Promotion for the Beach Legacy Fund has begun online, and the full campaign will begin tomorrow.
Students will vote on whether or not campus-based student fees should be increased from the current $43 per semester to $138 per semester effective fall 2010 to support Cal State Long Beach athletics. Voting will be online starting March 11 and ends March 12.
The Student Fee Advisory Committee (SFAC) has put together a voter pamphlet and sample ballot that will be printed in the Daily Forty-Niner on Wednesday and in other campus publications thereafter. It will also be made available online.
ASI President Erin Swetland, a member of the SFAC, said, “Our charge is to be objective and educate the campus, and make sure the rules are being followed.”
Students will be provided background information on the referendum and comments in support and against the proposed fee. Information on the Beach Legacy Fund, in compliance with Executive Order 1034, must be available to the campus community for 30 days prior to the vote.
More than $1.6 million would become available for the athletic department to make improvements to athletic structures on campus if the fund referendum passes.
The Fund has a Facebook group page, which boasts the mission of the fund’s creators to increase “the pride and tradition of Long Beach State Athletics and the campus.” The group’s goal is to get the Beach Legacy Referendum passed.
The referendum explains that the athletics department is facing funding challenges because of state budget problems compounding over the years since 2002. It also states that nearly 60 percent of the athletics annual budget goes toward operating costs for scholarships, room and board, travel, officiating fees and equipment purchases.
David Benedict, the senior associate athletics director for external relations, said at the Nov. 7, 2008 SFAC meeting that Associated Students Inc. would benefit from the fund because the $800,000-plus funds given to athletics through Beach Pride would be redirected back to ASI. It has yet to be confirmed whether the redirected funds would be less because ASI’s spirit programs, such as the school mascot, cheerleading squad and dance team, are also paid for through Beach Pride.
Alex Goldberg, junior business major, on the Beach Legacy Fund’s Facebook group page, posted Monday a suggestion to members to view the photos posted on the page because “you will see facilities that are outdated and run down.” Goldberg continued saying the campus needs better fields, a new track, a campus stadium and more. He campaigns for the Beach Legacy, saying, “The legacy we build today will increase the value of our degree tomorrow.”
making sure the Beach Legacy Referendum passes is essential to the fee increase coming in the fall check this article out.
http://www.ocregister.com%2Farticles%2Fstate-football-dropped-2301647-fullerton-season&h=24c67225c37b18011df1592b4a494fab
This is getting messier as I follow it. I thought the 49er was just making mistakes in their stories. The cost is extremely not clear. Is it going to be $95 total or $138 total. I decided to look up the Legacy plan on csulb.edu. There it is in plain print under the title “Pursuit of Excellence.” It looks like a new $95 sports fee, and way down the page shows why the Daily 49er is intentionally botching the story and confusing readers. Under ‘Beneficiaries’ is the “Daily 49er”, in italics. It’s the only beneficiary IN italics. There is a special interest in helping run this thing through. Aren’t there ethics for newspapers anymore? If I believe the 49er stories, every elected person on ASI harmonizes with this. Not one Senator or other representative is quoted as being against it. Really? How about searching for the truth and letting us know. You guys are helping promote an agenda that will cause financial harm. So sad. No wonder the Union Weekly is a better paper. At least they tell the truth.
John, USC is what it is athletics wise because of one sport, Trojan football. Bring back 49er football!!!!
Do you think USC would be the university it is today with out their success in athletics. LB’s president has stated that athletics is a key component in getting LBSU to the next level, a major nationally respected university. His vision will make all of our degrees worth more.
Athletes will kick you wimpy academic nerds around the block. You have no idea how much momentum we’ve generated. Give it up. We will stomp you online in March.
Nice reasoning latination. Unfortunately, this will pass now that ASI removed the paper ballot component. I can attest that fraternities, sororities, and athletes are being directed to prod their friends into voting online. You don’t stand a chance in hell of defeating “this thingy”. Better luck in three years when we push for a new baseball stadium. Don’t show up at a gun fight with a broom handle.
This shouldn’t even be on the table until the economy is less uncertain. Voting yes would be utterly irresponsible. The city of Long Beach just raked in billions in port revenue and locals are being touted as major beneficiaries. It’s a state university and the entire system is a major beneficiary. Why wasn’t this proposed as a city wide or statewide issue first? Because they too would resoundingly say, “Hell NO!!!” We must also squash this thingy.
