Dear Jordan and Alex,
I have a few questions for you about the presentation last night on the U-pass initiative. It seems that the only thing the SU has managed to do is to bring City Council, and its Transportation and Streets Department, down to $94 dollars/semester. Kudos to you on that success.
What I don't understand is why you have failed to secure third party contributions to make up the difference between what ETS wants and what students are willing to pay. The whole point of going to referendum last year was to give us some leverage and that has been somewhat successful, but the point was to find a multilateral agreement and cease trying to force The City to meet our price in a bilateral agreement. It seems that the SU still needs to come up with the difference and stop focusing on getting The City to drop its price.
If Vice President Abboud encouraged council to bring forward a motion to go to referendum with these new figures I am curious to know why he won't move the motion himself? Why is the only option a higher tax, and more of a burden, on the students?
As both of you probably already know the provincial government subsidizes all secondary passes to the tune of $18 per pass. (ETS sells the pass for $42 dollars and the public school board applies the subsidy and only charges the student $24) I was wondering if the SU has approached the Premier or the Ministers of Education or Environment to see if some kind of subsidy would be offered? Was this topic discussed at the recent meeting that Jordan had with Mr. Klein?
The whole community of Garneau would be behind the SU on this initiative and it should be rather simple to mount an effective media campaign to apply pressure on the province to subsidize a portion of the $34 dollars we still need to make the U-pass a reality. Garneau will support it because of the potential to relieve traffic congestion in our community. They seemed keen last year when I met with them at the community hall.
It seems to me that coming back to council with nothing more than the same old bilateral agreement is not much of a step forward and I would hope that a little more work can be done before we waste $2000 on another referendum question that would most likely fail. It seems unreasonable to ask students to pay $94/semester. Have any other options been investigated? What about private sponsorship? I know that many corporations are currently seeking community initiatives to support. I can see it now... "The Uni-pass brought to you by Walmart" This would allow students the opportunity to travel to the outlying areas, where Walmart (or other stores) stores are located, and increase their consumer base...perhaps they might be willing to fund a portion of the pass for a sweet sponsorship deal? It may not be the ideal situation but it is time to start looking at other options to keep the tax on students to a reasonable amount. U of C could have never moved forward with their u-pass with out SAIT contributing $2 million dollars to the initiative. These third party contributions are what the SU should focus on and try to secure.
The Administration will have to address this issue at some point with the expansion to south campus, why hasn't the SU been able to move up their time frame on this?
I would like to thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter and I look forward to discussing it further.
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
"Beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow." - Aesop
So the SU has failed to secure funding to move the Universal bus pass initiative forward. I wrote a letter to my representatives and I hope to hear back from them soon. I thought I would post it here in the hopes of hearing what others think about the presentation Alex made in council last night. I personally think taxing students any more that $60 is not the answer to this....I've even gone so far as to suggest corporate sponsorship:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
So many things to ask . . . I'll go with five:
1. Why is taxing students $60 per term for a U-Pass ok, but not $94 per term? Is it because with $60 we can act smug and ignore that we're directly responsible for compounding the hardship of students by boosting the tuition and fee increase last year by over 50%?
2. How does having a referendum provide leverage? Leverage is having some sort of positional advantage that creates incentives and/or disincentives to act the way you want them to. What incentives or disincentives did the referendum last year create?
3. Why would WalMart want to give the SU well over $2.3 million each year into perpetuity? Wouldn't they get a lot more "bang for buck" by giving a few tens of thousands to the Tsunami relief effort and some 50 or so other charities? Couldn't they get more profile by giving it to the University to get their name on a building for perpetuity (CNRL Ltd. only paid $3 million, the Hole Family only paid $1 million).
4. Why would the Provincial government give over $2.3 million to the UofA SU for a bus pass when they won't even give a fraction of that for tuition relief (that amount of money would be enough to cut the tuition increase into half)?
(As an aside, when did the Provincial government become interested in supporting PSE, students, greenhouse gas reduction, etc.?)
5. Why would the Provincial government give over $2.3 million to the UofA SU when the University can't get any money for it's $3.7 million deficit to be reduced?
(As an aside: Isn't relying on corporate or government handouts unsustainable (what if they cut off funding)?)
- Mustafa
1. I think that $60 dollars is *reasonable*, (and so did EAB, IRB and council, I know you remember the hours of meetings and debates over this last year?) sure if we could get a U-pass without taxing the students that would be wicked, but that is not realistic. It is also what the students voted for in the referendum by an overwhelming margin.
