The Underground

Nathanael Edward Bassett

Contributor

Don’t forget, today and tomorrow (March 17 and 18) students at MSU can vote on the widely discussed “sustainability fee”. The electronic ballot is at elections.missouristate.edu and there is a link to the proposal created by SGA. In short, the proposal consists of adding a two dollar fee for students each semester, “matched by the University President up to $75,000 each year”, “to be available for student-driven sustainability initiatives“.  A voting body of students will be created by SGA in order to manage these funds for those initiatives. I highly recommend everyone who reads this goes to the website and reads this proposal.

A couple of things come to mind about this; in the language of the proposal,

If students approved a two dollar-per semester fee matched with two dollars-per semester from the University President up to a total of $37,500 each semester, a little under four dollars per semester would have equaled this fall to a little over $76,000 ($76,196 to be exact) based of the 19,348 students enrolled on the Springfield Campus. If it had been in place this past fiscal year, this fee being matched would have generated roughly $152,000 ($152,392 to be exact). We don’t recommend a sunset date on this proposed fee at this time.

Wow, that’s a lot of cash from just a few bucks per student. To break that down, the amount pledged by the President Nietzel appears to match what the student body is presently capable of. It’s all worked out so that 10 percent is going to be in reserve, and the other 90 percent is split between projects that we have to keep paying for versus one time deals. However,

The following are estimated recurring (ongoing) costs that would be pursued during the first year and then continually maintained:

Annual Commission Operations Expenses:
Administrative Overhead:
includes designation of an Office of Sustainability, phone line, internet access, etc.
$10,000
Ensuring Sustainability of the Universal Recycling Program:
(1) 10 student workers, 20 hours week
(a) work study students … $3.55 > $710/week
OR *30 weeks = $21,300
(b) student workers … $7.10 > $1420/week
*30 weeks = $42,600
TOTAL 1st Year Recurring COST=
(a) $31,300
(b) $52,600
Amount of 1st Year Recurring left for further Allocation=
(a) $37,100
(b) $15,800

Ok, so we still have 50 grand left for reoccurring projects… like stuff we will have to keep paying for. What about non reoccurring expenses?

Ensuring Sustainability of the Universal Recycling Program – Continued:
(2) Remaining purchase of recycle bin/receptacles… $20,000
Amount of 1st Year Nonrecurring left for further Allocation= $48,400

50 grand for that too!  Big deal, that’s still a lot of money, right?

My concern is that since the students have taken the initiative to create a committee to come up with projects and allocate funds for them, the university is going to dedicate less of it’s own resources and effort in order to ensure that new development and practices are all environmentally friendly and sustainable. By that I mean, when it comes time to approve new projects and policies, MSU will now be less likely to worry that they do right by “future generations.” In a sense, the Student Sustainability Commission shouldn’t be a way for the administration to have a “carbon offset,” or a way to counteract it’s own decisions, in the case they’re more economical (read cheaper), or more practical (read easier).

After all, Missouri State’s been doing a lot along these lines, right? I hate to rain on the parade, but most of that stuff just seems like they’re bringing things up to date. Buying better bulbs is great, so is recycling, but those are things every institution should do, and not just because they’re trying to be “sustainable.” The electric vehicles are really good though. Still, any decisions that the school makes regarding buildings or policies that are going to impact the future should be made with sustainable intentions. And the staff and faculty should continue to improve and change the school for the better, and not regulate the job of coming up with those ideas to students. God knows, we have enough to do already. And don’t expect us to have all the answers either.

That said, I did vote for the Sustainability Inititive, and I do think it’s a good idea. I just don’t think the school should expect us to pay for recycling that students are too stupid to use and pretend we’ll all come up with the ideas MSU needs.

Nate Campus News, Columns, News, Opinions Missouri State, MSU, referendum, sustainability

A recent attempt by the Student Government Association to send a proposed sustainability fee to a student vote failed.

The reason.

Insufficient attendance by senators at the meeting to pass the vote.

While the SGA attendance issue is somewhat troubling, more troubling is the fact that any student senators would be in favor of increasing student fees.

Sure, $2 a semester per student doesn’t sound like much, but students are already being asked to carry a huge burden between current tuition and student fees. Most students leave college with thousands of dollars in debt.

Increasing student fees is not an idea that should be thrown around lightly in SGA, especially for a project rife with good intentions but less so with concrete steps and measurable objectives.

Sustainability is a noble idea, but it doesn’t require student fees to fund it. The best ways to promote sustainability involve simply increasing awareness. Turn off the lights when not in a room. Recycle aluminum cans and paper products. Carpool to work and school.

Students should be appalled that SGA senators would even consider increasing fees in this economic environment, especially as the university administration is working to keep tuition flat even as costs and enrollment continue to rise.

If this sustainability measure is brought back up before a full senate, it should be voted down.

If it passes through SGA and goes to a student vote, then students need to stand up and make it clear that they oppose any increase in the economic burden we all face.

Student fee increases will not be tolerated.

-Zach Becker

For the Editorial Board

Zach Editorials fees, Missouri State University, MSU, SGA, student fees, Student Government Association, sustainability, tuition

Abby Jo Moore

Contributor

As the Public Affairs theme for 2009 at Missouri State University, sustainability has caused a lot of talk on campus the past few months. But what does the term mean specifically in the university context, and what might the sustainability proposition bring about for students?

