FINANCE COMMITTEE - Discussion on Student Fees Paid to the KSA

[steveleenow]

This topic is to discuss the issue of student fees - that is, money you pay to the KSA.

Discussion on Fees @ Finance Committee...
Recently, the Finance Committee has begun examining this issue. Summary of the discussion that has occurred will be posted shortly. It plans on examining what is charged at other student unions to do up a comparision.

Online Discussion...
The results of the Spring 2007 Referendum are posted here - Spring 2007 By-Election & Referendum Results - General Discussion

Further to that, a discussion arose recently in another forum topic - KSA Student Union Building... WHAT DO YOU WANT TO SEE? Here are some of the relevant quotes to that topic...

Well, the fee increase was dealt with - as you noted, a referendum was held and it did not pass. I think the KSA needs to move to make some of that restricted - right now, the $5.25 is all unrestricted. Perhaps $1 of that should go back towards bursaries, etc. Any future increases should be in the form of dedicated fees. Seperate bank accounts for each dedicated fee should then be setup and monitored vigorously, each with their own budget. When the lobby fund and the bursary fees were setup a few years ago, seperate accounts were not maintained - making the tracking of those funds difficult.

But I digress, this forum topic is in regards to what students would like to see in a SUB. I plan on starting a new topic regarding fees shortly, as it was recently discussed at the finance committee.

I personally would be in favour of an extra fee to build a student union building so long as it was a reasonable amount. However I still think the original fee increase still needs to be dealt with. From what I understand the last referendum to reduce the fees failed, which is not cool.

There has been talk of a capital fee of some sort but I don't have too many details on it. I think there may have been talk of a capital fee for each campus - it would be proportional to the number of courses you are taking on that campus (so if you took 4 3-credit courses in Surrey, you might pay $2 per credit, you would pay $24 in a capital fee that would be used towards capital expansion on that campus; and if you took 1 3-credit course in Langley, you'd pay $6 towards expansion on that campus). But the talk is very, very preliminary right now and I have not received an update. I was actually going to ask our General Manager to speak to that at the next Finance Committee meeting.

I still haven’t posted what I’d like to see in a SUB, which I plan to do shortly.

I might have missed it during reading the previous material, but has any discussion taken place recently of introducing a building fee to pay for the construction of a new building or would it be financed entirely on a loan like what we have done for G building offices?

[thevoiceofreason]

I understand and agree with the idea of separating fees so they are restricted to various uses. I think this would assist in ensuring the funds are spent on what they where intended for.  However I believe that the last referendum would have easily passed if there was more of an effort in raising awareness of the issue of the referendum question. A simple formation of a yes committee would have done the trick to advocate for voting yes to lower the fees to what they were before. I personally hope this question will be brought forward again in the next election with better awareness.

[steveleenow]

The KSA council did support the yes side in the referendum to change the fees back to the levels they were at in 2005. In some aspects, we are not paying more - the change that occurred simply compiled everything into one flat fee.

But is the failure of the referendum a bad thing? For years, the KSA has been cutting back services to students. Here are some of the things that have happened:

• In 2001, when the liaison positions were first created, each liaison group had $2,000 to spend. In 2005, they had $450 to spend.
• In 2003, the KSA had to cut bursaries and awards in order to cover its rising HR costs.
• Elected officials have not seen a properly approved increase to their wages or benefits since 1999, when tuition was $40 a credit.
• There has been little to no money for events and student life - each year since 2001 saw cutbacks to this area.
• Campus Council budgets have steadily shrunk over the years since 2001.

And the list goes on. The KSA could not have continued cutting areas back. And this was identified by the KSA as early as Fall 2004, when the KSA ran more than a dozen questions regarding the removal of the cap at 12 credits, and regarding inflationary adjustments. New dedicated fees were proposed. I think it was a mistake for the KSA to put forward more than half a dozen questions at once and ultimately, only two of the increases were passed - one to add trades students to the health & dental plan; the other to create a bursary fund.