2. It allowed us to go to the table with some measure of leverage in that the students now backed up the SU initiative. For many years the question was always, "well do students support it?"
3. It was a suggestion and I thought perhaps they would be willing to sponsor a certain amount of the pass..not the entire $2.3 million. It would increase business and be great advertising for them...Has the SU looked into third party funding or sponsor deals?
4. Because they provide a subsidy for secondary passes and perhaps they would be willing to provide one for post secondary...they made it clear they don't support lowering tuition so what about saving face with this initiative?
And the Aside: Since they did the survey and "paid off" the debt they have been more willing to look at these types of initiatives. They have talked publically about a tuition freeze, and that was just before chrismas...so I guess that is when they started becomming interested in supporting PSE, students, greenhouse gas reduction (uhhh...well maybe not that last one...tee hee). I get the feeling Ralph is trying to set up a legacy...I think we could , for lack of a better term, exploit that.
5. Deficits and Tuition are separate issues...and this U pass issue is separate as well, I just want to know what my representatives have done to find out whether or not the provincial government would support this...have they even bothered to ask?
and the aside...How do you propose to pay for a U-pass without the help of local and provincial government without taxing students to the hilt? Where do you think we could get the money from? How do you think we can make the initiative come to fruition?
**I'd go back and spell check, but I am too lazy...I hope there are not too many glaring errors...
1. IRB never considered the U-Pass issue or the price of $60—IRB only debated how to phrase a question according to the criteria Council set. Some members of IRB explicitly approved the question as being reflective of Council's criteria while disapproving of there being any question (something IRB was not asked to recommend on). As for the $94 figure not being reasonable, why not? What makes that figure unreasonable? Maybe students will be overwhelmingly in favour of the $94 figure as well? You can't just assert that $60 is reasonable and that $94 isn't, nor that students support $60 but don't support $94. You need to provide evidence for both of these assertions.
To be sure, I think that raising the price of the U-Pass by $34 is a horrible idea because it put financial hardship on those students who struggle to pay for their education. But that doesn't change the fact that charging $60 is also a horrible idea that unfairly burdens those who can least afford to pay more.
If we get a U-Pass for next year, It will be as though the University imposed an 8% to 8.5% tuition increase instead of a 5.75% increase.
If we could lower an 8.5% tuition increase to 5.75%, would you take it? I certainly would. Not doing so would unfairly disadvantage those weakest among us for the benefit of others (e.g. people like me who don't have any debt). But by supporting the U-Pass, you're effectively endorsing an 8.5% tuition increase instead of a 5.75% tuition increase.
2. Do students support it? We did a survey on this. Then another survey. Then ETS did one. Then we did another one after that. _Every_ survey showed strong support for the U-Pass, and certainly at the $60 price. We didn't need a formal vote to show this. In February 2004, ETS made a major press release where they explicitly stated that they support the U-Pass, believe that students support it, and that they were willing to support a deal. ETS didn't need any convincing.
But this is a side issue. Leverage creates incentives or disincentives that cause organizations to act the way one wants them to. Even if ETS needed convincing that students support a U-Pass, a referendum would not do anything to create leverage. At most it would convince ETS that bargaining for a U-Pass was not a waste of time. However, ETS had been negotiating for the better part of three years already! They were at the table. They didn't need convincing.
The reason the U-Pass has never gone forward is that the SU didn't want to sign on for the proposed $115 per term, nor did the SU want to bother with the hard work needed to lower that price, either through a bilateral agreement or a multilateral agreement. If we wanted to move the proposal forward, what we should have done (noting that the U-Pass is nonetheless a bad idea) is to go out and secure both public and private sector financing for the U-Pass meanwhile negotiating with ETS to bring down the price. Neither needed of was furthered by a referendum vote. Once we had brought the price as low as possible, that is what should have been sent to referendum.
Leverage was always a red herring to distract from the SU's lack of effort and political will. The same lack of effort and political will that hold back the organization's usefulness on everything from fighting tuition to making the Plant/RATT profitable.
