Friday, March 24, 2006
More wasted money
Meanwhile, over at page 24 of this thingie, we can see a description of another self-imposed fee increase. I should note first, however, one of the previous page's whereases:
a financial model in which revenue is driven by a mandatory student fee rather than by user fees is the model used at every other university in the UC system and would allow for a lower cost of access to the RSF for a given user;
Where's the "but will cause a much higher cost for all non-users" whereas?
Do you approve this mandatory fee to reduce the cost of membership to the Recreational Sports Facility (RSF) and allow students with financial need to acquire assistance for RSF membership?
Well, that's a pretty pleasant way of putting it. All throughout the referendum, this framing is used. What is not used:
Do you approve this mandatory fee to offset some of the cost of membership to the Recreational Sports Facility (RSF) from those who use it to those who do not use it?
Well, whatever. Here's another self-imposed fee increase that is almost guaranteed to pass, because so many people on campus wouldn't have to pay for it.
. . .
|
. . .
|