The 2009 Referendum for a Sustainability Fee brought to vote at Student Government Association defines the term generally as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

More specifically, the proposed resolution would require a $2 student fee increase per semester for each student. Courtney Wendel, Director of Public Relations for SGA, explained that the money would go into a fund and then be allocated by a commission of students who decide which projects to support.

As far as the exact allocation of funds, part of the money would go to support recycling, but the majority would be in the hands of the students. Various groups and organizations on campus will apply for funding in order to host speakers, events and other projects associated with sustainability. Then, the students on the commission will consider suggestions and choose where to distribute the funds.

Although the initial vote failed in the senate during the last SGA meeting, plans to reinstate the proposition are expected to come within the next month.

“There is discussion about bringing it back up,” Wendel said. “We’re just waiting on a timeline.”

The text of the resolution itself raised some controversy among Senators of SGA. Some were “concerned that it was biased,” Wendel explained.

In the original language of the resolution, part of the text involved background information explaining the benefits of sustainability and the reasons for the referendum. Various lines were debated upon and cut by the SGA Senate, but according to Wendel, “The actual referendum clause itself did not change at all.”

At this point, the university has agreed to match up to $75,000 of the funds, meaning $150,000 overall could be raised to support the sustainability projects. However, that possibility remains available only within the present budget. Since the next Board of Governors meeting in April will discuss university funds for the upcoming year, the updated budget may not include the potential to match if the referendum has not passed.

Despite some of the controversy over the resolution, a passing vote in the Senate would not mean an immediate $2 increase in tuition. “The resolution is about giving the students the opportunity to vote,” Wendel clarified. If passed in the senate, the resolution would be brought before student vote so that the student body could make the final decision.

Zach Campus News Courtney Wendel, Missouri State, Missouri State University, MSU, recycling, Referendum for a Sustainability Fee, SGA, Student Government Association, sustainability

Jason McGill

Contributor

I don’t think it’s a good idea to create a Wyrick-like grant for sustainability from a small student fee. It’s like paying a ticket to sit and watch others take care of the problem.

Consider that ever since we invented language, we’ve been telling stories. Anyone could make up whatever story suited their fancy, but the harsh reality around them kept imaginations in check. You can only keep telling tales about the rain god until there’s a drought. Then you’re likely to have your show canceled.

Today, real life can hardly intrude on our narrative life. We’re awash in a constant stream of content, in the form of games, movies, television and music. We experience at least as much vicarious emotion as we do real emotion.

The narrative life is much more fun than real life. All that is asked of the audience is to experience it, feel the emotions and connect with the hero. If we hang on, and have faith, and really believe with all our hearts, we’re rewarded with a happy ending. If we have to deal with the real world at all, we’d rather do it through the lens of narrative.

This is how we’ve begun describing history, sociology and politics. It’s a kind of learned helplessness. We interpret real life conflicts in terms of heroes and villains. As long as you’re in the audience, you can safely await the resolution.

Rooting for heroes takes the place of action. We root by voting. We root by watching occasional news broadcasts or forwarding email petitions. We root by joining Facebook groups. We root by paying a few dollars into a fund so someone else can do something about the environment in our names.

This flag waving helps to assuage the guilt, to rationalize. We’ve done all that can be done, now it’s up to the scientists, or the technocrats or the free market – some god-like force that is as abstract and disconnected from us as possible. We don’t have to understand how or why, just believe.

Consider Planet Green, an “eco-lifestyle television network,” which helps you to, “start being the change you wish to see in the world … without the jargon or the guilt trips.”

They will show you how to make bracelets out of PVC pipe. They will tell you to reward yourself with mint brownies. It seems like we’re always rewarding ourselves in one way or another. Show us what brand will save the planet, and we’ll buy it everywhere we see it.

And why have jargon or guilt trips? The audience has no control over what happens on screen. Keep that kind of stuff on PBS documentaries and fringe websites where it belongs. We’ll wait for the movie to come out.

The truth is you can’t buy your way out of “guilt trips.” You can’t green wash your way into being a spectator. You can’t root for Al Gore or Jeffrey Sachs enough to absolve your responsibility.

The truth is that the only real act of protest in a consumer society is not to consume. Imagine all the energy that would be saved if Planet Green stopped broadcasting, if their employees didn’t drive to work, if their viewers left the televisions off.

On one level, by not consuming, you’re just some shmoe without an iPod. But it’s the only way to stop adding to the problem. And it’s a lot easier now that everyone is broke. Saving is the new spending. Cash is the new credit. Living within your means is the new bling-bling.

Instead of this grant proposal, how about simply consuming less hamburger? The dining halls have hamburger available pretty much all day. Livestock is a hugely inefficient in terms of energy used versus food produced.

Livestock produces 18 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions, 70 percent of which comes from beef. Switching from beef to chicken would cut livestock emissions by 70 percent. We don’t need any grant money for that.

Our big brains give us infinite resources for innovation as well as rationalization. Sometimes, telling the difference is the tough part.

Zach Columns PBS, Planet Green, rationalization, sustainability, technocrats, television