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.

Additional News Stories Concerning CARC and student justice

Anti-rec center petition questions spending, fee allocation
http://xpress.sfsu.edu/archives/news/014015.html
by Natalie Leal, [X]press staff writer


Protesters 'sit-in' against budget cuts
http://xpress.sfsu.edu/archives/news/014060.html
by Jonathon M. Schmidt, [X]press staff writer

"the struggle continues"

The Coalition Against the Rec. Center would like to thank all of the groups and awesome individuals who have helped us get signatures for the Counter-Petition. With the limited time frame, in the midst of midterms and furlough days, we have succeeded in raising awareness and providing a source to LET OUR VOICES BE HEARD.

Your continuous support throughout our campaign has most definitely been valuable to the cause; and let it be known, it is not over! La Luche Sigue (the struggle continues)

A video by Michael Payton and the CARC

ATTENTION!

REMINDER.
To:All CARC members and those who are helping gather signatures for the Petition against the Rec. Center

PETITIONS WILL BE DUE THIS FRIDAY NOVEMBER 6,2009

One may turn in their signed petition forms to any CARC member or at BSS-379 (BSS Student Resource Center)

An additional CARC meeting will also be held on Friday @ 11:00 Am at Malcolm X Plaza in which you can sign the petition if you have not already. All are welcome.

If you would like to aid in signature collecting for the Petition against the Rec. Center, please contact noreccenter@gmail.com ASAP.

More TEACH-INS! this friday and monday!!!

Bring Your Voice to another CARC

TEACH-IN & Discussion

of ASI’s proposed Recreation & Wellness Center.
on

Friday, October 30,2009

and

Monday, November 2,2009

at HSS 155* from 12:30pm- 2pm

For more information Contact: NoRecCenter@gmail.com

*=any changes to the location will be posted on HSS 155

[X]press: CARWC Continues to Fight Rec Center Issue

Anti-rec center group holds town hall meeting, few in attendance
by Nathan Codd, [X]press Staff Writer
http://xpress.sfsu.edu/archives/news/013836.html


Passionate students voiced oppositions to the proposed Recreation and Wellness Center during a town hall meeting Oct. 22 and went largely unanswered by members of the Associated Students, Inc.

The Coalition Against the Recreation and Wellness Center held a town hall meeting in Jack Adams Hall in the Cesar Chavez Student Center, to inform students of the situation regarding ASI's approach to getting the project approved. However, very few students attended.

"I know it seems like the turnout here isn't that great, a lot of people have things to do," said dietetics major Jasmine Vassar, 23. "But in being passive and un-active, you are contributing to the building of the rec. center."

During the discussions, members of CARWC explained that in their opinion, the rec. center represents more than just a building, but indicative of the death of democracy on SF State's campus.

"If students vote that they want this thing, cool, I will accept the students' voice," said CARWC member Sam Brown-Vasquez. "But when students are denied the opportunity to vote on the decision making on this campus it illustrates the fundamental flaws with the way democracy is handled."

The few students that spoke that were uninvolved with either CARWC or ASI, brought to the microphone some very strong arguments, most against the rec. center.

Enoch Tuaumu, 22-year-old history major, brought tears to the eyes of some with his statements on the indiscretion shown by ASI in this matter and the way it will reflect upon the students as a student body in the future.

"I question the ASI in their priorities," Tuaumu said. "Who is this rec. center for? Most students don't have time to come here and drink juice and live it up and do Pilates and yoga. We work. And the higher the fees are the more we have to work."

Other students, however, argued in support of the rec. center saying it will provide a safe place for students to exercise on campus.

ASI members Travis Northup and Philip Fabian were briefly in attendance, but did not comment on any of the statements made by CARWC members or other students.

» E-mail Nathan Codd @ ncodd@sfsu.edu
_____________________________________________________

[X]press: Focus on Rec. Center as Petitions Circulate

by Lisanne White, [X]press Staff Writer
http://xpress.sfsu.edu/archives/news/013783.html


