SEC article presented incomplete argument
Letters to the Editor
Kathy Ward
Issue date: 11/13/09 Section: Opinion
I was thoroughly disappointed with the article reporting on the SEC referendum in the Nov. 6 issue ("SEC votes to hold referendum on Media Board salaries"). The article was far from unbiased - only 3 of its 18 paragraphs did anything to show the point of view of organizations outside Media Board, and in my opinion, our strongest points were not showcased at all.
For instance, Alicia Sanchez researched three institutions with similar activities fees, each of which had specific clauses stating that the money could not be used for student salaries. I simply believe that the argument to pay student salaries is inherently flawed. If Media Board members are paid, why shouldn't all students in organizations be paid? But that would use all of the student activities fee (SAF) before it could go to any actual activities!
In their salary justifications, many organizations gave estimated hourly wages which ranged from $2.30 an hour to $10 an hour. This shows that, clearly, there are no criteria on which salaries are based. Not to mention that only other students oversee the payment of salaries, which I find completely unacceptable. Only a university faculty or staff member should be able to approve salaries or hourly wages, especially when the money is coming directly from students.
Additionally, the article mentioned several times that organizations which would be affected by this referendum (Athenian, Case Reserve Review, Ignite TV, and Discussions) are currently unable to generate revenue through advertisements, so they would not be able to pay salaries at all without the SAF. This completely misses the point of the referendum. The point is that each member of our campus pays money for student organizations and activities, and that money shouldn't be going into another student's pocket.
Finally, I take offense at the implication that the members of SEC are attacking Media Board. We can't help that they are the only organization which uses the SAF for salaries. I believe that we were respectful of all members, and we made no attempt to devalue their organizations in any way. All of our arguments have to be based on them, because they are the only ones who don't already find it unacceptable.
For instance, Alicia Sanchez researched three institutions with similar activities fees, each of which had specific clauses stating that the money could not be used for student salaries. I simply believe that the argument to pay student salaries is inherently flawed. If Media Board members are paid, why shouldn't all students in organizations be paid? But that would use all of the student activities fee (SAF) before it could go to any actual activities!
In their salary justifications, many organizations gave estimated hourly wages which ranged from $2.30 an hour to $10 an hour. This shows that, clearly, there are no criteria on which salaries are based. Not to mention that only other students oversee the payment of salaries, which I find completely unacceptable. Only a university faculty or staff member should be able to approve salaries or hourly wages, especially when the money is coming directly from students.
Additionally, the article mentioned several times that organizations which would be affected by this referendum (Athenian, Case Reserve Review, Ignite TV, and Discussions) are currently unable to generate revenue through advertisements, so they would not be able to pay salaries at all without the SAF. This completely misses the point of the referendum. The point is that each member of our campus pays money for student organizations and activities, and that money shouldn't be going into another student's pocket.
Finally, I take offense at the implication that the members of SEC are attacking Media Board. We can't help that they are the only organization which uses the SAF for salaries. I believe that we were respectful of all members, and we made no attempt to devalue their organizations in any way. All of our arguments have to be based on them, because they are the only ones who don't already find it unacceptable.
Be the first to comment on this story