Razor-thin voting majorities, rejected referenda and student petitions: the debate over the adoption of funding measures for AU’s Clean Energy Revolving Fund has again dominated the activities of Student Government. Unfortunately, our student representatives initially missed a valuable opportunity to clarify student views on this issue that has caused such controversy. Nevertheless, the door for student input remains tentatively open, thanks to last-minute efforts of a particular SG Senator.
Last Sunday, the Undergraduate Senate failed to assemble the two-thirds majority needed to place a referendum on the next election ballot. This would have asked students to answer the following question: “Do you support increasing annual student fees by $10.00 to fund the Clean Energy Revolving Fund?” Despite its rejection in a 10-9 vote, several senators remained committed to obtaining the opinion of the students they represent.
Within days, Senator Brett Atanasio produced a petition aimed at securing the referendum’s place on the ballot. In less than four days, he managed to collect the needed 700 signatures — totaling 761 at press time. His efforts and dedication should be commended. If the funding of CERF was to be solved in a truly undisputed manner, this student referendum needed to be on the upcoming SG ballot.
At the most basic level, the referendum embodies the SG’s intended purpose as an organization: to identify student input and act upon it. The question at hand is whether activity fees from all AU students should be used to jumpstart CERF, or if donations to the fund would be voluntary only. If any policy requires student input before it is made, it is a policy that affects our own money.
Moreover, there is a serious need for student input in regards to CERF. Many proponents of a universal raise in student activities point to a 2006 referendum in which 72 percent of AU students said they would be in favor of raising student fees $10 to support green energy initiatives. Certainly, these results are impressive. Yet every student polled in this 2006 referendum has since graduated or moved on from AU. Thus far, senators on both sides of the issue have purported their views based on assumptions and estimates of AU’s collective opinion on CERF. An updated and accurate representation of student views is needed, hence the new referendum.
At the same time, The Eagle understands the motives of the senators who voted down the referendum. These dissenting votes were inspired by an aversion to the university-wide increase in the student activities fee. Echoing the sentiments of these senators, The Eagle has previously editorialized that student should not be compelled to donate to CERF through a further increase in fees.
This paper’s views aside, the importance of student input must be recognized in this issue. With more than enough signatures collected, one must assume that Atanasio’s efforts will give the referendum a place on the ballot. Regardless of its outcome, this is the only way the SG can handle CERF’s funding in a completely legitimate manner. If student representatives want to truly live up to their namesake, the results of the referendum must guide SG’s CERF policy.
So contact a senator, research the details of CERF and make an informed decision on the referendum. The process is there for us, so let’s use it.