The ongoing Recreation and Wellness Center process is facing more hurdles as volunteers canvass with petitions and a hard-to-plan town hall meeting finally goes ahead.
ASI board member Emily Switzer, 20, had planned an informational town hall meeting, with a debate on the issue today. Unable to secure a nonpartisan, well-informed moderator and her plans fell through.
"Hosting a town hall meeting was important to me, because I feel that it is my job as a student representative to listen to the opinions and concerns of the students I represent," Switzer said.
According to Switzer there was apprehension among ASI members about how constructive the meeting would be.
ASI president Natalie Franklin has always maintained the association is doing its best to remain open to comment and keep students informed, but at the Oct. 14 ASI meeting she said she would definitely not attend a town hall meeting because she doesn't see the need for it.
"The project will never die -- this is a fact," Franklin said. "The project will just be on pause until the next board decides to go to petition again."
"Whether people choose to believe it or not, this will eventually happen at SFSU. Change is inevitable, and change is what we need right now. So if this doesn't happen today, trust it will happen eventually. I don't see the college growing without it."
The Coalition Against the Rec. Center is going ahead with the meeting today from 12:30 to 2 p.m. in Jack Adams Hall.
"We wanted to invite the ASI to participate in a debate but it appears that they won't be coming for fear of being 'attacked,'" said coalition member Sam Brown-Vasquez, 21, an environmental studies and Spanish senior.
ASI meetings, both public and private, have been interrupted by students protesting the recreation center and the Student Fee Advisory Committee's decision to continue with a petition instead of a student vote.
Petitioning started Oct. 12 and needs approval from 20 percent of the student population, roughly 6,000 signatures, for the project to move forward. It will continue through Nov. 6.
As of Oct. 19, 48 petitions, each with space for 100 signatures, were circulating campus; only one full of signatures has been completed.
The town hall meeting, which Switzer originally wanted as an ASI event, was not supported by many of the ASI board members and Switzer was organizing the event as an individual, not as a representative of ASI. Switzer's original plans were to address controversial issues such as the debate.
ASI graduate representative Frankie Griffen said in the that he was opposed to the idea of a debate because ASI has already voted in favor of the recreation center. He said Switzer would "need to do it as a private student, not under the ASI banner."
"We have comment boards at our open houses, we have e-mail addresses on the Rec and Wellness Web site, we have public comment at the meetings," Franklin said. "An opinion can always be stated and will always be heard, that's an advantage of the petition."
ASI has planned events, like a rock climbing wall, to promote the center while petitions are being circulated.
The idea of the recreation center has been around for at least two years but opposition to the project has been gaining momentum throughout the last year.

» E-mail Lisanne White @ lrwhite@sfsu.edu
____________________________________________________________

Teach-In this Thursday 10/22

Less Classes + Higher Fees = New Rec Center?

Bring Your Voice to the
TEACH-IN
& Discussion
on ASI’s proposed Recreation & Wellness Center.


Thursday, October 22, 2009
12:30-2pm
Jack Adams Hall

For More Info: NoRecCenter.blogspot.com
Contact: NoRecCenter@gmail.com

Counter Petition

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SIGN THE HARDCOPY, PLEASE CONTACT THE COALITION NOW AT NORECCENTER@GMAIL.COM WITH YOUR FULL NAME AND THE LAST 4 DIGITS OF YOUR SFSU ID AND WE WILL MAKE SURE YOUR SIGNATURE IS ON THERE!!!
____________________________________________

We, the undersigned students of San Francisco State University, wish to voice our opposition to the proposed Recreation and Wellness Center. Each semester, while more instructors and classes disappear, classes become more and more crowded with desperate students. Despite these severe cuts, President Corrigan, Associated Students, Inc., and the Student Fee Advisory Committee have deemed it prudent to charge students $93 million in additional student fees, over the next several years, in order to fund a Recreation and Wellness Center. It is estimated that this center will not see completion until 2014 or later. Furthermore, by scrapping a student referendum process for approval of the Recreation Center, they have decided that WE should not be able to decide how OUR student money is spent. As a student of San Francisco State University, I exercise my power as a part of the SFSU community by saying NO to the current Rec Center proposal and NO to unnecessary fee hikes.

Unity Pledge for Silent Protest

Pledge of Uniform Support for the Safety and Integrity of Silent Protest

We, concerned students of San Francisco State University, are holding a silent protest on the day of Wednesday October 7, 2009. We are invoking our rights to free speech and freedom of assembly under the California Constitution and under the CSU Free Speech Handbook.
According to the California Constitution, our event is an act of free speech and freedom of assembly under Article 1 Section 2 (a) and Article 1 Section 3 (a), respectively. According to the CSU Free Speech Handbook, acts of free speech are protected and will not be prevented based upon speech alone.
CSU students’ rights to free expression are set forth in the Education Code. Section 66301 prohibits CSU from making rules or taking disciplinary action:

“ . . .solely on the basis of conduct that is speech or other communication that, when engaged in outside a campus of those institutions, is protected from governmental restriction by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or Section 2 of Article 1 of the California Constitution.”

