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
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.