Proud Alumnus: Because of the argument that “CSULB is still one of the most affordable schools in the country” is the very reason this is a horrible idea. Let’s keep it affordable. Passing this referendum will raise our student fees to higher than many UC’s in Division I. It will move us from the most affordable in student fees to around sixth place in the CSU system. We won’t even be one of the most affordable schools in the state if this passes. This $95 referendum will hit fall 2010 students at the same time they are required to foot the bill on the Rec and Wellness (which I’m sure you voted for). It will be compounded with the 10 percent guaranteed tuition increase. Read a headline or catch the TV news. We are in a RECESSION!!!! Vote NO and protect the future families!
Perhaps not everyone, but best option to provide benefit for the greatest amount. At a time when money is an issue like never before, every fee increase is going to have to endure that much more scrutiny. Athletics is a special interest, of course it benefits many, but primarily benefit a small number of students.
Disabled Student Services have tougher regulations because of Americans with Disability Act, for things like ramps and elevators – I believe we don’t have a choice.
The Rec. Well. is for the general student population. I think one place CSULB needs improvement is to defeat the commuter school stereotype and I believe the Rec. Well. is more aptly suited to combat that then improvements to athletics.
Why does it have to benefit everyone? Wheelchair ramps don’t benefit everyone. Neither does the mental health counseling center in Brottman Hall. Yet, we wouldn’t want to deny the people who do benefit from these resources their opportunity to better themselves or take everything they can from Cal State because they do not benefit “EVERYONE” (your caps not mine). Besides, exactly in what way does the recreation center benefit everyone? People are just as free to use it as they are not to use it, just like students are free either to use the track or soccer fields or swimming pools or not to use them.
THIS DOES NOT BENEFIT EVERYONE. I had to use all caps because some people just do not understand. The recreation and wellness center – now that I can understand as to benefiting everyone. But for athletics alone- where is money for the philosophy department? or the Art department? or the Engineering department? Groups that arguably bring just as much to the campus as athletics.
To get Anything done at all- you had better be friends with the ASI elite – or be better then them, because they are IT.
Whether or not this passes, I won’t be affected. But, either way, I think the argument that some people are making against the issue is kind of ridiculous. The whole “corruption” charges, “special interest groups” and “jocks” trying to take over the school claims don’t sound a little crazy to you all? Come on, it’s student government trying to make college something more than classes. I know the poor souls who weren’t born with a “silver spoon” in their mouth may believe that college is just about classes and nothing else. But, the fact is, with this fee and even tuition increases, CSULB is still one of the most affordable schools in the country. In fact, only a small portion of students graduated with debt last year, and those that did are paying much less than other students (believe me on this, I worked with the Financial Aid people). I think the issue people are having with this is that they are upset with physical activity in general. I would suggest to the people that are afraid of the “jocks” and the kinesiology department, take a KPE class, play an intramural sport, or join a club sport. It’s a great way to meet new people, burn off some calories, and even relieve stress (by the looks of things, something a lot of people on this website can use).
PS
I’m pretty disappointed in what I’ve seen the 49er website turn into this last semester. It’s frustrating having your comments censored.
Hey Troutner, why don’t you publish your primary e-mail address and personal celly if you’re sincere about engaging your constituency on this issue? Quit posting to the topic and challenging in a threatening manner. The person who made the untoward ‘human bonfire’ comment was way out of line. That shouldn’t provoke you into this arena because it violates your elected trust; unless you’re on the defensive because you have something to hide–like an inside push for a special interest group.
Still not noticing a conflict of interest Brian? Can we have a treasurer recall? Now you want to beat somebody up after plying them with hootch at some secluded park? You should not be commenting to any of this as an elected officer because it advertises and taints the process. That’s why it looks like conflict of interest. Which ethics courses have you taken? Every student needs to avoid those professors as if they are plagued.