Trustee regulations also preclude the taking of disciplinary action based on speech alone.1 This is consistent with a long line of cases that similarly prohibit discipline against students based on speech alone. For example, the fact that students wore black armbands to school in protest of the Vietnam War constituted “symbolic speech” that was deemed protected.2 Other examples include “sit-ins” (where students occupy an area on campus), rallies, boycotts of classes or events, wearing a common item (ribbons, jeans, berets, etc.) or color, etc. Action may only be taken under the student conduct procedures where the symbolic speech in question materially and substantially disrupts the educational process.3

While we know that we have the right to free speech, we also acknowledge that there is a certain degree of responsibility which comes with those rights. It is on that note that we pledge, here and now, to take informed actions which will protect the integrity of this action while caring for the safety of each and every one of us.

This will be a silent protest where our message will resonant much louder than anything we can say individually.

By signing this pledge we promise to be each other’s keeper in taking active steps to ensure the legitimacy of this event and not take actions to undermine the safety of our fellow students.
With that said we will not disrupt the business of University function with vocal protest. Our visual message will be silent but enough to convey a strong message. We will not block fire exits or elevators. Some may view this action as an annoyance and/or nuisance but know that we are informed students and there is nothing more dangerous than an informed individual.
Lastly, we are invoking our rights under the CSU Free Speech Handbook and citing the provisions entitled under:

B. The California Compatibility Test
Under the California Constitution, courts consider whether use of a particular facility for speech activity would interfere with its primary use.4 If not, then it is available for public use. In other words, the test is whether speech activity is fundamentally incompatible with normal activity. Courts have made clear that mere “annoyance” or “inconvenience” are not enough to meet this incompatibility threshold: “Annoyance and inconvenience…are a small price to pay for preservation of our most cherished right.”5 As a state institution, the CSU is subject to both the First Amendment and the California Constitution; therefore, must meet not only the federal “forum analysis” standards, but the broader California compatibility test as well.
With that said, we are pledging to work together, as a collective group, and take collective actions which only strengthen the effectiveness and safety of the group as a whole. By signing this pledge, we are promising to abide by the guidelines of this action and not take individual action which could be used by SFSU administrative officials, and/or Department of Public Safety, to break our collective voice.

Photos from Our October 7th Silent Protest

Silent Protest at Corrigan's Brown Bag meeting with ASI.

Looks like we crashed their luncheon... bon apetit! NO REC. CENTER!

Demands of the Coalition Against the Rec. Center

We DEMAND:

• A campus wide vote on any fee increase related to the Rec & Wellness Center
  
• An Economic & Environmental Impact Survey & Assessment on how the Rec & Wellness Center will affect the campus including low-income students, students of color, & campus environment
  
• TRANSPARENCY, DEMOCRACY, & ACCOUNTABILITY to students in regards to decision making on this campus
  
• Town Hall & Budget Forum
  
  

Pictures from our action on September 16th

For more information check out the [X]Press article: http://xpress.sfsu.edu/

And for those who did not get chance to hear us serenade ASI and folks on Malcolm X that day, here are the lyrics to "Blowin' Corrigan" (to the tune of "Blowin' In The Wind"):

How many cancelled classes must we endure until we ever get in?
How many furlough days til we say: Corrigan, it's gotta end?
When will the ASI realize we don't have the money to spend?

(chorus)
The ASI, my friends
Is blowing Corrigan,
The ASI is blowing Corrigan

How many times will we vote for a gym, that nobody really needs?
How many needs must we all endure that'll just result in [X]Press leads?
How many times will our voices be ignored and replaced by petitions? We'll see

(chorus)
The ASI, my friends
Is blowing Corrigan,
The ASI is blowing Corrigan

The ASI, my friends
Is blowing Corrigan,
The ASI is blowing Corrigan

Coalition Against the Rec. Center in the News

Check out the Updates and coverage we have received in the [X]Press...