As was shown in the Spring 2005 Richmond Campus Student Perceptions Survey Results, most students could not identify how much money they actually paid to the KSA each term, but more than 60% of respondents did note that they felt that the money they gave the KSA was not well spent (Direct Link to Results - See pages 25 - 29, Questions Number 8 & 9). Simply put, the new fee is easy to understand and will allow the KSA to do more for its members.

And some of the above areas have not yet been addressed in the 2007 budget, mainly because $100,000 was allocated for a forensic audit, and another $250,000 was allocated for legal fees. In reality, there has only been an approximate $250,000 increase because of the referendum. So next year, the KSA will be in a position to restore funding to awards & bursaries, towards liaisons, campus councils and more. Students will see their KSA doing a lot more in 2008 than it ever has before (even without any more dedicated fees).

A lot was done to advertise the by-election and referendum:

• More than thirty-five 11 by 17 posters were posted across all campuses (in Surrey and Richmond, more than forty-five posters were posted - I know because I posted them);
• Notice of the referendum and by-election happened online as well - on the homepage of the KSA, on these forums and on Facebook (the KSA even purchased ads in the Kwantlen Network on Facebook... or I should say I purchased ads, I never billed the KSA for the purchase);
• Notice of the referendum and by-election appeared in at least one issue of the Kwantlen Chronicle - this is the second election in a row where the KSA has been able to post something in that campus publication; and
• Notice of the referendum and by-election appeared in leaflets and in a KSA Newsletter that was published and widely distributed across all campuses (at KSA events and by Campus Councils to students in classes, the lounge and cafeteria areas, etc.).

And of course, virtually all of the candidates encouraged people to vote yes in the referendum. But students chose not to vote, which is an unfortunate standard with most by-elections and referendums.

In the end, had the referendum passed and had it been implemented for the fall 2007 semester, the KSA would have had to have actually cut more than $100,000 from the fiscal 2007 budget – which means basically everything but HR and administrative costs would have been cut (no fall events, no money for liaisons and campus councils – you get the picture).

The choice now is how to best use these funds - can some of what is currently collected be re-allocated in a referendum towards a dedicated fund? What new areas are of importance to students?

- Steve

[tjloke]

My proposal to the finance committee.

A mixed general membership fee
$2 paid proportional per credit
$5 flat fee paid by all students

Why? As tuition fees rise the burden of fees falls upon the full time students to pay the most in fees. If the KSA supports the reduction of fees and truly takes sympathy with the students burdened most as a result of fee increases, then a mixed fee is the answer. What does a mixed fee do? It continues the traditional proportional fee structure of the society, but is less proportional so that the proportional burden on full time students does not weigh as much.

At UBC the structure is completely flat - quite unfair for part time students. At SFU there are two fees, but part time students may not have access to the same services or benefits as full time students. Where at Langara, Dougland and Cap it is solely proportional. Kwantlen, as it transitions to regional university status, should take the proportional aspect it always has in allowing all students the same services, while improving the fairness of the fee. Therefore this was my proposal.

I further recomended the creation of the following dedicated fees, to reimplement the successful dedicated fee structure once seen in the KSA - eliminated by RAF.

An events fee, proportional per credit at $1, capped at $9.
A flat external fee at $2 per student
A flat student advocacy and legal resources fee at $1 per student
A flat campus council support fee at $1 per student
A bursaries fee at $1 for all students will less then 9 credits and $1.50 for students 9 or more credits

This would reduce the fee burden for most students, but see an increase among some part time students - exactly what is intended. It would reduce the burden for students already paying the most in tuition fees towards students with 3 credits.

The fee range would be from $13.00 - $53.50 whereas right now the range is $5.25 - $89.25

As you can see the increase is moderate for 3 credit, part-time students and the burden is significantly reduced for full time students. The re-introduction of the dedicated fee system will also do a lot of good for the accountability of student fees. The reduction will also not be as large of a burden to the KSA as it would be to revert to the previous structure.

