|
|
|
|
|
10 January 2003
uwRyan.com This website is meant to provide value to UW student by delivering information. It shares its name with the column that I write for Imprint. Please provide feedback on what I write as well as give me suggestions of topics to cover. You can send e-mail to me to ryan[at]uwryan[dot]com.
uwstudent.org
Federation of Students 
|
Politics of refundable feesDon’t be fooled in pre-strike debate
Welcome to the bi-annual attempt by the Progressive Conservatives to kick around the WPIRG fee. The local Progressive Conservative Campus Association is attempting to get a referendum on pre-striking refundable fees. Executive members O'Connor and Kerrigan have submitted a complementary proposal that would add a fee initiation process and a referendum review of each fee on a tri-annual basis. PC member and councillor Dan Mader, in 2001, moved to have a referendum on the WPIRG fee, which is one fee to which this proposal would apply. Mader reasoned that the WPIRG (then OPIRG) fee had been approved by a petition and that he wanted WPIRG to be approved by a referendum. In 1999 James McAughey another PC-affiliated fellow approached council to request a referendum. At that time McAughey seemed generally opposed to WPIRG and wanted to gauge whether or not students felt the same. Over these three attempts by the Progressive Conservative youth, the reasoning has evolved into something that seems more palatable. While the term "refundable fees" in the current proposal refers to 18 fees and 17 organizations, some of the discussion on uwstudent.org has zeroed in on WPIRG. Also, there is the issue of the differences between the separate corporations and those organizations that are part of the university. WPIRG, Imprint, Waterloo Radio, and Sandford Fleming are corporations separate from the university and should be considered separately from organizations like endowments and student societies. The PC campus association's president, Aaron Lee-Wudrick, said, "Empowering students and reducing costs for them is consistent with our political philosophy." Others' intentions may not be so pure. While the motivation of some may be distaste for WPIRG, the proposal must be judged for its effect on all students and its effect on the organizations that serve students. Regardless of the intent of some, the proposal should be judged only on its merits or demerits. This will be the issue. Councillors, as decision-makers, have to consider what they value and what they expect the outcome of implementation of a pre-strike system. If a referendum is called, students as voters will have to judge the same for themselves. In considering the question don't be fooled by poor arguments. Kerrigan has said he supports the consideration of the three parts of the proposal as a whole; this is just like the Watpaign committee, of which he was a member, wanting its proposal bundled together. Remember, however, that each of the three parts -- pre-strike, initiation and review -- is implementable independently from the others. Some opponents of pre-striking will say it means the end of funding for these organizations and that their survival depends on fees being compulsory refundable. All three of the campus-wide organizations have had strikable fees. Imprint's fee was strikable from 1979 to 1993. Students could strike the WPIRG off their statements from 1973 to 1998. The Waterloo Radio fee changed to compulsory only around 1999. Since all these organizations managed to survive for years with strikable fees, a proper argument needs to point to differences that would change the situation. Any change to an ancillary fee system shouldn't cost more to administer. Strikable fees were eliminated to save clerical costs in the first place. To address this I suggest a different system of unified fees. All fees could be combined into one fee to save administration costs for the university. The fee could then be administered by a central student organization. Refunds, initiation and review could all be run by this central group. Other systems could also be added, like one that would allow students to vote with their dollars and direct and distribute some or all of their fees to one or more organizations. If students don't choose to direct their dollars then the fee could have a default distribution. In the end we should all look out for the best interests of students. Serve democracy and don't be fooled by the self-interest or bias of any political entity, whether it resents fees or receives them. |