Students Protest [SFAC] Meeting Cancellation
http://xpress.sfsu.edu/archives/news/013570.html

Stalling the ASI meeting:
http://xpress.sfsu.edu/archives/news/013572.html

Mixed emotions over Rec. Center vote:
http://xpress.sfsu.edu/archives/news/013514.html

Be sure to check the website for future updates as well.

UPDATE ON ROOM CHANGE to Fight the Recreation and Wellness Center

This is an urgent update!!!!

The location of the Student Fee Advisory Committee has been changed (as was expected) to Student Services building room 401. The date and time are still the same and scheduled for Wednesday @ 12 PM. WE, the Coalition against the Rec. Center, will meet outside a few minutes before. Please update all your contacts...

Also please contact the NoRecCenter e-mail for information regarding a planning meeting Tuesday afternoon and be sure to read the some of the documents on this website which include: a brief introduction and background information on how this plan came about, template for e-mailing campus officials (an immediate way to take action with the list of e-mails to address included in the pamphlet and on this website), and a pamphlet on "Why We Must Oppose the Recreation and Wellness Center."
-Coalition against the Rec. Center

*****FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, DISTRIBUTE WIDELY*****
Fight the Student Recreation and Wellness Center!


When:
Join us this Wednesday, September 16, 2009 at noon inside the Student Services Building room 401 (a.k.a. One Stop Building, where you pay the bursar and financial aid office is located) as we plan to demonstrate inside the Student Fee Advisory Committee meeting during Public Comment for a strict petition process after arguing that a referendum and voting process is a better option for allowing students to decide whether they want the Recreation and Wellness Center to be built on this campus. Bring signs and any other noise-makers in case they ignore us. This is our last opportunity to prevent this building from being built!


What:
The Student Fee Advisory Committee (SFAC), a group composed of ASI elected officials, the Vice President of Student Affairs, and a few other campus administrators and staff is determining this Wednesday, September 16, 2009, how to implement an “alternative consulting method” for demonstrating support for the passage of the Recreation and Wellness Center.
Their last meeting held Wednesday, August 26th was not advertised publicly and members of the SFAC voted to approve unanimously that they would deny students the right to vote via a referendum process whether they wanted the Rec. Center, thus undermining dissenting opinion, and fundamentally doing away with any democratic process allowing student input in being faced with yet another series of new fee increases. They opted instead to use a petition process and are looking at the possibility of only having a minimum number of 1,000 student signatures to show support for the Recreation center.

Why:
This next meeting will determine the parameters for the petition and the objectivity of such a petition. Students and concerned members of the campus must show up and demonstrate against the undemocratic petition which will not allow for dissenting opinions to be expressed, is biased, and favors campus administration trying to expand their power and influence in this development plan.
We, the Coalition against the Rec. Center, oppose the creation of this building because students will be forced to front the bill, if passed, for the construction of a $93 million dollar project. During increased attacks against students, faculty and campus workers which include: budget cuts, furlough days, lost sections, less teachers, and increased tuition where are the priorities of student government in forcing students to tax themselves to build a building that will provide facilities and resources widely available on campus already?! This is an attack on all students and particularly lower-income and students of color that will be adversely affected as San Francisco State becomes a destination campus catering to students from privileged and wealthy backgrounds rather than an inclusive working class institution that trains the next generation of the backbone of California and the commuter-student population of the Bay Area. No to the Gentrification of San Francisco State University! NO Rec. Center, NO new fees!

Contact:
NoRecCenter@gmail.com
noreccenter.blogspot.com

Template for writing to Campus Officials

Dear Campus Official,

I am e-mailing you to protest the construction of the Recreation and Wellness Center because I believe that now is not the time to be building this project on campus. In light of the current problems we are facing as a campus community I am particularly alarmed at the way in which this process has taken place.

As students, we have not been not been properly informed of the implications that would follow the creation of the Recreation and Wellness Center and for the most part have been kept uninformed and unable to engage our Student Government, ASI, and other campus entities such as the Student Center Governing Board, and Campus Recreation from taking into consideration our voice in determining the future of our campus.

Right now the most pressing issue is the fact that the Student Fee Advisory Committee has limited our ability to say NO to the construction of the Recreation and Wellness Center on our campus by postponing and denying us the ability to vote in a referendum process. The proposed petition process is a slap in the face because it does not ensure that there is an objective body gathering signatures in a manner that truly informs the students of these issues. Additionally, for those of us that are against this $ 93 million dollar project, we are severely limited in being able to build a campaign that would demonstrate opposition in the way that a vote would show our support.