What does this fee structure mean?

• Reduced fee burden for all students with more then 3 credits, including significant reductions for full time students
• A direct campus support fee for campus councils, direct funding for events, direct funding for student legal aid, direct funding for student campaigns and lobbying, direct funding for bursaries and scholarships for students.

I'd like to hear more feedback on these prelimenary proposals.

[thevoiceofreason]

The KSA council did support the yes side in the referendum to change the fees back to the levels they were at in 2005. In some aspects, we are not paying more - the change that occurred simply compiled everything into one flat fee.

But is the failure of the referendum a bad thing? For years, the KSA has been cutting back services to students. Here are some of the things that have happened:

Hm.... well I can see what you mean by the issue of funding and yes we do have more to work with; however it is similar to the justification that is used by governments and other organizations. I am glad to hear that council supported the yes side to the referendum and the candidates did the same thing. However I find it ironic we now reap the rewards of someone else doing the dirty word so to speak to raise the fees. I look at this not in the practical sense as you seem to have in your argument, but as a matter of principle. I agree the question was put to the students and they did have their chance to reduce the fees. However I just still find it hard to believe that a question to reduce the KSA fees would not pass, as it does not really make sense to me. I also understand that their was a good amount of notification about the referendum along with the by-election, however my past experiance with the KSA has taught me that if you really want to achieve the desired affect of awareness you sometimes have to go above and beyond the required methods of advertising. Such as I very well know posters are not the most effective way of advertising to our members, based upon my own experience.

When all of this went to court a while back now I remember that having the fees put back to the way they were was asked of the judge, but they ruled that it was impractical due to logistical issues and Kwantlen agreed with this. It just seems that the KSA has in a sense allocated to this line of thinking with respect to the fee increase and this have me concerned.

[steveleenow]

I feel we did go beyond what was required for advertising. This is what is required:

• 25 posters (8 1/2 by 11) on each campus 14 days before the referendum / election; and
• notice in a campus publication.

And again, here is what we did:

• More than thirty-five 11 by 17 posters were posted across all campuses (in Surrey and Richmond, more than forty-five posters were posted - I know because I posted them);
• Notice of the referendum and by-election happened online as well - on the homepage of the KSA, on these forums and on Facebook (the KSA even purchased ads in the Kwantlen Network on Facebook... or I should say I purchased ads, I never billed the KSA for the purchase);
• Notice of the referendum and by-election appeared in at least one issue of the Kwantlen Chronicle - this is the second election in a row where the KSA has been able to post something in that campus publication; and
• Notice of the referendum and by-election appeared in leaflets and in a KSA Newsletter that was published and widely distributed across all campuses (at KSA events and by Campus Councils to students in classes, the lounge and cafeteria areas, etc.).

Further to the last point - when it states "Students in classes" we spoke to students in classes. I attended the Cloverdale campus and spoke to the few classes that were on campus on the day of voting. Only one person voted on that campus - me. No one else bothered. We did a number of events, including a pancake breakfast wherein we spoke to and engaged students who were lined up. I spoke to other classes in the week up to the election. Unfortunately, I was ill on the first few days of voting so I didn't attend the campuses on the voting days. But I understand that all of the candidates went out and pushed the issue as a part of their platforms.

Finally, in fall 2006, the KSA also re-vamped the election rules prior to the by-election to make things more fair. An overhaul of the campaigning section also happened.

What else were we to do? We can't force students to vote (on that note - the KSA has struck a committee to look at ways of increasing voter turnout by examining what has been done at the UBC AMS and the Voter Funded Media campaign.

If you want to know how corrupt the previous guys were, they thought their summer referendum was such a shoe in that when they submitted information regarding the KSA for inclusion in the 2006-07 student union directory, they included the building fee. Forms for that had to be submitted well in advance of when the KSA actually considered a summer referendum, which I documented on my website last year (all of the e-mails referenced on my site on that page were recovered by Price Waterhouse Coopers computer guys who took an image of the server and all KSA computer hard drives on November 1, 2006).

