Regarding the A & W referendum, I first want to say that personally, I believe the existence of varsity sports teams is one of the very best aspects of campus life, giving students the opportunity to excel in their chosen sport. Though I am not on any of the teams, I run, cycle, swim, and enjoy the odd soccer game myself, and feel a very strong sense of pride over the accomplishments of our athletes. Losing any of our varsity sports teams would be a tragedy that government funders of post-secondary education cannot allow to happen.
Currently, UFV students do have unlimited access to a wide range of athletic and fitness programs at a trivial $5 per semester embedded inside the U-PASS through the respective recreation centres in Abbotsford, Mission, and Chilliwack, and I would personally be reluctant to pay a fee of approximately $50 that is at least partially redundant when I already receive excellent services for only $5.
With this model, there may be a slight loss of on campus activity compared to theoretically having all fitness and recreation in-house, but in structuring health and wellness programs, I also consider the important principle of being well-rooted and connected with the broader community. Read UFV’s founding and guiding documents, and you will find that strengthening and interacting with the broader community is one of UFV’s priorities, and U-PASS allows us to do that. Were I a prospective student choosing a university, I would be very impressed that UFV students have chosen to stand apart from other universities and save money by furthering the strong two-way relationship between UFV and its partner communities, instead of choosing the expensive and developmentally limiting option of trying to make UFV function as an island unto itself.
Surely the nominal $10 two-semester fee provides excellent value for money in allowing UFV students to efficiently utilize community services instead of paying for similar services to be created on campus? When the U-PASS is renegotiated, perhaps students will choose to remove the recreation component of the deal, but replacing a $10 fee with a $60-$140 one at this time might prove a very unpopular move, considering that the U-PASS received almost as many Yes votes (1320) as voted in the A & W referendum in total (1550).
In my discussions with many students, what is clear is that many members personally felt blind-sided by the occurrence of the referendum, many not finding out about it until the referendum had already happened, and further, that I completely understand that as busy students, we don’t always have the time to be as aware of governance issues as we would like to. In an ideal world, should students be more engaged? Yes. Considering most students balance school with part-time work and a family life, is it really realistic to label this categorically as apathy? I suspect not.
In addition to being personally more than willing to paying the additional 3 per cent of tuition if we did not already receive very good services by partnering with the public sector, I am personally more than willing to support this question going back to referendum in the Fall 2012 semester. I won’t vote Yes to the additional fee in the referendum itself as long as the U-PASS provides the coverage it does, but I believe that having the chance to choose is a good thing. At such a time, I would also ask my fellow students to consider that under the current model, not only do the approximately 20 per cent or less of students who typically vote impose a fee on the more than 80 per cent who don’t (we can’t assume that not voting is necessarily apathy), but they also impose that same fee on thousands of students in future years who will not have a chance to vote on paying the fee or not. When you vote, please understand the choice you are making.
The impression exists that I alerted the Society to the matter of the failure of this referendum to comply with the Society’s own bylaws. Not so. For the sake of confirmation, I merely asked to see the motion which authorized the referendum. The Society internally and retrospectively realized that in fact according to SUS bylaws, a 75 per cent majority was required rather than a 50 per cent. Had I not asked a question which happened to highlight the discrepancy, the society could have been in the very awkward position of, for instance, having an irate student, unhappy over paying the additional 3% fee, find the discrepancy after paying their tuition, also nullifying the fee and forcing the university to issue a 3 per cent of tuition refund to hundreds or even thousands of students.
To those who question the Student Union’s actions in abiding by their own bylaws, I would ask what purpose there is in having bylaws to govern a society if we selectively choose which ones to apply and which ones to ignore depending on the circumstance? I very much doubt that SUS members wish the SUS to carry out society business in that way. For instance, the society rigorously observes the bylaws regarding quorum for both board and general meetings. Societal turmoil would ensure if it was decided to sometimes observe the bylaw and not other times. As well, Part 3 (2) of the SUS Governing Manual says, “Membership fees may only be changed by provisions of this Bylaw.” Imagine selectively applying that particular bylaw. I believe that whimsically and selectively applying bylaws as some recommend is antithetical to the spirit of having bylaws in the first place.
May I also suggest that nothing will be lost in going back to referendum in the Fall semester, with potentially a lot gained. A Fall vote will provide the opportunity for a fuller and more extensive information campaign that allays any complaints around insufficient information, and if students still feel that this is the right choice for them, they will return the same positive result. I want to thank every student who has participated in this discussion and who voted in the referendum, as through your involvement you are helping to build a healthier and more vibrant UFV that is an asset to the communities of the eastern Fraser Valley.
In closing, please take note that the reason the lack of funding for varsity sports teams that have always been funded to date is even an issue is because of reduced funding for post-secondary education. This is putting upward pressure on tuition rates that have already increased significantly since the freeze on tuition rates was lifted in 2005. In Quebec, where tuition rates are significantly lower than in BC, students are rioting in the streets by the thousands to protest the increasing cost of attending post-secondary – not rolling over and volunteering to foot the bill themselves.
Daniel Van der Kroon (SUS VP academic)