We call on you to take action and stop the construction of this project. We demand to be able to vote on issues regarding the future of our campus. If you continue to push for a petition to approve this project it should show a significant amount of student signatures in an objective manner before recommending such a project of this magnitude.

A concerned student,
[Your name]

Fight the Student Recreation and Wellness Center!

*****FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, DISTRIBUTE WIDELY*****

Fight the Student Recreation and Wellness Center!

When:
Join us this Wednesday, September 16, 2009 at noon inside the Student Services Building room 401 (a.k.a. One Stop Building, where you pay the bursar and financial aid office is located) as we plan to demonstrate inside the Student Fee Advisory Committee meeting during Public Comment for a strict petition process after arguing that a referendum and voting process is a better option for allowing students to decide whether they want the Recreation and Wellness Center to be built on this campus. Bring signs and any other noise-makers in case they ignore us. This is our last opportunity to prevent this building from being built!

What:
The Student Fee Advisory Committee (SFAC), a group composed of ASI elected officials, the Vice President of Student Affairs, and a few other campus administrators and staff is determining this Wednesday, September 16, 2009, how to implement an “alternative consulting method” for demonstrating support for the passage of the Recreation and Wellness Center.
Their last meeting held Wednesday, August 26th was not advertised publicly and members of the SFAC voted to approve unanimously that they would deny students the right to vote via a referendum process whether they wanted the Rec. Center, thus undermining dissenting opinion, and fundamentally doing away with any democratic process allowing student input in being faced with yet another series of new fee increases. They opted instead to use a petition process and are looking at the possibility of only having a minimum number of 1,000 student signatures to show support for the Recreation center.

Why:
This next meeting will determine the parameters for the petition and the objectivity of such a petition. Students and concerned members of the campus must show up and demonstrate against the undemocratic petition which will not allow for dissenting opinions to be expressed, is biased, and favors campus administration trying to expand their power and influence in this development plan.

We, the Coalition against the Rec. Center, oppose the creation of this building because students will be forced to front the bill, if passed, for the construction of a $93 million dollar project. During increased attacks against students, faculty and campus workers which include: budget cuts, furlough days, lost sections, less teachers, and increased tuition where are the priorities of student government in forcing students to tax themselves to build a building that will provide facilities and resources widely available on campus already?! This is an attack on all students and particularly lower-income and students of color that will be adversely affected as San Francisco State becomes a destination campus catering to students from privileged and wealthy backgrounds rather than an inclusive working class institution that trains the next generation of the backbone of California and the commuter-student population of the Bay Area. No to the Gentrification of San Francisco State University! NO Rec. Center, NO new fees!

Contact:
NoRecCenter@gmail.com
noreccenter.blogspot.com

Why We Must Oppose the Recreation and Wellness Center: A Look Into Opportunist Student Politics








By: The Amy Winehouse Anti-Authoritarian Gang

Behind closed doors, important decisions are brewing in the caves of administrative bureaucracy- changes that can permanently alter the face and culture of San Francisco State University. This article is in an attempt to inform and educate students as to why we must take immediate action in resisting the creation of the Recreation and Wellness Center here on campus. If this project is not stopped, it will further contribute to the increasing exclusion of working class and underprivileged students, significantly raising the cost of student fees, while simultaneously failing to offer the already struggling student population anything of practical educational value. This issue is the result of an undemocratic and inept student government. Branding this project with catch phrases like “wellness” and “holistic” is a cleverly constructed facade designed to market this endeavor to a socially non-conscious student population. The Rec. Center is an opportunity to capitalize on student recreation and further gentrify the campus under the auspices of a long-term redevelopment plan known as the SFSU Master Plan.

The idea began last year when our puppet student government- Associated Students Inc.- appropriated $300,000 of our hard-earned student fees to determine whether it would be physically feasible to construct a Rec. Center on this campus. We are represented by ASI, a student-run organization whose budget largely consists of student-based fees of $42 paid every semester. We must hold them accountable and confront suspicious transactions underneath our very noses and with very little, if any at all, student input and oversight.