Kwantlen didn't want to reverse the fees because of the logistics involved - the fees were already charged and collected for the fall 2006 semester when the case was going to court. When we negotiated the settlement we should have asked them to reverse it starting January 2007, but we did not. We instead organized a petition to ask that a referendum be held during the fall 2006 court called election - and the previous administration blatantly ignored that petition. As such, Council followed through with the duly delivered petition, holding it with the Spring 2007 election.

Ultimately, what is done is done. The KSA has fulfilled its legal obligations as per the petition filed, and as per the questionability of the original referendum. If this is something you have been passionate about, then perhaps you could have done more to advertise the referendum in the spring by talking to your friends and making it an issue at that time. It did not need many votes to pass.

From this point, we should look at how we can move on - how can something positive come of what has happened? How can we best maximize what resources are coming in? How can we ensure transparency? Can we take what we have and improve upon it? I personally do not feel Trevor's structure is doable - not all at once. We tried that in 2004 when the KSA tried running more than half a dozen fee questions at once. But I think we could lower the per credit fee by perhaps changing it so that part of it is dedicated to something (perhaps $4.25 as a general per credit fee and $1 per credit to bursaries or something else).

I think the fee should be simple and easy to understand. It shouldn't be complex. The old structure was complex with the caps, etc. I don't think we need any caps if we do it right. You should be able to say "you pay a general fee of $5.25 per credit and dedicated fees of $1 to bursaries, $2 to lobbying and $4 to events." No caps, etc. The more caps you introduce, the more difficult it becomes to track how much Kwantlen should be paying. We regularly collect data regarding head counts, and information on the approximate amount of credits offered each term is data that we can collect and audit. Once you start introducing caps, you move into areas where we don't have information available and therefore it becomes impossible to audit.

Finally, for clarity, here is a table that shows what students were paying before compared with what they are paying now: SAY "NO" TO INCREASED FEES.

- Steve

The KSA council did support the yes side in the referendum to change the fees back to the levels they were at in 2005. In some aspects, we are not paying more - the change that occurred simply compiled everything into one flat fee.

But is the failure of the referendum a bad thing? For years, the KSA has been cutting back services to students. Here are some of the things that have happened:

Hm.... well I can see what you mean by the issue of funding and yes we do have more to work with; however it is similar to the justification that is used by governments and other organizations. I am glad to hear that council supported the yes side to the referendum and the candidates did the same thing. However I find it ironic we now reap the rewards of someone else doing the dirty word so to speak to raise the fees. I look at this not in the practical sense as you seem to have in your argument, but as a matter of principle. I agree the question was put to the students and they did have their chance to reduce the fees. However I just still find it hard to believe that a question to reduce the KSA fees would not pass, as it does not really make sense to me. I also understand that their was a good amount of notification about the referendum along with the by-election, however my past experiance with the KSA has taught me that if you really want to achieve the desired affect of awareness you sometimes have to go above and beyond the required methods of advertising. Such as I very well know posters are not the most effective way of advertising to our members, based upon my own experience.

When all of this went to court a while back now I remember that having the fees put back to the way they were was asked of the judge, but they ruled that it was impractical due to logistical issues and Kwantlen agreed with this. It just seems that the KSA has in a sense allocated to this line of thinking with respect to the fee increase and this have me concerned.

[thevoiceofreason]

Hm.... Well it does sound like their was alot of coverage for raising awarenes of the referendum, unfortunately for me I was not exposed then to all that was done to promote it and then again I guess that is because it is sometimes a matter of perspective. Then by what you say it confirms one of my worst fears about this and that is even with raised awareness our members still did not pay much attention to the election or refendum even if it invloved their money. I did in fact tell all the people who I knew in class and my friends who attended KUC at the time to vote yes in the referendum to reduce the fees. I agree with Steve, Trevor's fee structure is not that feasable at this time but I think he as the right idea.

