ASi Doesn't Listen to Students that Pay Them

Unfortunately, they did pass the Recreation and Wellness Center. Here are some concerns we have regarding the decision making and the lack of transparency and would like to state as denunciations of the SFAC which is manipulated by the business interests of ASI:

- We were not notified of the room and time for the meeting until Monday (Two full days before the meeting).
- There was no agenda that was given anytime before the meeting and it was not publicly posted (which did not allow for CARC members to prepare adequately).
- An hour before the meeting the location was changed from T - 152 to one of the Rosa Park's Room.
- There was no public comment
- The people in the SFAC completely neglected any input from those present at the meeting
- The Recreation and Wellness Center was ultimately approved with only a margin of 500 to 600 signatures.
- The entities sponsoring the Rec. and Wellness Center spent between $ 30,000 to 40,000 (of our student) dollars to market the project, pay full time staff to pass the project, and issue incentive prizes. Edina B. of the Student Center Business Office can offer any details regarding this staggering amount of money.
- and let's not forget to mention that the ASI had already spent $300,000 to conduct a feasibility test
- and, the SFAC violated provisions within Executive Order # 1034 conducting procedures for approving Category II fees. A letter of complaint was sent to the Board of Trustees with no response.

Upcoming SFAC Meeting! We NEED to be THERE!

Hey CARC!

On February 3, 2010 there is a scheduled Student Fee Advisory Committee(SFAC) meeting. This is the same committee that is considering our signatures and the same committee that has the upper hand on approving the Recreation and Welllness Center.

We NEED YOU!

We, as the Coalition Against the Recreation Center, are planning for this upcoming meeting. What to say, what action to take, and why this matters.

We will be meeting up Monday, February 1, 2010 from 11 am-1pm at the Environmental Studies lounge in the HSS building.

Let's make this happen! Justice is in our hands!

Hey CARC. wanna meet up?

CARC is gearing up for their first meeting for the winter break as well as the new year!

Where: Dolores Park (mission)
When: Friday January 8,2010
Time: 2pm

All are welcome to come as well as bring food to share =)

the Academic Senate

The SF State Academic Senate develops policies & procedures regarding faculty & administrative appointments, curriculum, business & fiscal matters, campus development, academic standards, University goals, and much more.

The Academic Senate is the highest ranking committee at our institution in terms of power. (hence the fifth floor Admin office)

Want to know what they're up to?
Hit up one of their meetings.

Click below to see the schedule:
http://www.sfsu.edu/~senate/documents/meetings/meeting-schedule-0910.html

Or better yet hit 'em up in person.
Academic Senate Office
ADM 551
Monday through Friday, 9:00am-12:00 noon & 1:00pm-5:00pm
415.338.1264.


Who's University? OUR UNIVERSITY!

Some wanted to see the fact sheet again....

Rec. & “Wellness” Center Fact Sheet

Have you heard about the proposed on-campus Recreation and Wellness Center our student government wants to build here at San Francisco State University?1
Did you know that it would cost students $93 million to build?
Did you know that Associated Students, Inc. (ASI) AND the Cesar Chavez Student Center Governing Board (SCGB), two student-run organizations, are closely involved in making this happen? They’re not alone—Campus Recreation—a program under Student Affairs is also pushing this project along. 2

Know the Facts:
· Student fees fund both the ASI and the SCGB. That’s right; $42 of each student’s per-semester student fees goes toward the ASI, and $82 toward the SCGB.
· Each enrolled student is an automatic member, and therefore, integral part of holding our student government accountable to representing the students.
· ASI proposed the $93 million Rec. Center and used $300,000 in our student money to assess the “feasibility” of the project WITHOUT informing students.3
· Brailsford and Dunlavey, a private architecture firm, was contracted by the ASI to assess the feasibility of building this project by planning and implementing what is needed to win student approval. They have successfully gentrified over 300 campuses across the nation including most CSU’s.4
· The proposed Rec. Center will likely not open until 2014 and most current students financing this project, if built, will not have access to the Rec. Center. As part of the Master Plan, a long-term redevelopment plan of campus, this project will have an impact on struggling students.5
· Fees have already increased $489 since spring semester ’09. Fees will continue to increase. If approved, the Rec. center will add another $160 dollar increase on top of all other fees within the next six years with an additional and annual incremental increase of $3 per semester.

