Slashed green fund a shame
Regents shouldn't have ignored student vote
The Spectator staff
Issue date: 9/3/09 Section: Editorial/Opinion
It's not all that often that students willingly agree to pay more tuition fees. And it's certainly less often that nearly 25 percent of the student body turns out to vote on an issue.
Those things considered, we gather that students at UW-Eau Claire are serious about going green.
So what's even more surprising is that the UW System Board of Regents reduced a $10 segregated fee strongly supported by students that would go into an account for environmentally friendly projects to a mere $1.
Reasoning behind the administration's decision to veto the November referendum outcome is fairly ambiguous. Explanations include giving Student Senate more time to work out issues with the program and allowing other programs that are ready for funding to go through the system.
The most interesting and frankly, unbelievable, reason is that the Regents said costs for students were being raised too much this year.
It is downright eerie that the Regents are playing the role of the concerned parent, up in arms about a savings of $9, when the Board has itself recently raised tuition 5.5 percent and could approve another, larger tuition hike over the next few years as part of the "Blugold Commitment."
Considering campus voter turnout is rarely anything to reckon with, the administration should have supported a plan that was obviously quite important to the student body.
This decision undermines the value of the vote and also shoots down one of the few fees that would have gone to a truly good cause.
In the bureaucracy of the UW System and the university itself, it often takes way too long to get anything done. It is refreshing to see students wanting to take action on their campus through environmentally friendly projects. Though it may cost $9 extra now, creating sustainable facilities and a green campus would have paid for itself years down the road. It is unfortunate that student desire for environmental accountability will be put on hold.
We also question the motives of the administration in this decision. It is obvious that many students are unaware of where any of their tuition actually goes. We just hope this decision isn't used to mislead oblivious students into thinking segregated fees have decreased in past years, only to justify other increases.
Those things considered, we gather that students at UW-Eau Claire are serious about going green.
So what's even more surprising is that the UW System Board of Regents reduced a $10 segregated fee strongly supported by students that would go into an account for environmentally friendly projects to a mere $1.
Reasoning behind the administration's decision to veto the November referendum outcome is fairly ambiguous. Explanations include giving Student Senate more time to work out issues with the program and allowing other programs that are ready for funding to go through the system.
The most interesting and frankly, unbelievable, reason is that the Regents said costs for students were being raised too much this year.
It is downright eerie that the Regents are playing the role of the concerned parent, up in arms about a savings of $9, when the Board has itself recently raised tuition 5.5 percent and could approve another, larger tuition hike over the next few years as part of the "Blugold Commitment."
Considering campus voter turnout is rarely anything to reckon with, the administration should have supported a plan that was obviously quite important to the student body.
This decision undermines the value of the vote and also shoots down one of the few fees that would have gone to a truly good cause.
In the bureaucracy of the UW System and the university itself, it often takes way too long to get anything done. It is refreshing to see students wanting to take action on their campus through environmentally friendly projects. Though it may cost $9 extra now, creating sustainable facilities and a green campus would have paid for itself years down the road. It is unfortunate that student desire for environmental accountability will be put on hold.
We also question the motives of the administration in this decision. It is obvious that many students are unaware of where any of their tuition actually goes. We just hope this decision isn't used to mislead oblivious students into thinking segregated fees have decreased in past years, only to justify other increases.
Be the first to comment on this story