I feel we did go beyond what was required for advertising. This is what is required:

• 25 posters (8 1/2 by 11) on each campus 14 days before the referendum / election; and
• notice in a campus publication.

And again, here is what we did:

• More than thirty-five 11 by 17 posters were posted across all campuses (in Surrey and Richmond, more than forty-five posters were posted - I know because I posted them);
• Notice of the referendum and by-election happened online as well - on the homepage of the KSA, on these forums and on Facebook (the KSA even purchased ads in the Kwantlen Network on Facebook... or I should say I purchased ads, I never billed the KSA for the purchase);
• Notice of the referendum and by-election appeared in at least one issue of the Kwantlen Chronicle - this is the second election in a row where the KSA has been able to post something in that campus publication; and
• Notice of the referendum and by-election appeared in leaflets and in a KSA Newsletter that was published and widely distributed across all campuses (at KSA events and by Campus Councils to students in classes, the lounge and cafeteria areas, etc.).

Further to the last point - when it states "Students in classes" we spoke to students in classes. I attended the Cloverdale campus and spoke to the few classes that were on campus on the day of voting. Only one person voted on that campus - me. No one else bothered. We did a number of events, including a pancake breakfast wherein we spoke to and engaged students who were lined up. I spoke to other classes in the week up to the election. Unfortunately, I was ill on the first few days of voting so I didn't attend the campuses on the voting days. But I understand that all of the candidates went out and pushed the issue as a part of their platforms.

Finally, in fall 2006, the KSA also re-vamped the election rules prior to the by-election to make things more fair. An overhaul of the campaigning section also happened.

What else were we to do? We can't force students to vote (on that note - the KSA has struck a committee to look at ways of increasing voter turnout by examining what has been done at the UBC AMS and the Voter Funded Media campaign.

If you want to know how corrupt the previous guys were, they thought their summer referendum was such a shoe in that when they submitted information regarding the KSA for inclusion in the 2006-07 student union directory, they included the building fee. Forms for that had to be submitted well in advance of when the KSA actually considered a summer referendum, which I documented on my website last year (all of the e-mails referenced on my site on that page were recovered by Price Waterhouse Coopers computer guys who took an image of the server and all KSA computer hard drives on November 1, 2006).

Kwantlen didn't want to reverse the fees because of the logistics involved - the fees were already charged and collected for the fall 2006 semester when the case was going to court. When we negotiated the settlement we should have asked them to reverse it starting January 2007, but we did not. We instead organized a petition to ask that a referendum be held during the fall 2006 court called election - and the previous administration blatantly ignored that petition. As such, Council followed through with the duly delivered petition, holding it with the Spring 2007 election.

Ultimately, what is done is done. The KSA has fulfilled its legal obligations as per the petition filed, and as per the questionability of the original referendum. If this is something you have been passionate about, then perhaps you could have done more to advertise the referendum in the spring by talking to your friends and making it an issue at that time. It did not need many votes to pass.

From this point, we should look at how we can move on - how can something positive come of what has happened? How can we best maximize what resources are coming in? How can we ensure transparency? Can we take what we have and improve upon it? I personally do not feel Trevor's structure is doable - not all at once. We tried that in 2004 when the KSA tried running more than half a dozen fee questions at once. But I think we could lower the per credit fee by perhaps changing it so that part of it is dedicated to something (perhaps $4.25 as a general per credit fee and $1 per credit to bursaries or something else).

I think the fee should be simple and easy to understand. It shouldn't be complex. The old structure was complex with the caps, etc. I don't think we need any caps if we do it right. You should be able to say "you pay a general fee of $5.25 per credit and dedicated fees of $1 to bursaries, $2 to lobbying and $4 to events." No caps, etc. The more caps you introduce, the more difficult it becomes to track how much Kwantlen should be paying. We regularly collect data regarding head counts, and information on the approximate amount of credits offered each term is data that we can collect and audit. Once you start introducing caps, you move into areas where we don't have information available and therefore it becomes impossible to audit.

