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.