The organization developed a plan for a new Recreation and Wellness Center, which, if built, would consist of a building which houses a pool, exercise equipment, basketball courts, lockers and more. ASI alone could not afford to finance this project, so they came to the Cesar Chavez Student Center Governing Board (CCSCGB), another student-run organization that has a budget funded by students of $84 per student per semester. In the end, students will end up paying at least $93 million dollars to fund a project most students will never see. The SCGB had to make the decision of taking on the proposed Rec. Center as a joint-project along with another campus entity simply known as Campus Recreation, a department in charge of the intramural sports program. Jessellyn E. “Penny” Saffold, the Vice President of Student Affairs is the dictatorial commanding officer for the Rec. Center, that is to say, it is her little pet, and she wants to watch it grow… while on a short leash of course.

When the SCGB voted on the matter, it decided to send the Rec. Center issue to a student referendum, meaning that an official vote would be called where every student would have an opportunity to vote on the question of funding the Rec. Center, provided that the campaign leading up to the referendum be objective and neutral thus allowing students to determine whether they really want this monstrosity. The vote passed (narrowly), meaning that the student body was supposed to vote and decide in April. During this time, administrators strongly encouraged the SCGB to vote in favor of this Rec. Center, and the whole process happened incredibly quickly.

The “private consulting firm,” Brailsford and Dunlavey, is the sole architect and partner-in-crime in this process and has gone to great lengths to abuse their $300,000 check—paid to merely investigate the project’s feasibility. They conducted a biased survey that made it appear as if students were overwhelmingly in favor of the center. [1]

Inconsistencies in this campaign have frustrated and delayed the process because the idea has not caught on favorably with everyone involved, who reject having the idea simply shoved down their throats and deceptively presented to the student population. The Rec. Center has been met with resistance, by individuals raising questions whether this project is really necessary, especially during the worst economic recession our country has seen since the Great Depression.
With fewer classes, fewer lecturers, and with the reality of public higher education deteriorating even more over the next couple of years, the time has come to escalate campaigns against wasteful and profit-based projects such as the Student Rec. Center.

The inept student bureaucrats, acting on behalf of the orders of similar administrative ones, are now trying to further remove what democratic processes exist in the project. The vote was postponed and it is highly likely that it will not even take place. Instead, ASI and Campus Recreation lobbied the Student Fee Advisory Committee on August 26, 2009 with their overtly large representation and influence on the committee to scrap any democratic vote that would allow students to decide whether they want the Rec. Center built.

The Student Fee Advisory Committee has chosen to use “alternative consultation methods” along the lines of a petition without any parameters ensuring that the process will be objective, in an attempt to demonstrate student support for the Rec. Center. If this sufficiently proves to President Corrigan that students want this project, then it will be officially approved.
If you haven’t heard of this project at all it shouldn’t be a surprise. The outreach for the Rec. Center has been weak and the decision-making has been kept secret because of power struggles taking place internally between the three departments that would manage and administer the new building: Associated Students, Inc., the Student Center Governing Board, and Campus Recreation.

We as students must critically analyze the Rec. Center and ask if this is what we want at this moment. Do we really need to front the bill for a building we will never see constructed until the estimated year of completion 2016? No doubt another tax on students (which will incrementally increase in the next four years from $35 to $90 to $160 and then an additional $3 each semester thereafter) will only serve to displace more working class students and underprivileged students from campus.

The bureaucrats behind this project have nothing to lose but everything to gain, with the construction of this project, our puppet student governments, which include the SCGB and ASI, will significantly expand their powers to tax students. We already know that these student governments do not really represent the students, and following the sham ASI election scandal last year[2], can we really trust these students with their respective administrators to manage the building and represent our interest?

If approved, the Rec. Center will be just another way for San Francisco State University to market itself to wealthier students, making this a destination-campus of the upper class as opposed to a public campus serving the working class of the greater Bay Area. Rather than wasting $ 93 million of student money, our fees should be allocated to reversing the loss of classes, a loss that is extending our graduation date well past the fabled four-year standard.
While there is a need for a campus Rec. Center, now is not the time to go forward with a project of this nature, and it must, consequently, be challenged. It is important to illustrate that this project shares many similarities with the gentrification of low-income communities such as the Mission District, which has significantly changed the landscape of this barrio and home for a large immigrant community.