The Student Fee Advisory Committee, a group in charge of reviewing proposed changes and recommendations to President Corrigan, scrapped a democratic vote in favor of a potentially biased petition requiring minimal approval from students on campus.6
Now that you know this, don’t you think…

We should be able to fairly decide through a vote whether we want to fund this Rec. Center?
ASI should be held accountable to the diverse perspectives of students on our campus regarding this issue by investing in programs relevant to current needs of students?

SFSU should be spending this $93 million to provide us with classes instead of a Rec. Center. Students should not be taxed without their voices being heard and as a campus we can invest in alternative projects such as sustainable initiatives, resource centers, art programs, organic food co-ops, etc? Another school is possible.

Get Informed and Plugged in: NoRecCenter.blogspot.com
Contact: NoRecCenter@gmail.com

· E-mail campus officials including ASI, SCGB, SFAC, and Campus Recreation (e-mails available on website).
· Distribute Petition saying we don’t want a $ 93 million Rec. Center.
· Participate in public comment during meetings, check website for updates!

Let your voice be heard!
Show that you are tired of having fee increases forced upon you!
This is as much about accountability to students as it is about the Rec. Center…

[1] http://www.studentrecreationandwellness.com/FAQ/
[2] http://www.studentrecreationandwellness.com/about_us/
[3] ASI minutes for November 5, 2008.
[4] http://www.facilityplanners.com/ht/d/OrgDir/xcids/397/pid/356
[5] http://www.sfsumasterplan.org/index.html
[6] SFAC minutes for August 26th, 2009.

CARC helping build Solidarity

On December 9,2009 The Coalition Against the Recreation Center went out to go support our fellow peers in support of the Occupation of the SFSU Business building. The building was occupied in response to budget cuts as well for other reasons listed.

One may go to occupysfsu.wordpress.com for more information.

Solidarity!

CARC in the News

UNFIT COMMUNICATION
by [X]press Staff Editorial
http://xpress.sfsu.edu/archives/editorials/014109.html

While the Coalition Against the Recreation and Wellness Center turned in its protest petition early last month, the low number of signatures -- fewer than 2,000 in a student body of 30,000 -- is astonishing for the amount of changes that this center will bring.[X]press has reported on these changes, including the $92 million dollar bill that students are expected to foot beginning next semester. Associated Students, Inc. has chosen to not only put off the vote for a semester, but also forgo the usual referendum process that is commonplace with student legislation.
Though this move technically is not illegal according to California State University policy, it deprives the student body of clarity and fosters absolute confusion. The students of this University, who will eventually be paying upwards of $160 a semester for this project, are ill-informed due to a lack of transparency with paperwork. Though ASI has proven that they have been able to get signatures, who has been signing these forms?
The lack of communication between the opposing Coalition and advocating ASI has also fueled a juvenile feud that has not advanced any discussion since the turning in of the anti- petitions on Nov 6.
President Corrigan's role in this debacle has been minimized but nonetheless important. By approving ASI's petition, he has violated the spirit of the democratic process. He is choosing to be complicit rather than contribute to the knowledge of the student body regarding the high price tags and plans for this center.
Furthermore, the proposed recreation center is listed as a proposal for the SF State Master Plan, a project that is, according to its Web site, supposed to be supported by state funds. Though we won't continue to discuss the state budget problem and how that plays into it, it does raise one question: Why are we paying for it?
Thinking that the student population won't like their plan is not enough for ASI to completely change CSU policy in order to get a resume booster.
As quoted in the Sept. 24 issue of [X]press, ASI President Natalie Franklin proved she cannot, frankly, be bothered by student opinion: "It does not affect our vision."
It is interesting to know that students of this University are not only expected to pay for facilities they won't use, but that they also have no say in the financial decisions of their student government.