reclaimucsd

Archive for the ‘D1 Referendum 2012’ Category

Election Grievance: Details of Alleged Violation

In D1 Referendum 2012 on March 3, 2012 at 3:08 pm

Former AS president, UCSD alumnus Utsav Gupta sent out an email to many students containing demonstrably false and misleading information, urging students to vote yes on the DI referendum.

In the email he claims that those on financial aid will not be harmed by this referendum because of its 29% allocation to increase aid funds. This is misleading, since some financial aid comes in the form of loans which must be repaid, and in that case will hurt those on financial aid. He claims that our US News ranking will be improved by a DI program. This is false, since US News does not consider sports in its ranking, and only through increased alumni support (not sports) would our ranking improve. He claims that UCSD is the only DII UC. This is misleading since it implies that all other UCs are DI, when in fact UCSC is DIII and UC Merced is not currently in an NCAA division. He claims that this referendum is a step towards a football team. This is misleading because he does not note the fact that the Feasibility study concluded football was not feasible at UCSD and would entail an additional $33 million to support.

Given 1) the immense influence that this act could have on the election, 2) its egregious impropriety considering its inaccuracy and possibly improper access to a UCSD-wide listserv, 3) previous allegations of serious conspiracy and foul play, given 4) that AS has no authority over Mr. Gupta since he is neither part of an official campaign nor a student, 5) that Mr. Gupta is an employee of UCSD as an Alumni Outreach Officer and that other UCSD employee’s have had their personal opinions on private networks censored in an effort to maintain neutrality, and 6) that requesting an apology or fine will not undo the impact this misinformation may have on the election results:

I ask the AS Elections Committee, Advocate General, and/or Judicial Board to recognize these as exceptional and extenuating circumstances regarding the two-day deadline for considering this grievance.

If these entities are unable to establish exceptional and extenuating circumstances, and are thereby unable to consider this grievance, I ask that these entities, and AS Council to do the following immediately: 1) publicly denounce this email as an egregiously improper effort by a UCSD employee to influence a student election, 2) publicly endorse, promote, and provide access to at polling stations the letter writing campaign I have initiated concerning this email 3) seriously consider the potential for this email to undermine the possibility of this election remaining neutral, fair, and valid.

[This grievance was covered by the UCSD Guardian on March 5th, 2012. Between February 27 and March 9 UCSD undergraduates will vote on a referendum that will raise the Athletics student fee 134%, to a total of $854 per year, in order to fund a move to D1 in the event that UCSD receives a bid from a D1 conference.]

Don’t forget to vote!

Advertisements

Letter writing campaign: Thank Former AS President for Trying to Influence Our Election

In D1 Referendum 2012 on February 29, 2012 at 11:06 pm

Former AS President and UCSD alumnus Utsav Gupta has sent out a mass email to a UCSD-wide listserv from his personal email address[1]. While the illegitimacy of this act is unclear, it is offensively unscrupulous for anyone to use such a strong tool to try to influence a vote on undergraduate student-fees after graduating.

Gupta would really appreciate it if you checked your ucsd.edu email and responded to him with something like the following courteous message:

Dear Utsav Gupta,

Thank you for trying to influence my vote for a referendum whose outcome poses no risk to you, but will cost students an additional $495 a year. It is heartening to know that alumni support a sports team in thought. I would prefer it if they supported sports financially, rather than making struggling undergraduates pay for alumni’s sense of legacy, but I understand how times are hard.

Thanks again.

Signed,

[your name]

PS: Why don’t you do your job by sending a mass email to the 150 alumni the UC pays you to ask for money, and ask them to support DI instead? [2]

He deserves the flood of community support.

Between February 27 and March 9 UCSD undergraduates will vote on a referendum that will raise the Athletics student fee 134%, to a total of $854 per year, in order to fund a move to D1 in the event that UCSD receives a bid from a D1 conference.

Don’t forget to vote!

____________________________________________

[1] https://reclaimucsd.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/guptas-letter.png

Screen cap for the wary:

[2] http://www.linkedin.com/in/utsavgupta

Open Letter to AVP Athletic Relations

In D1 Referendum 2012 on February 28, 2012 at 5:47 pm

[This letter was sent to Aurora Lopez, AVP Athletic Relations, on February 26th. It is intended to address the entire athletic community.]

Dear Aurora,

I am personally writing to you about March 1st because I have been quite vocal against the DI referendum, and because I am sure that the athletics community feels that March 1st is not for them. I entreat you to support March 1st by encouraging athletes to attend, by forwarding this email to your athletics contacts, and by attending yourself.

I want to emphasize to you, and to the athletic community in general, that March 1st is a day for education first and foremost, and that there are problems with our public education system which directly affect athletes. The loss of state funding has seriously harmed athletics programs at UCSB, UCI, UCR and UCD to name just a few. Increased system-wide mandatory fees harm athletes just as they harm other students, if not more because athletes already have such full schedules.

Unfortunately, for many students the fight is against any increase in fees for which they perceive no benefit. Many of the organizers for March 1st fall within that group, and so the issues of state-wide fees (which affect us all) and campus fees (like DI) have been run together. The reaction against the DI referendum is a product of the current atmosphere of fee escalation. If the regents and UCOP were not facing the possibility of raising fees by 16% annually, the D1 referendum would be far less contentious than it has proven to be.

I believe our athletes deserve to advance to DI. We are the largest school in DII and we already have three sports in DI. That being said, all students have been made to suffer through cut backs, and fee increases, not just athletes. We all deserve a better, more affordable education, and while we will have different priorities I believe we can all agree there are problems within our system which are unacceptable to everyone.

Athletics are an important part of a college experience, and neither I, nor anyone I have spoken to, is against DI in and of itself. It is part of the tragedy of our system that many students feel they cannot support program improvements they would otherwise love to have.