While there were focus groups before the Rec. Center project began, it is important to note that these are not representative of the students who truly make up our student body. Our campus has been the historical backbone of student struggles in the working class-oriented CSU system, and we must acknowledge that we are different than other universities in the CSU system for that very reason. We find our recreation in the city and communities in which we live. We pride ourselves in training organizers and activists that will subsequently enter the workforce and push for progressive changes at the city, state, and national levels. This Rec. Center is an attack on students and students who, for the most part, were not incorporated into the decision-making process. When development takes place without the consultation or approval of the affected communities, it is the forceful displacement of these communities, accelerating the process of gentrification. No to the gentrification of San Francisco State University! We choose school transparency, a student government whose decisions are public, whose members are accountable to the student body regardless of race and class.

We must disrupt what is left of this process and expose the participating parties’ corrupt and manipulative tactics, and we must shove a monkey wrench into the gears of sleazebag student politics, politics that are typical in college campuses and exceptionally proficient in swindling students out of their money.

We reject the privatization of our campus, the needless investments and gentrification:
-No to ASI expanding and earning revenue off of students. ASI’s job is to use these funds to plan programs benefiting students, not to create new buildings so as to charge more money that benefits ASI.
-We agree that the school needs space for student recreation, but alternatives made inexpensively are possible with true student participation. The proposed Rec. Center was poorly thought out, forced upon us quickly, and the motives of those pushing for it are sudden and unclear.
-The school is not transparent; ASI didn’t need to spend $300,000 in student fees to ensure passage of the Rec. Center unless they were scared it wouldn’t pass just like they’re scared of allowing students to vote! No taxation without representation!

We reject the proposed Recreation and Wellness Center, because we believe another school is possible.





Take Action:
Contact the Coalition against the Rec. Center:
NoRecCenter@gmail.com
noreccenter.blogspot.com

E-mail ASI, Student Center Governing Board, Campus Recreation, and the Student Fee Advisory Committee demanding that you want a vote and voicing your concern for this building. Get involved! Make Noise! And disrupt, disrupt, disrupt all student government meetings until our voice is heard! ASI meets every Wednesday at 2 PM in Rosa Parks A-C. Student Center Governing Board meets the first Thursday of every month at 9:30 AM in the Delmy Rodriguez room on the third floor of the Student Center.
Time is running out! Take Action!
List of E-mails to contact and voice your concern:
SFSU President Robert A. Corrigan corrigan@sfsu.edu 415-338-1381

SFSU VP of Student Affairs Jessellyn E. Saffold psaffold@sfsu.edu 415-338-2032

Associated Students

Peter Koo, Executive Director pkoo@sfsu.edu
Jamila Ali, Associate Executive Director jail@sfsu.edu

Natalie Franklin, ASI President president@asi.sfsu.edu
Darlington Nwaokoro, VP of Finance vpfinance@asi.sfsu.edu
Raul Amaya, VP of Univ. Affairs vpunivaffairs@asi.sfsu.edu
Vanessa Allas, VP of Internal Affairs vpinternal@asi.sfsu.edu
Phillip Fabian, VP of External Affairs vpexternal@asi.sfsu.edu
Frankie Griffen, Grad Rep. gradrep@asi.sfsu.edu
Flora Nguyen, Junior Rep. juniorrep@asi.sfsu.edu
Amy Guan, Freshman Rep. freshrep@asi.sfsu.edu
Ronna “Roe” Navarro, Senior Rep. seniorrep@asi.sfsu.edu
Travis Northup, Sophomore Rep. sophrep@asi.sfsu.edu
Alan Chan, Science Rep. sciencerep@asi.sfsu.edu
Emily Switzer, BSS Rep. bssrep@asi.sfsu.edu
Rick De La Torre, Creative Arts Rep. creativeartsrep@asi.sfsu.edu
Son Ho, Ethnic Studies Rep. ethnicstudiesrep@asi.sfsu.edu
Brian Cole, Humanities Rep. humanitiesrep@asi.sfsu.edu
Kenneth Ma, Rep. at Large repatlarge@asi.sfsu.edu
Nate Dingler, Business Rep. businessrep@asi.sfsu.edu
Vanessa Amaya, Education Rep. educationrep@asi.sfsu.edu