I call Shenanigans! I’m not a threatening person. But seriously, if my office is too formal or intimidating, lets go play disc golf (I learned about 2 months ago and LOVE IT!) or lets go grab a beer on 2nd (if your 21+)
The way the treasurer keeps inviting some of the commentors almost reads like a schoolyard saying “Meet me at the flagpole at 3:05 or I’ll come looking for you”. Former ASI president Andrews used to sound threatening that way too. It’s kind of like how Schwarzenegger bullies people, acting as if it’s meant to be tongue in cheek, but only sorta. No wonder so many students don’t want to get involved in ASI. Maybe that’s why he shouldn’t even post his contact information anywhere near where this topic is being discussed. At least that’s how it reads to me. I’m probably not alone.
USU 311. [email protected]. those aren’t blocked.
correction to Troutner, parts one and three of a three-parter were blocked. The entire message was blocked and I assumed it was due to its length. Now I know better. It needs to be said.
To Treasurer Troutner:
I apologize for the 49er that they blocked parts one and two of my message. It’s tragic that our campus newspaper is selective in allowing postings in an otherwise public forum. It would be nice if some of them would defend a free exchange of ideas without censoring, as csuf alum alludes. The other two sections have information that could benefit student leaders of every segment at our university, including the 49er.
To Treasurer Troutner:
Part two: In the business world it would be considered insider trading and in the political realm it’s an acrimonious journey away from your sworn mission to protect and represent. The mere presence of your name in this should be confined to the ascribed definition of your charge, which precludes you from such involvement as Facebook and other platforms.With that said, to digest that the online voting process is utilitarian is a misleading. It excludes the potential for a true student vote. You are tossing the baby out with the bathwater to suggest that “students find easier.”I’m sure you’re not claiming that every student who voted by paper ballot in the last election was insignificant, nor that those people don’t prefer that type of voting system over electronic. Some of those votes got you your position.
I have past experience with College Publisher and know for a fact from being a former gatekeeper that the temptation of being a forum super user is censorship. But it doesn’t take such a confession from a one-time college newspaper person (only graduated last year) to point out to readers that an editor is exercising prior restraint in violation of the canons of journalism and the First Amendment. Glad my CSU diploma is from Fullerton and not Long Beach. The comments section is important to allow an anonymous free expression of ideas that might be otherwise restricted for fear of institutional or peer reprisal. You guys miss the mark because I’ve posted and not been published. That’s not College Publisher’s fault; it’s yours because you’re not on top of the administrative key. This is one of the worst college publications I’ve come across. Complacency, self-service, apathy and negligence are a few thoughts that relate. Try harder or go to CSUF if you wish to know journalism ladies and gentlemen. You’re not doing it at the be-ach! Must suck to be you 40-noner.
You are correct, I am on the Facebook group. People were asking for details, I joined told them to wait since the committee didn’t even approve anything yet. If this was inappropriate, I apologize.
As for my previous comment, if you want to talk, I’m open to it. Do I actually think someone would light me on fire? No, but I found it funny.
The ballot is online because that is what students find easier, which is obvious by the increase in voter turnout from the 2007 to 2008 student election.
As for my seat on the Student Fee Advisory Committee, I sit on A LOT of committees. Just ask my friends that have to schedule time to hang out. If you would like, we have lots more committees that need to be filled. Stop by the ASI Government Office, USU-311 and we’ll help you out.
As for the conflict of interest, I do not make the referendum pass or fail, nor would I want that responsibility. I vote to let students vote and do my best to make sure they are getting accurate information. If something is missing, I will do my best to get the info out.
Again, my office is USU-311. Come by and say hi.
If anyone is surprised that ASI government control everything and are in bed with every special interest committee, then you must have been living under a rock. They are no different from any form of government – Corrupt and Useless. Now I’m not a commie but these are politicians in the making – and you know how great those people are.
Informed student, er, Alex:
The Athletics Department and the elected student officers are in lock step with their one sided information, as if administration screened and preened them. They are all saying that by sucking money out of tomorrow’s students, CSULB flowers will smell sweeter. I can see it now during my interview with JPL: “Wow, you would be a great rocket scientist because you went to the same school as Misty May. You’re hired.” If that’s the only way to increase the value of our diplomas, we must be in the wrong majors.
The Student Fee Advisory Committee and the Athletics Dept. are sharing the crack pipe at one of the frat houses. SSSSSSSSuck more money. Definitely the sign of collective cash addiction. The problem is, they aren’t sending their own money up in smoke.