Finally, for clarity, here is a table that shows what students were paying before compared with what they are paying now: SAY "NO" TO INCREASED FEES.

- Steve

The KSA council did support the yes side in the referendum to change the fees back to the levels they were at in 2005. In some aspects, we are not paying more - the change that occurred simply compiled everything into one flat fee.

But is the failure of the referendum a bad thing? For years, the KSA has been cutting back services to students. Here are some of the things that have happened:

Hm.... well I can see what you mean by the issue of funding and yes we do have more to work with; however it is similar to the justification that is used by governments and other organizations. I am glad to hear that council supported the yes side to the referendum and the candidates did the same thing. However I find it ironic we now reap the rewards of someone else doing the dirty word so to speak to raise the fees. I look at this not in the practical sense as you seem to have in your argument, but as a matter of principle. I agree the question was put to the students and they did have their chance to reduce the fees. However I just still find it hard to believe that a question to reduce the KSA fees would not pass, as it does not really make sense to me. I also understand that their was a good amount of notification about the referendum along with the by-election, however my past experiance with the KSA has taught me that if you really want to achieve the desired affect of awareness you sometimes have to go above and beyond the required methods of advertising. Such as I very well know posters are not the most effective way of advertising to our members, based upon my own experience.

When all of this went to court a while back now I remember that having the fees put back to the way they were was asked of the judge, but they ruled that it was impractical due to logistical issues and Kwantlen agreed with this. It just seems that the KSA has in a sense allocated to this line of thinking with respect to the fee increase and this have me concerned.

[steveleenow]

I'd like to see us come up with say a timeframe for implementing some sort of dedicated fee structure over the course of a few years. Of course, future Councils are not bound to live by that but in terms of long term planning in the KSA having some sort of framework that is built upon some solid number crunching and some solid examples of what works elsewhere would be good.

One thing Finance has discussed is surveying other student unions to find out more about their finances and how it relates to what they do (from services, to events, etc.). We even want to visit some schools in the month ahead in the lower mainland to talk with them about this.

[Mumford]

I understand and agree with the idea of separating fees so they are restricted to various uses. I think this would assist in ensuring the funds are spent on what they where intended for.  However I believe that the last referendum would have easily passed if there was more of an effort in raising awareness of the issue of the referendum question. A simple formation of a yes committee would have done the trick to advocate for voting yes to lower the fees to what they were before. I personally hope this question will be brought forward again in the next election with better awareness.

I agree with the Thevoiceofreason which why I will over the month of July I will be collecting signatures to bring back the referendum question in the Fall By-election as I do think holding the election during final exam period, while it was not intended by any involved in the election did disenfranchised students from taking part in the vote.

[steveleenow]

To clarify, the by-election was not held during the final exam period, it was held a week or two before it as under our bylaws, elections and referenda can only be held while classes are in session. I do not believe though that the exam period would have stopped people from taking five minutes out to vote.

Instead of doing that, can we come up with alternatives to present to the membership? Can we come up with something that brings back a dedicated fee while lowering the $5.25 a bit without going back to the way we had it which was not working for the KSA? These are the questions Finance Committee has been discussing and these are the questions we should discuss here.

It's time to move forward, we can't always be paddling backwards.

I understand and agree with the idea of separating fees so they are restricted to various uses. I think this would assist in ensuring the funds are spent on what they where intended for.  However I believe that the last referendum would have easily passed if there was more of an effort in raising awareness of the issue of the referendum question. A simple formation of a yes committee would have done the trick to advocate for voting yes to lower the fees to what they were before. I personally hope this question will be brought forward again in the next election with better awareness.

I agree with the Thevoiceofreason which why I will over the month of July I will be collecting signatures to bring back the referendum question in the Fall By-election as I do think holding the election during final exam period, while it was not intended by any involved in the election did disenfranchised students from taking part in the vote.

