the chair
for more than two years, but nowhere near three.
Palay wrote, “Main Gym … is maintained completely by the
university and does not use student funds.”
This is a forgivable mistake, but a major one. Main Gym and
other sports facilities are funded by student fees — just not the RIMAC fee.
Palay wrote, “various student surveys … including a 1997
Quality of Student Life Survey and last winter’s survey during the special
election … have overwhelmingly supported … lounge and meeting-room spaces.”
On the 1997 survey, students rated meeting rooms below
“Laundry/Dry Cleaning,” an “Expansion of Groundwork Books” and a “Theater for
Student Productions.” If that survey informs the RIMAC Annex, why doesn’t it
have dry cleaners, a cooperative bookstore and a performance stage? Students
indicated it was important to expand lounges, but they also listed study areas,
browsing libraries and co-ops as high priorities. The question did not ask how
recreation-facility fees should be spent, nor did it include any options related
to sports or exercise. The
expansion, planned before the annex and using appropriate funds, includes over
a dozen lounges and meeting rooms. In light of this, it’s not clear students
still view lounges as a high priority at all, let alone for recreation fees.
The survey Palay mentioned asked students what they wanted
in the RIMAC Annex, and their clear preference was for recreation facilities —
not convenience stores, cafes, lounges or meeting rooms.
Palay was referring to me when he mentioned “one member who
is no longer on the board,” adding that “ARSFAB continually ruled against him
by a large consensus.” While I was a member, the only decision ARSFAB made
regarding the RIMAC Annex was that alcohol be sold there. I took no position,
but even if I had, I wouldn’t have participated in the vote because Palay held
it by e-mail in violation of ARSFAB’s rules. I pointed this out, but he
proceeded regardless. As far as I know, ARSFAB under Palay never “ruled” in any
sense of the word.
Referring to me again, Palay wrote, “his arguments were
refuted by one of our GSA members, who could not recollect any controversy
surrounding the RIMAC Annex since his appointment in winter 2007.”
Before Palay submitted his commentary to the Guardian, the
mentioned member wrote to him: “I do recall Dana objecting at least twice to
the project, but by 2007 the plans had seemed rather cemented and ARSFAB’s role
was more to choose the color of lipstick than the pig.” Despite this, Palay
portrayed this member as supporting Palay’s false suggestion the annex was
never a subject of contention.
—Dana Dahlstrom
Campus Organizer,
California Student Public Interest Research Group