This is not giving back a damn thing. Not only will students pay $95 per semester more in spring for this referendum, they will pay $110 more per semester for the Wellness Center and will be hit with another 10 percent, or @$300 more for tuition increases. Read the ad in the print version of the 49er under the argument against the fee increase. It’s selfish and irresponsible to put an anchor around the necks of incoming students who rely on us to make good judgments for them. The athletics department is not giving back $1.6 million, they are asking to increase their budget to $6.9 million, with no end in sight. Where did this magic “$95” figure come from? Why not $50 or $100? Because round numbers raise and they are hogs. It’s kind of like the retail reasoning that charging $1.99 for a doodad is safer than charging $2.00. The difference is minimal, but enough to scare the consumer. Why is this only on an online ballot instead of having both options like the last elections? Because athletics is counting on not properly engaging the student body voters that might vote no. This is being driven, not offered. One-way PR campaign. Ask why our ASI Treasurer Troutner is on the Beach Legacy Facebook group and defending this farce in the 49er comments section, as well as being on the Student Finance Advisory Committee. This should be considered dereliction and a conflict of interest. What a sham this process is turning into. It’s known as the “Gimme, gimme, gimme” economic philosophy.
To S. Holmes:
No, the average student is not an Athlete, but this referendum DOES affect everyone.
-Anyone who is a kinesiology major will benefit.
-Anyone that is involved in a club sport, intramural or simply likes to have fun on a field without breaking an ankle will benefit.
-Any student that is a fan of Collegiate competition will benefit.
But I think those are obvious and what you’re missing are the benefits that are not so obvious.
(Although every student is affected by ASI whether they realize it or not) Every student that is affected by ASI will benefit. As with everyone else in the country, ASI is feeling the crunch, but this referendum will free up $1.4 million in ASI fees that is committed to Athletics because of a previous student referendum. Look at what they’ve done this semester alone: THOUSANDS of students are riding the bus for free every day, unused metered parking spots are now additional carpool spots, thousands of student were registered and informed about the Presidential election, and families of students who pass away feel supported by the “Once a 49er, Always a 49er Initiative.” (that’s just off the top of my head)
Along with ASI fees being freed up, so will IRA funds. If you learned a concept in class and were able to put it in practice outside of the classroom, chances are good it was funded by IRA. Some examples: journalism students writing articles for the 49er, theatre majors acting in a play, engineering majors building a rocket, art majors exhibiting their work, science majors participating in field work, film majors creating a movie, the list goes on.
I ask you to think again, what students aren’t affected?
I admit, “giving back” might be the wrong term, but the fact is that over $1.4 million of ASI fee money will be returned from the Athletics Department. And this money is being committed to the Athletics Department per a referendum that was passed by students. Unfortunately, this referendum did not account for inflation, nor was it adequate to sustain the facilities. For this and other reasons, the Athletics Department has been utilizing other sources of funding including Instructionally Related Activities (IRA), which is another $700,000+. These two reason are why I’m voting in favor of the referendum and why I know it affects the average student. Look into IRA for yourself. If Athletics was self sufficient this year, all requests to IRA would have been fully funded, but unfortunately, that wasn’t the case. Here is an abridged version of every student that would have benefitted: any student from the College of the Arts, College of Liberal Arts, College of Natural Science and Mathematics, College of Engineering, College of Health and Human Services, College of Education, and College of Business. If you don’t fall into this category, or if you don’t support college athletics, intramurals, the kinesiology department, intrafraternity sports, or any of the several philanthropic activities, then maybe this referendum isn’t for you. But if you would like to become more informed, ask the Athletics Department to make a presentation, I’m sure they wouldn’t mind. If you wouldn’t trust that, talk to the elected student officers, that is what they are there for after all.
Once upon a time, in the mystical land of Long Beach, a sports team played. They built a university around it and all was right in the world. Oh wait, first they built the college, then they incorporated athletics. So confusing.
Debt is also a legacy. It’s a harder one to live with too.