Student Center Governing Board

Raul AmayaChairperson

pktmadness312@yahoo.com
Guy DalpeManaging Director

gdalpe@sfsu.edu
Derek AitkenAdministrative Appointee

daitken@sfsu.edu
Kit BomarChair, Audit Committee

cbomar@sfsu.edu

Sam BrownChair, Finance Committee

revolutionarysam@gmail.com
Dr. Linda Buckley Administrative Appointee

lbuckley@sfsu.edu
Tyler CornfieldChair, Community Relations Committee Chair, Rules Committee

tylercornfield@gmail.com
Paloma Dudum-MayaChair, Master Plan Committee

dudumya19@aol.com
Chris GillespieASI Representative

dmgillespi@aol.com
Dr. Edwin JohnsonAlumni Appointee

Edwin.docemjay@gmail.com
Sokhom MaoChair, Vendor Services Committee

mrsokhommao@yahoo.com
Jacqueline MendezChair, Human Resources CommitteeChair, Native American Arts Committee

jakelita@sfsu.edu
Travis NorthrupOSPLD Advisory Committee

nwaokoro@sfsu.edu
Don ScobleAdministrative Appointee

dscobble@sfsu.edu
Dr. Rebecca L. ToporekFaculty Appointee

rtoporek@sfsu.edu

Student Fee Advisory Committee
Kit BomarChair, Audit Committeecbomar@sfsu.edu
Angela Sposito,
Executive Assistant, Chair Academic Senate
asposito@sfsu.edu

Graham Litchman
Health & Human Services (ASI)
graham.litchman@gmail.com

Bridget McCracken
Director of Academic Services Department of Public Administration
mpa@sfsu.edu

Natalie Franklin, ASI President

president@asi.sfsu.edu
Darlington Nwaokoro, VP of Finance

vpfinance@asi.sfsu.edu

Raul Amaya, VP of Univ. Affairs vpunivaffairs@asi.sfsu.edu

Shawn Whalen
Academic Senate Chair
swhalen@sfsu.edu

John Kim
Chair of Psychology
johnjkim@sfsu.edu

Agnes Barin Valero
Secretary of SFAC
abarin@sfsu.edu

Other Contacts:

Robert A. Corrigan
President of San Francisco State
president@sfsu.edu,

Leroy Morishita
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
leroym@sfsu.edu

Campus Recreation

Ajani Byrd
Director of Campus Recreation
ambyrd@sfsu.edu

Ryan Fetzer
Intramural & Sport Clubs Coordinator
rfetzer@sfsu.edu

Marc Barrie
Fitness, Wellness & Aquatics Coordinator
mbarrie@sfsu.edu

[1] ASI minutes for November 5, 2008.

[2] Questions such as “To what extent do you feel improvements to recreational/wellness facilities would have an impact on making San Francisco State a more desirable and enjoyable school to attend?” and “To what extent do you feel improvements to recreational/wellness facilities would have an impact on improving the quality of life at San Francisco State?” were clearly phrased in a biased way and violate all principles of taking a balanced survey. Not to mention the problematic nature of the party conducting the survey having great financial interest in receiving certain results.

[3] As a result of the Student Fee Advisory Committee meeting on August 26, 2009

[4] ASI voted not to approve the election results in April 2009 due to the discrepancies with the online elections in which students alleged ASI of not being able to vote for their candidates. Despite this the new Board of Directors of ASI was sworn in and a protest was held on 5/4/09 in response to the voter fraud allegations.

No Recreation Center! Not Now! Not Ever!

NO RECREATION CENTER! NO NEW FEES!
NOT NOW! NOT EVER!

Associated Students, Inc. (ASI), a student governing body, developed a plan for a new Recreation and Wellness Center, a building housing a pool, exercise equipment, basketball courts, lockers and more. ASI, with the support of the Student Center Governing Board (SCGB), decided take the proposed Rec. Center on as a joint project and send the Rec. Center to an official vote where every student could decide. The student body was supposed to vote in late April whether the Rec. Center will be built but the election was postponed and will not take place.

The whole process has happened incredibly quickly through the pressure of administration. A “private consulting firm” Brailsford & Dunlavey (the architects of the center) conducted a biased survey that made it appear as if students were overwhelmingly in favor of the center. They were paid—with our student money—$300,000 before any of the decisions about the center were put to the democratic process or conducted in a transparent manner.

If approved, this Rec. Center, will literally force students to front the bill for a project we will never see as students on this campus (expected opening—2014???). This will further the gentrification of campus, displace the local community and underprivileged students, and cater to the needs of students seeking a “destination school” rather than fulfilling the needs of the diverse working-class students that make our school vibrant and socially conscious. Education not Institutionalized Recreation! No new fees, not now, not ever!

Email: noreccenter@gmail.com
Blogspot: noreccenter.blogspot.com