3. I have no idea if anyone has looked into this, but I can tell you that no corporate sponsor would find this a compelling community initiative to invest in. It advertises to students who don't have much money to spend on advertised products. It's a huge investment for really minimal exposure (no party would give more than a few tens of thousands of dollars, and even that if you were _really_ lucky). The advertising you can do on a bus is really minimal anyway. And it's really lousy PR ("we helped students take the bus . . . which they do anyway" instead of "we helped x number of poor students with scholarships to afford education" or "we helped x number of people at soup kitchens around the city" or "we helped x number of those Tsunami victims you see on the news every night."
There is a little potential for getting funds from corporate groups. And we shouldn't ignore this avenue. But you're not getting anywhere in the same postal code as $2.3 million. If you got $0.3 million, you'd have done ridiculously well.
4. The Province likes to pay for K-12 education. Well over 90% of Albertans support K-12 education and most feel it needs more money (or at least would like there to be more money in it). Unfortunately, only 15%-20% of Albertans care about PSE. PSE isn't a priority. And it won't be. Especially not student support. Remember, this government was talking deregulation only a little over a year ago. I really, really, really doubt you'll get any money out of them.
And even if we could get money out of the government, it shouldn't go to the U-Pass (which only helps a few bus users, many like me who don't need it) but to tuition (that helps those in the most need) or to student financial support (that helps those who most need help). It would be morally wrong to divert funds from those who most need it to the U-Pass.
I should note that Klein's comments on a tuition freeze never happened by all reports. It was a misquote in the Journal. Klein said that a tuition freeze is up to universities. The government maintains that 30% of university operating budgets should be from tuition (implying that students at the UofA aren't paying their fair share yet—we only pay 26% and are decades away from getting to 30% barring a change to the tuition regulations). What Klein may do is increase base funding for the universities and that _might_ mean a slight reduction in the size of tuition increases. But Carl Amrhein has said that the government is neither talking enough money (he'd need a 12% base funding increase) nor would be favour moving off maximum increases even if the money there was available (he'd rather raise tuition and work with the SU to target that money to specific areas).
Finally, Klein isn't looking for a legacy project. He has it: deficit and debt elimination, a stronger and more diversified economy. If he has a vision for PSE, it's on the research side (which has real value), not the teaching side (which is of more questionable value), and certainly not on the student side (students aren't paying their fair share yet).
5. Tuition and University deficits _aren't_ different issues! The University uses the latter to justify the former! Every prof or Governor who votes for tuition increases cites the deficit as the most important reason for raising tuition. They are the same issue!
What do I think we should do?
I think the U-Pass is a bad idea. It is an unnecessary fee increase on students. And it arbitrarily disadvantages some student who can't pay for education so that some debt-free students like me can have even more spare change to waste. It's ridiculous!
If we are going to go down the U-Pass route, I don't think there is much we can do. I don't see much opportunity for more funding from either the public or private sector and certainly not enough to bridge the $2.3 million gap. And even if such funding exists, I strongly opposed using it for a U-Pass to help people like me when other students are far more in need. The choices at this point, IMHO, are to charge $94 (or maybe a little less) per term, or to abandon the U-Pass altogether.
I favour the latter approach. Instead, I would work to creating a bursary fund for less well off students who need help paying for transportation. This would take a much smaller amount of money, could hopefully be funded by cutting internal SU spending and having named bursaries sponsored by companies, and would not undermine our more stance and our negotiating position on tuition.
- Mustafa
So what about the expansion to south campus? Do you think that the University will have to make some kind of deal with ETS to provide transportation there? I know they have shuttles between The Fac and main campus, so they could certainly go that route...what do you think about that.
I think Mustafa, this shows that I am an idealist and I tend to think that we can make this work because it will help students, I tend to ignore the realist perspective and the negative effect. I also never realized that Klein was misquoted...
I like your suggestion and I understand your perspective better.
I'll chime in a little late with my own answers to your questions:
1. There's such a thing as "shades of gray", Mustafa. Seriously. I mean, if I told you that we could secure a U-Pass for twenty-five cents per student, what would be your reaction? I'd hope it would be that we should go for it, whereupon I would ask you what makes it okay to charge twenty-five cents per student but not sixty bucks. As legislators in an organization with the power of taxation, we are inevitably going to occasionally subordinate the interests of the minority to the interests of the majority (we will also periodically do the inverse) - that is what states do. The question is at what point of inconvenience for the minority it ceases to become acceptable to benefit the majority - Heather and I, admittedly arbitrarily, put that threshold at about sixty bucks.
I do not have an answer for questions 2 and 3.