[tjloke]

I understand and agree with the idea of separating fees so they are restricted to various uses. I think this would assist in ensuring the funds are spent on what they where intended for.  However I believe that the last referendum would have easily passed if there was more of an effort in raising awareness of the issue of the referendum question. A simple formation of a yes committee would have done the trick to advocate for voting yes to lower the fees to what they were before. I personally hope this question will be brought forward again in the next election with better awareness.

I agree with the Thevoiceofreason which why I will over the month of July I will be collecting signatures to bring back the referendum question in the Fall By-election as I do think holding the election during final exam period, while it was not intended by any involved in the election did disenfranchised students from taking part in the vote.

Hi Robert,

I'd recomend waiting for a decision on this by the finance committee. I wouldn't think it would be wise to offer several fee structure changes at the same referendum as it becomes overtly confusing for students.

[thevoiceofreason]

I am glad to hear it.  Do you need any volunteers to help?

I agree with the Thevoiceofreason which why I will over the month of July I will be collecting signatures to bring back the referendum question in the Fall By-election as I do think holding the election during final exam period, while it was not intended by any involved in the election did disenfranchised students from taking part in the vote.

[thevoiceofreason]

I believe both projects can be undertaken as it is productive to have multiple options out their to look at for offering ways to look at fee collection. Moving forward is a good idea but if this experiance has taught me anything it is that you should set things right before heading forward again.

To clarify, the by-election was not held during the final exam period, it was held a week or two before it as under our bylaws, elections and referenda can only be held while classes are in session. I do not believe though that the exam period would have stopped people from taking five minutes out to vote.

Instead of doing that, can we come up with alternatives to present to the membership? Can we come up with something that brings back a dedicated fee while lowering the $5.25 a bit without going back to the way we had it which was not working for the KSA? These are the questions Finance Committee has been discussing and these are the questions we should discuss here.

It's time to move forward, we can't always be paddling backwards.

I understand and agree with the idea of separating fees so they are restricted to various uses. I think this would assist in ensuring the funds are spent on what they where intended for.  However I believe that the last referendum would have easily passed if there was more of an effort in raising awareness of the issue of the referendum question. A simple formation of a yes committee would have done the trick to advocate for voting yes to lower the fees to what they were before. I personally hope this question will be brought forward again in the next election with better awareness.

I agree with the Thevoiceofreason which why I will over the month of July I will be collecting signatures to bring back the referendum question in the Fall By-election as I do think holding the election during final exam period, while it was not intended by any involved in the election did disenfranchised students from taking part in the vote.

[steveleenow]

I feel that we did set things right. The referendum was held.

Giving students multiple options for fees won't work - it will confuse them. It will be sending mixed messages to the student body. The KSA tried multiple fee increases in 2004 and it totally backfired on the administration. And they brought those forward because times were tough then - the administration at that time was tired of cutting things away. So they proposed new events fees, removing caps, etc. In fact they proposed more than what the previous administration did.

But from the referendum that was just held it is clear from the few who did vote that some kind of change is required. So it's time to take leadership and bring forward an option that will benefit us all.

We can't say do this or do this. When we give multiple options all are bound to fail. It happened in fall 2001 when the KSA ran three referendum questions and it happened in 2004 when it ran more than half a dozen.

But we are now in this wonderful position where we can run a referendum again but run one that will work for the KSA. DOES THAT NOT MAKE SENSE?

We should be excited by that prospect.

Do we want to go back and have to cut $100,000 - $300,000 from the budget in 2008 should we have to revert to the old structure? That means the KSA can stop doing things for students essentially. We can stop trying to set precedent to ensure the stuff that happened last year never happens again because we probably won't be able to afford the lawsuit. We can stop trying to expand the KSA because we probably won't be able to afford to build a new building.

What happens if the $640,000 that was given to APEX Communications by the KSA falls through? It is due in January 2008, but if they default, there goes our savings. We'll have to rebuild that savings. We won't be able to do that if we go back to the old system.