Please show your solidarity.

Sincerely,

Kevin Quirolo

D-1 Pro Statement (Annotated)

In D1 Referendum 2012 on February 15, 2012 at 9:39 pm

[The official publication of this statement is available here]

The Division I and Student Scholarships Referendum does more than just move our athletic community and our student life to the next level. The Division I and Student Scholarships Referendum will raise nearly $8,000,000 per year in scholarships, $3,000,000 of which will go to student grants and aid, not just to athletes.

[If AS wanted to increase scholarships they would not have tagged $14 million dollars of D-I to it. The goodness of D-I is ambiguous and complicated so pairing it with something ‘inherently good,’ like scholarships, improves its chances of passing. While financial aid will be adjusted for the fee increase, much of financial aid is loans which must be paid back. Debt on graduation has increased 20% since 2000, this will not help. [1]]

This Referendum WILL:
+ Increase UCSD’s exposure and visibility.

  • We will play against, and have rivalries with, schools that are more familiar and similar to us Instead of playing against “The Academy of Art,” we’ll be playing against schools like UC Irvine, UC Santa Barbara, UC Riverside, and UC Davis.

[Since the 2008 financial and economic crises UC Irvine has cut five sports entirely, UC Davis has cut four sports entirely, UC Riverside has cut athletic spending by 8.4%, and UC Santa Barbara has cut its sports as well.[2]

Athletics at other schools have not been spared from the general cut in support that has resulted from poor state governance, and system-wide mismanagement. Why would we more than double our support for sports when all divisions and departments of our school have had to cut back?] Read the rest of this entry »

D-1 Con Statement (Footnoted)

In D1 Referendum 2012 on February 14, 2012 at 11:52 pm

[This statement was submitted to AS to appear on the ballot for the special election occurring between February 27th and March 9th. Footnotes have been added for the skeptical or curious. The official publication of this statement is available here]

Even if you want and can afford D-I, this WILL price some students out of a UCSD education. This will hurt middle-class students struggling to pay for school and who won’t receive more financial aid to cover a new fee.[1]

AS’s D-I Feasibility Study said football IS NOT feasible at UCSD.[2] This new fee will not fund a football team.

There is no hard evidence that D-I would provide employment advantages for UCSD graduates. UCSD already has an INCREDIBLE reputation. Last year, we had the second highest number of applications in the UC system, higher than Cal.[3]

US News, the most recognized ranking system, does not even consider sports in its rankings,[4] and a 2004 study of nine D-I conferences found that D-I basketball is not correlated with increased alumni giving.[5]

Non-student funding for D-I is possible. Most of UCLA’s athletics funding isn’t from student fees.[6]
The move from D-II to D-I is EXTREMELY RISKY. In a 2007 NCAA study all eight programs that moved from D-II to D-I suffered MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR FINANCIAL LOSSES.[7]

Remember to vote!

Read the rest of this entry »

Letter Warning about D-1 Language Still Unaddressed

In D1 Referendum 2012 on February 14, 2012 at 11:48 pm

[This letter was published in the UCSD Guardian available here: http://www.ucsdguardian.org/component/k2/item/25349-inconsistent-d1-drafts-must-be-addressed]

Dear Editor,

On Thursday February 9th, the Muir College Council failed to pass a resolution against the D-I referendum. Alyssa Wing and Mac Zilber made an appearance to critique the text of their resolution.

Wing repeated a statement which appeared in the Guardian on January 30th, 2012. She said that the concerns in a letter from the Student Fees Advisory Committee (SFAC) had referred to an out-dated draft of the referendum, and that “All of the issues were addressed in the final draft,” as she was quoted in the Guardian.

However, the copy of the SFAC letter I have quotes the referendum as follows: “According to Statement 6 in the Statement of Conditions, ‘The ASUCSD Council must annually review and approve the ICA budget.’ In the same statement, ‘[ASUCSD] shall comply with UC and UCSD policies, NCAA policies and regulations, and contractual obligations of ICA.’”

The text of the referendum currently available to students on the as.ucsd.edu website reads as follows: “The ASUCSD Council must annually review and approve the ICA budget and shall comply with UC and UCSD policies, NCAA policies and regulations, and the contractual commitments of ICA.”

Read the rest of this entry »

D1: Not Now

In D1 Referendum 2012 on February 14, 2012 at 11:12 pm

[A libertarian opposition to the referendum is available here]

A new referendum proposing to fund Division 1 sports with student fees will be open to vote between February 27 and March 9th. The referendum will charge students $165 per quarter. This amount is based on the recommendation from an athletics consultant. That consultant said an extra $5 million per year was the bare minimum needed to get into D-1 (our men’s water polo, volleyball and fencing are already D-1), but an extra $13 million to be “competitive.” Here is A.S. President Allyssa Wing on being competitive:

“We don’t want to be a university that is only in D-I but is not competitive,” Wing said. “We want to be able to provide scholarships [for] top-notch talent [that we] want to come to our campus. The number is a little higher than the projection, but that is to maintain our program and ensure that we don’t have to keep going back to students with more referendums” [1]

ast year, Wing and A.S. Council killed a referendum to fund the re-opening of CLICS with an $8 dollar quarterly fee. [CORRECTION: no referendum was actually voted on, it was a casual suggestion which never came through and which Wing did not support] Here is Wing on that issue:

“If A.S. came to students for fees, it opens up a lot of doors for the future of how A.S. is seen,” Wing said. “It’s a dangerous direction.” Wing said that creating the position of vice chancellor for equity, diversity and inclusion suggests that there is money to fund the libraries. “If there is money to create a [new administrative] position, why are we closing down libraries?” Wing said. [2]

Read the rest of this entry »