To 4 and 5, I point out that we will see considerable funding from the provincial government very very soon. After that, maybe we can start seeking more for the U-Pass. You have been warned.
Heather,
There is no plan to move classes on any large scale to South Campus any time in the near future (maybe a couple of Phys Ed classes). For the time being, and FSJ-like shuttle service is all that the UofA will need for the few students who take a class there. The earliest that classes would get moved to South Campus is after the South LRT expansion has reached the school of the deaf. At that point we might see some sort of negotiation with ETS for students to ride the LRT back and forth between the two campuses.
Steve,
1. On your comments to questions 4 & 5:
a) UofC has a U-Pass that does not use any government or private sector subsidies, IIRC. Why would the Province fund us but not UofC? Don't you think that they'll look at UofC and say, "Hey. UofC can pay for their U-Pass on their own. Why don't you do they same! You don't need help!" And if we don't need the help for the U-Pass, I don't think the government will choose to fund a U-Pass over the base operating fund, research, etc.
b) I do hope you're right about their being more funding on its way. But the SU has only limited access to the government. And as you and Hudema like to point out to us, a single, focused message works best in campaigns and lobbying. Even if more funding is coming, don't you think the SU should use it's limited access to lobby for a tuition envelope or even roll backs in tuition? And to have the SU's limited resouces put towards a campaign for the same? Or maybe lobby and campaign for the loan system to be fixed?
Or is the U-Pass now a bigger priority than tuition relief and an increase access and affordabilty for those least able to attend PSE?
2. As for your comments with respect the the presence of shades of grey:
I'd probably be fine with a $0.25 U-Pass if there were an opt-out clause and a true effort to inform students of the opt-out. I would not be willing to accept a $0.25 U-Pass under last year's referendum terms for the reason I've outlined earlier: well off students should not take advantage of less well off students.
Yes $0.25 is a pittance. But it is still something. And it is still will result in cases of taking from students who most need that $0.25 and giving it to students like me who really have no need for it. If the cost is so small, there's all the more reason to charge a higher fee and let the less well-off opt-out. Well off students like me can carry the burden for them very easily.
I will highlight that my stance on this issue is consistent in its support of affordable education. I oppose any large fee increase. I will support tiny fee increases if such a fee increase can be shown to have valuable benefits and if the fee increase is disproportionally carried by those who are more able to afford it.
You and Heather, however, are fine with a U-Pass that costs a more than 50% of last year's tuition increase by claiming it is an acceptable level of "inconvenience for the minority" even though some of them can't afford it. By this rationale, you should have been fine with a 2.65% tuition increase last year (approximately the same impact on students as a $60 U-Pass) because that would also have been an acceptable level of "inconvenience for the minority" in the protection of the majority's quality of education.
But no. Both of you wanted a freeze of tuition and were not willing to support a smaller tuition increase instead of a freeze. Why? Because anything greater than a freeze would have been an unacceptable deterioration of an already unaffordable education system. What happened to your willingness to tax less well off students at an acceptable level of "inconvenience" and compromise their affordability of education for the benefit of the majority?
So, to look at last year, both you and Heather strongly opposed a 5.3% increase in student fees because that would make education more unaffordable. But then you both turned around and strongly supported a further 2.7% increase to student fees to render an 8% total increase. Making education unaffordable was a problem for raising fees by 5.3%, but no longer a problem when raised even further to 8%.
Simply put Steve, your shade of grey is grossly inconsistent and betrays a lack of any true or discernable committment to the affordability of education.
If affordability is not a major concern to you, that's fine. Come out and say so and stop opposing tuition on the grounds that it make education unaffordable. But if affordability is really that important to you, stop compromising that principle whenever it is convenient to do so.
Principles matter only when it is inconvenient to hold them.- Mustafa
I still think that rising tuition costs and the issues of budget deficits are one issue and the Universal bus pass is another spearate issue. I think that it is atrocious that students are expected to pay more tuition for less. The value of my education has deteriorated since my first year. I think that the service provided to students, yes all of them even those who drive cars and live on campus, on our public transportation service is a deal at $60/ semster. I am not compromising my principles to get what I pay for.
Mustafa wrote:
Both of you wanted a freeze of tuition and were not willing to support a smaller tuition increase instead of a freeze. Why? Because anything greater than a freeze would have been an unacceptable deterioration of an already unaffordable education system.
