When the A.S. Council set about drafting its emergency referendum last quarter, the question that first came to mind was how our student government could possibly have managed to land itself in such an unfortunate monetary conundrum. The revelation that the previously well-endowed A.S. coffers contained virtually zero funding for Sun God and a rapidly dwindling supply of cash for student organizations came as a harsh reality check not only to the council, but to the many arms of our campus community that depend on A.S. funding to sustain their day-to-day activities. From Surf Club to Safe Ride, from the Koala to College Republicans, the pervasive effects of the council’s total fiduciary failure would be felt by all.
Now, as is so often the case when a government neglects to sustain itself financially, the burden of solving this monetary crisis has fallen squarely on the shoulders of the body politic. Thus it is time now for students to decide whether our quarterly activity fee should be raised an additional $19.82.
While the initial (and very much justified) reaction of any student raised to believe in this university’s message of affordability might be the outright rejection of such a proposal, the council’s dismal situation calls for the student body to support this referendum so as to preserve the countless services and amenities our student government provides. Regardless of how this crisis came about and despite how opposed we might be to the notion of higher fees, students must now come together to resolve this issue before we are forced to suffer the effects of a broke and broken council.
It is much easier to swallow this referendum when considering what would happen were it to fail. Student organizations would quickly falter, unable to host the events that depend so heavily on A.S. funding. The Sun God Festival that we have come to cherish would, as councilmembers have so vehemently insisted, become a thing of the past, its replacement coming in the form of smaller, potentially less frequent festivals. Council-sponsored services such as Safe Ride, the godsend of any stranded drunk, would be significantly tapered off.
Yes, our council has truly found itself in a tight spot. Yet we cannot fault councilmembers for a lack of effort in attempting to solve this problem. They have, after all, put together a highly transparent, well-organized referendum, one devoted primarily to ensuring the future of some of our most important student interests. The council’s well-versed devotion to these interests is perhaps best illustrated by its intention to channel part of its requested bailout funds into the creation of a bigger, better student lobbying corps to represent UCSD before our state’s lawmakers in Sacramento.
Additionally, the inclusion of a consumer price index clause provides students with the peace of mind that no similar referendum will be necessary in the foreseeable future, while guaranteeing that the council will possess enough funding to operate at full capacity. Be assured, the referendum’s language and breakdown give students the power to demand this money will generally be well spent.
There are exceptions, of course. The council will allocate $2.34 per quarter of its requested funding increase to the upcoming campus Sustainability Resource Center. And while green initiatives should no doubt be a top priority for UCSD students, this venture appears pointless at best and wastefully ironic at worst. Organizers, who secured one-time start-up funding from administrators without any plan to sustain their sustainability center (remind us again why we should trust you with our activity-fee money?), have opted to ignore the campus’ numerous already-established green resources in favor of reinventing the wheel one more time. Though it seems only customary at this
point for each of the council’s pet orgs to have its own center.
Ultimately, however, this fee increase does far more good than harm. Vote yes, and rest easy knowing the student body shouldn’t have to make this tough decision again.