I'm passionate about this idea - let's find some adjustments to the current $5.25 that is paid and find ways of making that work better for both us and for students. The new system probably gives us a bit too much money but it neglects our dedicated funds that used to be in place. But the old system was only a $1.25 cheaper per credit with a cap at 12 credits (the KSA proposed removing the cap in 2004). So why can't we lower it to $4.25 per credit, no cap, and move $1.00 into some kind of dedicated fund - say to re-establish the bursary fund?

For most students, the change did not affect them greatly. If you took 12, 15, or 17 courses - that is where the increase was the most dramatic...

http://steveleenow.net/kwantlen/ops/finances/feeincreaseB.pdf

We need to make this work for students and the KSA. I can't emphasize that enough. IT'S TIME TO SHOW SOME TRUE LEADERSHIP.

We are letting ourselves and the students down if we don't take this as a chance to do something that works.

Otherwise, we might as well ask them to disolve the KSA because I can't in good faith as a Director of the Society ask students to move back to a system that will continue to allow their KSA to do little to nothing for them. It had problems, that the KSA has tried to solve in the past - but the KSA has never attacked this properly - from a strategic point of view.

Go away from the computer now and think about what I've been saying before you post again, if there is a way to make sending the old question back to work, I'm open to it - but right now I'm not seeing anything that would benefit students. I understand that it may appear to be the right thing to do, that's why I originally helped push to get that referendum question done. But after examining the issue more closely, from having to find funds for many goals, I'm not sure that is our best option. I'm not trying to be rude by saying this - I just want this idea to settle in. I want to challenge people to help find the best solution possible to our monetary situation. I want to find something that works for students and the KSA. I honestly believe that redoing the previous referendum while trying to introduce something else in addition to that won't work - that's why this discussion is here.


- Steve

I believe both projects can be undertaken as it is productive to have multiple options out their to look at for offering ways to look at fee collection. Moving forward is a good idea but if this experiance has taught me anything it is that you should set things right before heading forward again.

To clarify, the by-election was not held during the final exam period, it was held a week or two before it as under our bylaws, elections and referenda can only be held while classes are in session. I do not believe though that the exam period would have stopped people from taking five minutes out to vote.

Instead of doing that, can we come up with alternatives to present to the membership? Can we come up with something that brings back a dedicated fee while lowering the $5.25 a bit without going back to the way we had it which was not working for the KSA? These are the questions Finance Committee has been discussing and these are the questions we should discuss here.

It's time to move forward, we can't always be paddling backwards.

I understand and agree with the idea of separating fees so they are restricted to various uses. I think this would assist in ensuring the funds are spent on what they where intended for.  However I believe that the last referendum would have easily passed if there was more of an effort in raising awareness of the issue of the referendum question. A simple formation of a yes committee would have done the trick to advocate for voting yes to lower the fees to what they were before. I personally hope this question will be brought forward again in the next election with better awareness.

I agree with the Thevoiceofreason which why I will over the month of July I will be collecting signatures to bring back the referendum question in the Fall By-election as I do think holding the election during final exam period, while it was not intended by any involved in the election did disenfranchised students from taking part in the vote.

[thevoiceofreason]

I understand your point of view very well Steve. Remember I was on that side of the fence for a time too. However I am arguing more on principle here, not what is good for the KSA at this point. I know the KSA is in a cash crunch and that needs to be fixed. However that aside the current fee structure that is being used to set the fees we the members pay in a sense is taking more money from us then it should be. One could say it is like being taxed more money even though the tax is not really authorized in the first place. With all this said I am willing to take this a step further and agree with you that the message of the referendum is that we need to find a fee structure that works and is endorsed by our members in a referendum which next time I HOPE will attain quorum for votes so it can be binding. My job as a member is to voice my opinion on issues like this, which I believe I am doing. And you job as an elected official, in charge of the finances of the KSA, is to listen to our opinions and ideas and try to solve these issues; which I believe you are doing the best you can at.