After five months in operation, the Loft ‘mdash; Price Center’s music, culture and arts lounge ‘mdash; remains strapped for permanent funding sources. Meanwhile, campuswide debate regarding student oversight of the venue presses on with increasing intensity.
This year, the Loft is relying in part on temporary funding from the Department of Student Life, but the venue’s 2009-10 budget includes a shortfall of $165,134, which represents 31.9 percent of total operating costs.
At a Feb. 11 meeting, the A.S. Council rejected the Loft’s proposal to include a measure on the spring A.S. ballot establishing a student Loft fee of $2.62 per quarter. The final draft of the proposal granted oversight of the fee to the A.S. Council and the Graduate Student Association by allowing these bodies to reduce or eliminate the fee with two consecutive two-thirds votes.
The Loft presented a similar initiative to the council in October 2008, hoping to embed its own fee into the A.S. activity-fee increase that students approved last month. Councilmembers voted down that proposal, largely due to its lack of formal mechanisms for student oversight. After amending the bill to address these concerns, University Events Office Director Martin Wollesen said he was ‘shocked’ and ‘disappointed’ that the council remained unwilling to put the issue before the student body.
‘Students are smart, they want to participate, and they want a voice,’ he said. ‘I believe very strongly in this place, and a referendum is a good measure of student support.’
A.S. President Donna Bean said that placing the Loft measure on the A.S. ballot would send students a mixed message. This quarter’s fee referendum included a four-year moratorium on activity-fee increases, and while the Loft fee would be separate from the activity fee and would not require the endorsement of the council, she said that many students may be confused about these distinctions.
She added that Loft’s experimental business model ‘mdash; which relies on funds that are not yet secured ‘mdash; is fiscally irresponsible and puts an unfair burden on students. ‘We don’t see shared governance until they need something from us,’ she said. ‘At the end of the day, $30,000 [in annual A.S. Programming fees] is already supporting the Loft. I think a lot of people forget this.’
A.S. Assistant Vice President of Academic Aff
airs and University Centers Advisory Board Chairwoman Lana Blank worked with Wollesen to develop the most recent Loft proposal, which originally stipulated UCAB oversight of the fee.
In response to a popular suggestion among councilmembers that the Loft simply organize an independent referendum, Blank explained that running an election campaign requires at least $5,000 to cover advertisement expenses and online TritonLink services. For this reason, including the measure on the annual A.S. ballot would be more practical, she said.
Wollesen said the Loft would only run its own referendum as a last resort.
Following the council’s rejection of the Loft proposal, Blank said she has received encouragement from Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Penny Rue to reintroduce the bill. However, she said she may have to wait until the end of Spring Quarter ‘mdash; when the newly elected council takes office ‘mdash; to present a new draft of the measure.
While elected officials and administrators have deliberated over how to fund the Loft, a contingent of the campus community devoted to student-run business has expressed skepticism regarding the benefits of maintaining the nightclub’s operations at all.
Yuki Murakami, a core member of both the UCSD Food Co-op and the social justice group One Earth One Justice, said that if students simply took advantage of the opportunities that already exist ‘mdash; such as an overwhelming number of campus organizations and intramural sports ‘mdash; life on campus would improve naturally.
‘[The university is] taking a really artificial approach to enhancing student life,’ he said. ‘The main thing we need for student life is students, and we have them. People here think they need to be entertained, instead of entertaining themselves.’
Yesenia Padilla, another Food Co-op core member, added that the four co-ops on campus ‘mdash; Groundwork Books, the Che Cafe, the General Store and the Food Co-op ‘mdash; have faced growing debt for years, and that the university should provide financial support to these struggling enterprises before it considers permanent commitments to a new student venue.
‘The Loft is just another attempt to put another nail in our collective coffin,’ she said. ‘I don’t think that any concession the university is going to give is going to benefit students at all.’
Nevertheless, as long as the Loft faces a funding shortfall, students will remain high on its list of potential revenue sources. Sixth College Senator John Cressey said that the council would be wise to institutionalize student oversight while the opportunity exists, even if it means sharing this responsibility with other campus departments and college councils.
‘It’s dangerous to assume that A.S. is the only student-representative body on this campus,’ he said. ‘We, as A.S., have a duty and responsibility to get as much out of a referendum as possible. If we make blanket statements, we give up that opportunity.’
Readers can contact Jesse Alm at [email protected].