When I began the online petition that continues to generate interest, I did it with one intention in mind: to let the students have a say. I realize that this is the purpose of the Student Association: students elect representatives who then are entrusted to act on our behalf. And traditionally, that is done. Allocating and managing the enormous amount of funds generated by the Mandatory Student Activity fees among all the groups that SA supports is, I'm sure, a very difficult job that requires many hours in the office each week.
Whether or not the e-board deserves to have a tuition waiver is beside the point and the fact that the money drawn from our mandatory student activity fees amounts to 60 cents per student is irrelevant. And the fact that the money drawn would come in the form of a waiver and not a stipend increase is even more irrelevant. What is important is the principle behind the issue, which, after reading Chris Oliver's statement on the (unofficial) UB forum as well as the article printed in The Spectrum on Wednesday, I am convinced he still does not understand.
Essentially my troubles with this issue are twofold:
1) The money being used to pay for the "tuition waivers" has been "budgeted" out of the money that we students pay to fund student activities - activities like Fall Fest and Spring Fest, or the myriad groups on campus to join and actively participate in, if they so choose. That money, I believe, should not be used to fund an "activity" which essentially benefits only three members of the entire student body.
2) The astonishing lack of information provided to the general student body regarding such a decision and the lack of the student body's input on the issue. In other words, having one part of a government allow another part to use funds in a way unrelated to student activities without those who foot the bill having a say.
I am not persuaded by Oliver's statement that the e-board members would have to work a second job to pay for their schooling. I rely not only on my part-time job but also on loans that I have secured. While the e-board members may find it a repugnant idea to have debts when they leave college, that is the experience the overwhelming majority of students in college face these days. Is it unfortunate? Yes, but that's the reality of the situation. If you're having difficulty living off the salary you already receive for your position, then take out a small loan. For a $9,000 a year stipend, it shouldn't amount to much more than $1,000 to $2,000 a year, which is far less than some other students have to deal with. Or, if you allowed the students to vote on it, you could end up with a waiver anyway and without all the animosity.
Also, Oliver mentioned "gross misrepresentation of facts" and the damage done to the e-board's reputation. I find it interesting to point the finger of blame at people who did not have all the information when you yourselves had all of it and decided not to share it with the students. Thus, any half-truths or rumors that became widespread are a direct result of your negligence to your duties as the heads of the SA: to inform and represent the students. Also, to answer Oliver's "shock" of the students' "hard stance" on such little facts, I would like to point out that the students were quite "shocked" of this controversial measure and vote having been made and taken without the slightest bit of knowledge of the general student body.
Despite the information that I received from reading Oliver's statement on the forum and the article printed Wednesday, I am still unconvinced they deserve to have their tuition paid for through the use of our student activity fees. However, I am just one student in a pool of thousands, and I feel that it should be up to the students to decide. I believe that a financial proposal that does not deal with money being spent for the general student body should be presented properly and the student body should take a proper vote on the issue. There is evidence to show that if the e-board and SA would make the case to the students, despite all the confusion and perceived anger of the student body, the proposal could and would be passed. The point of the petition was not to say that the e-board should never have their tuition waived, the point of the petition is to say that we believe that we have a voice and in this matter it should be heard, directly.
Photo: Meredith Forrest Kulwicki