To beachpride:
The quality of education you’re embracing shows not only in your lack of objective thinking ability, but in your lack of ability in finding things like the dictionary or the “Shift” key on the keyboard. The slippery slope argument that athletics is giving back $1.6 million is ridiculous. Firstly, the referendum is asking for an open-ended tap into the future economics of the student body; many of whom weren’t born with silver spoons in their mouths. There’s a reason more than 50 percent of our current population receives financial aid through FAFSA and Cal Grants. They don’t have the familial resources to pay for what once was a public education. In the 1960s under the California Master Plan that developed the CSU system, fees were slightly above $80. Check your facts. During the past eight years under Charles Reed tuitions have more than doubled. This referendum isn’t “giving” anything back that wasn’t given to athletics in the first place. Nearly everything in this proposal is built on fallacy. But then, it won’t be on your back, it will be on the future spines of those who you are sticking with the tab; tomorrow’s students and their struggling families.
“i can bet money not one of you have ever stepped foot in the pyramid to support the volleyball or basketball teams or taken a trip out to george allen field to support you 3 time big west conference champion women’s soccer team. “
How much money?
“passing this referendum would also give back 1.6 million dollars to student run organizations therefor helping those people who are actually involved in their school and dont just go here cause its convenient. “
It’s not “giving back” but “giving”. And I think you need to stop making blanket assumptions regarding your fellow students if you really want to persuade people to see things your way.
you should take pride in your school and that also means athletics. i can bet money not one of you have ever stepped foot in the pyramid to support the volleyball or basketball teams or taken a trip out to george allen field to support you 3 time big west conference champion women’s soccer team. sorry we cant fix the economy but when you graduate think about this, before Gonzaga won a national championship in basketball a few years who knew who they were? no one. how do you expect for our school to gain recognition if our coaching staff doesn’t have the necessary funds to recruit national level players. we wont have the ability to compete at such a high level if we cant get these athletes. by the way did you know we are last in our conference in student fees that go toward athletics, UC davis pays over $400. passing this referendum would also give back 1.6 million dollars to student run organizations therefor helping those people who are actually involved in their school and dont just go here cause its convenient.
Is a “legacy” supposed to pay my student loans? Will it open more sessions of the classes that I need to graduate in a timely manner? Can I put this “legacy” on my resume when I am trying to start my career in a crap economy? How will this benefit the average student? Oh wait… It won’t.
I understand the frustration of some of these comments, but one day you will be proud you were a part of this college’s growth. My concern is that if CSULB builds this new complex, does that mean we will never have a football team again? Bring back ‘Niner football!!!!!!!!!!
The saddest part of this is that it will pass because the mindless and apathetic students graduating this semester will fly past the booth. All of the athletic department will muster a barrage of voters to pass it and our legacy will be to pass the buck, or in this case, the debt. This is administrators taking advantage of students to create another boondoggle, like the Wellness Center. I agree with “close the 49er down” that the newspaper really let our student body down by letting this slide for almost three months while the jocks polished a campaign. Shame, shame, shame. It isn’t the athletics department that deserves to be taunted. They’re doing what admin directs and what’s good for their program. The shame is on our administration for manipulating and on the Daily 49er for helping them. I absolutely will never contribute a nickel to the CSULB alumni foundation once I graduate. I won’t even look over my shoulder because of the collective shame you’ve attached to my experience.
This obviously looks like such an emergency that all of the machine is in motion–overnight? Got a Facebook page, a campaign, ballots and sample ballots? Surprise! I wonder why every other student paid only $43 in ASI fees but I paid $44. This proposal is as absolutely ridiculous as the 49er coverage. You guys aren’t helping students with this crappy evaluation. The meeting was November 7 and you’re just getting around to it after these thieves have all of their ducks in a row. It reads almost as if you newspaper clowns are in cahoots with the powers that be in cramming this thing through. Doesn’t anybody care about being responsible to future students and their parents? The money might get redirected back to ASI, but they’ll find another way to squander and mismanage our money. How absurd is it for Goldberg to say “The legacy we build today will increase the value of our degree tomorrow.”? What does this crap have to do with increasing the value of my degree in the future, except to associate it with wasteful shame?
Goldberg expresses this mindless sentiment with “the campus needs better fields, a new track, a campus stadium and more?” It’s the “and more” that should scare the crap out of anybody using the critical thinking skills this institution is supposed to be teaching. But that isn’t covered in the athletics program it seems.