No because that was not on the table...We had to accept the maximum increase and that I felt would have a detrimantal effect on the SU's credibility. On the record I am a true idealist and I don't just want a freeze, I think that education is a wise investment in any society and I believe the university should operate as a meritocracy. I also think PSE should be free, like in Ireland. Is that realistic? Hell no. In fact some would say that it laughable, but I truly believe that education is not a commodity and should be invested in. (just for the record I wanted to state my true feelings on the subject)
Mustafa wrote:
You and Heather, however, are fine with a U-Pass that costs a more than 50% of last year's tuition increase by claiming it is an acceptable level of "inconvenience for the minority" even though some of them can't afford it. By this rationale, you should have been fine with a 2.65% tuition increase last year (approximately the same impact on students as a $60 U-Pass) because that would also have been an acceptable level of "inconvenience for the minority" in the protection of the majority's quality of education.
I don't believe tuition should increase at all. Period. And if any tuition increase came with the promise of protecting the quality of my education, I might listen. The fact is that increasing our tuition has not stopped the proverbial hole in the bucket from leaking and I have yet to hear a solution to the financial woes of the University that addresses those leaks. It is high time the University stop using tuition hikes as a band-aid measure to keep the bucket half empty. I am paying more for less, and that is unacceptable.
For me, the universal bus pass will help most students and the get something for their $60. Paying more to get more. It should be kept at a reasonable price, which we have established, and although I recognize that all the money spent on tuition and books and bus passes come from the same bank account they are separate things. I guess I look at quality and Mustafa you look at the bottom line only in black and white.
Lumping them all together simply doesn't work as an argument for me in this case.
I still think that rising tuition costs and the issues of budget deficits are one issue and the Universal bus pass is another spearate issue. I think that it is atrocious that students are expected to pay more tuition for less. The value of my education has deteriorated since my first year. I think that the service provided to students, yes all of them even those who drive cars and live on campus, on our public transportation service is a deal at $60/ semster. I am not compromising my principles to get what I pay for.Ok. So your issue is the cost/benefit ratio; affordabilty of education does not factor in here. That's fine, I can accept that as a consistent philosophy. I strongly disagree with it, but values can't really be debated objectively. And if affordabilty of education is not a concern, you're right: tuition/deficits are a separate issue from the U-Pass.
No because that was not on the table...We had to accept the maximum increase and that I felt would have a detrimantal effect on the SU's credibility.I'm not referring to the multi-year deal. I'm saying that if the tuition increase had been 2.65% instead of 5.3%, would you have supported it? My understanding is that you, like me, would have opposed increasing tuition by 2.65%.
I don't believe tuition should increase at all. Period. And if any tuition increase came with the promise of protecting the quality of my education, I might listen. The fact is that increasing our tuition has not stopped the proverbial hole in the bucket from leaking and I have yet to hear a solution to the financial woes of the University that addresses those leaks. It is high time the University stop using tuition hikes as a band-aid measure to keep the bucket half empty. I am paying more for less, and that is unacceptable. I can't dispute your anger at having to pay more for less. But you have to rememer that the University doesn't raise tuition to improve quality; it raises tuition to prevent even greater deterioration of quality. You could pay less for tuition, but then the education you receive would be even worse and would have deteriorated even more than it already has. The extra money you've paid hasn't been wasted; it's been used to prevent things from getting worse (though some of that spending has been disproportionately used to keep research and not teaching afloat).
It's perfectly fine and completely understandable to be angry that you have to pay more, but you get less. But remember that your money isn't being wasted while leaks in the bucket get bigger; rather it's being used to keep leaks from getting even bigger than they otherwise would be.
or me, the universal bus pass will help most students and the get something for their $60. Paying more to get more. It should be kept at a reasonable price, which we have established, and although I recognize that all the money spent on tuition and books and bus passes come from the same bank account they are separate things. I guess I look at quality and Mustafa you look at the bottom line only in black and white. Lumping them all together simply doesn't work as an argument for me in this case.Yup, you do look at the cost/benefit. I didn't realize that before.
I don't think I'm looking at the bottom line though; I'm looking at affordability. I'm focused on how much more we're charging the least well off students and how much more difficult it is becoming for them to afford education and to succeed in university. Both the U-Pass and tuition decrease affordabilty and disproportionately put more hardship on the least well off. That is unacceptable according to my value system.
I think that people like me who are well off have a duty to protect and help the weak and less priviledged. And that's why I'm so focused on affordability.
- Mustafa
Post a Comment