Apparently Kyle is only masterful with words on paper, not through the mouth.

I agree with Secretary Junger’s assessment that it would not be prudent to suggest a reduction of the fee that has been already decided upon.

First, regardless of anyone’s feelings concerning the validity of the election, the bonding has been set up, the fee structure has been put in place and for SSFC to take a position calling for its redaction would just signify a lack of sufficient understanding of the situation by student leaders.

Second, pragmatism should take the place of ideology when providing recommendations to administration. The authority and credibility of SSFC is jeopardized by taking the stance supported by Vice Chair Szarzynski. It is essentially a position of willfull ignorance to the functioning of the funding for the Union Building Project. Also, to argue an election as “undemocratic” (though the process was admittably flawed) and that failure to make this recommendation is an affront to “student rights” is unecessary inflamatory language that will likely, yet unfortunately lead to a greater disparity in the relationship between ASM and the Union (a relationship that is in need of repair).

I do think a prudent suggestion would be to recommend that the Union reduce costs in their proposed operating budget or more likely lessen their operating budget increases (ex. freeze their increases for a fiscal year) in a good faith effort to defray the costs to current students who will be unable to utilize the new Union South Building. I would argue that this proposal is a feasible request, albeit not one the Union - or any organization in a similar situation for that matter - would be entirely fond of, to balance the interests of continuing with the project while protecting the sanctity of the buyer-user relationship involved.

SSFC Chair Emeritus Kurt Gosselin

haha, epic fail kyle, epic fail

When will SSFC and ASM actually fight for the students?

The “election” was insanely undemocratic, and anyone who argues otherwise is arguing in bad faith. The truth is that students voted AGAINST the seg fee increase, only to be told that a small number of spoiled ballots - significantly fewer than the margin of defeat for the seg fee increase - necessitated a new election. When the measure failed a second time, suddenly a third election was required, one with no electronic voting, extremely limited polling locations and hours, and no provision for absentee voting. After some illegal campaigning by ASM on behalf of the measure, lo and behold, the tiny percentage that actually voted approved the measure. Third time’s a charm, I guess, although I’m sure a fourth election would have been necessary if they hadn’t pulled it off in the third.

"When will SSFC and ASM actually fight for the students?"

Fight for students rights by overturning a vote open to all students on campus that was upheld by the Student Judiciary and certified by the Student Election Commission? How exactly does overturning a valid student vote promote democracy?

The activists on the SSFC and the rest of campus could serve student interests a whole lot better by focusing their efforts on building support for additional state funds to keep tuition at current and even reduced levels. Or, they could productively influence the Union project by getting involved in helping to positively influence the new design.

Thanks SSFC. Thanks for throwing more of my seg fee money away on this new union that I could care less about. Thanks for standing up for the students.

Fortunately, the approach of Kurt, protegee Junger and the like - a do-nothing philosophy that refuses to put up a fight for millions of stolen student seg fee dollars - is nearing an end in the near future as more proactive students are set to take over ASM responsibilities next year. It is utterly disgraceful that the present Committee refused to take a substantive position against the wildly unpopular construction of the new union (even if by only a one vote margin), a facility few of us will ever use but one for which we will all pay a full $96 a semester beginning next year. The committee members who voted for the motion to reduce the seg fee levy - all of whom are likely to stay on next year - represent a new philosophy of ASM members, one which intends to make student government more relevant to students not by pandering to power, but by aggressively fighting for their interests, including control over their seg fee money.

Mr. Junger and and Mr. Gosselin elucidate the old way of thinking quite effectively. At the meeting, Mr. Junger seemed more concerned about the time availability of Union officials than making a substantive decision about where student money should go. He then proposed to allow the Union itself to evaluate the cost effectiveness of reducing the levy, essentially stripping students of whatever leverage and jurisdiction they have over its budget. And now we see Mr. Gosselin also giving all the leeway to the Union and entirely giving in to their dubious claims regarding the current bonding setup. The SSFC is supposed to be a committee that holds these organizations accountable. We should make them prove and justify their need for student money (especially when they are asking for so much of it), not harp about their time constraints and give in to everything they say.

It’s also important to note that, aside from the Union Initiative and all the shadiness associated with it, the Union has proven itself to be extremely disrespectful of the entire notion of student budget review. Though required by state law, the Union did not provide the Committee with the most basic documents required to make recommendations to their budget. The SSFC wasn’t even able to determine what our segregated fees were specifically funding. This is part of the reason why we weren’t able to recommend cuts in the “operating budget,” per Kurt’s suggestion - we had no line items from the budget to cut from because it wasn’t provided to us.

As other comments here would suggest, most students aware of this project - including myself, someone with student loans and work study - are outraged at having to pay almost $200 a year on this facility, especially considering that it was twice rejected by students with record student turnout.

However, Mr. Cornelius and his Union friends have not completely won their battle yet. Other members of the SSFC are still planning on introducing a referendum on this issue in the April ASM elections. Though its affect is not yet clear, I am completely confident it will pass by a large margin, proving once and for all that a majority of current ASM members do a horrible job in representing their so-called constituents.

SSFC Vice Chair Kyle Szarzynski

I fully support such a referendum. Manipulating this whole process and then saying ‘it’s too late, we won’ maybe convenient for Cornelius but bad for students. We aren’t going away — the Union counted on everybody ignoring the hideous smell from their effort to ram this through.

Think again…