donate

The Martlet

Students vote ‘yes’ to paying more for athletics

Oct 29, 2009 | Volume 62 Issue 12 | 18 Comments
Share |
Students voted to accept a fee increase that would improve UVic’s athletic facilities, including the McKinnon building.

Students voted to accept a fee increase that would improve UVic’s athletic facilities, including the McKinnon building.

Sol Kauffman

Students want improved athletics facilities. At least, that’s the result captured by a consultative ballot issued to students last week.

The ballot, which asked students a yes-or-no question on whether or not they want a new athletics building in exchange for an extra $55 per term fee, showed a 53 per cent majority of students voting in favor of the new building fee.

These results, along with other information regarding the project, will now be going to the UVic Board of Governors in November. A decision on how to proceed with the proposed project will occur in the new year.

Associate Vice President Student Affairs Jim Dunsdon said that, above all, he was “really happy” to see such a high voter turnout rate on the question.

Participation in the vote was approximately 20 per cent of the UVic student body, a dramatic increase when compared to the Board of Governors and Senate elections, which often see little more than a five per cent voter turnout.

Nearly 60 per cent of undergrad students who responded voted in favor of the building, while aproximately 22 per cent of grad students voted in support of the proposed project.

“The plan has always been to conduct the ballot, and then bring those results forward to the Board of Governors … [this] informs them about what the student body wants,” Dunsdon said.

The proposed fee would see students contribute $21.6 million toward the $58.7-million project. If the building is approved, the new fee wouldn’t be put in place until after the building is complete, likely fall 2012.

Dunsdon said he wasn’t that surprised by the results.

“Healthy living and access to recreation is a much more predominate factor now in helping students decide where they want to go to study,” he said. “It’s a way of life people are looking for when they come here ... and it’s a staying factor for students.”

Currently, full-time undergrads pay approximately $73 per term in athletics fees, but have the option of joining the Ian Stuart Complex weight room at a higher fee per term. The new athletics fee would bring the standard fee up to $128 per term for undergrads, but would offer access to all facilities. The fee is expected to be prorated on course registration.

Currently, Simon Fraser University (SFU) undergrad students pay $103 per term in athletics fees, while University of B.C. (UBC) students pay approximately $105.

While some have claimed that students already in athletics-minded programs were the main target audience for promotion of the ballot, Dunsdon said the question was clear in terms of what the vote would mean — a consultation of what students want.

Dunsdon said that many provinces do not consider athletics buildings a core responsibility of provincial funding, and so achieving funding for said buildings often becomes a challenge. As some other institutions have found, that funding then has to come from the students — if they want it.

For students who thought their vote wouldn’t matter, Dunsdon corrects that philosophy.

“If it had been a ‘no’ vote, it would have been very diffucult to move this project forward,” he said. “What the students say really does make a difference.”

Share |

18 Comments

The Martlet has an open comments policy and will endeavour to promote healthy discussion. We strive to act as an agent of constructive social change and will remove racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise oppressive comments.

Leave a Comment

  • S Oct. 29, 2009, 3:37 a.m.

    Not enough people knew about this to vote on it! Only the ones who want the complex knew about it and voted!! There should have been more awareness about the vote to actually get students who care about paying for something that they will NEVER use, voting.

  • S Oct. 29, 2009, 3:37 a.m.

    Not enough people knew about this to vote on it! Only the ones who want the complex knew about it and voted!! There should have been more awareness about the vote to actually get students who care about paying for something that they will NEVER use, voting.

  • John Newcomb Oct. 29, 2009, 9:27 a.m.

    Would have been better to offer students a choice of land uses for that area of MacKinnon Gym parking lot - and having a resource-recovery sewage plant there would be an ideal alternative. For more information on this: http://sites.google.com/site/uvicsewageplant/

  • John Newcomb Oct. 29, 2009, 9:27 a.m.

    Would have been better to offer students a choice of land uses for that area of MacKinnon Gym parking lot - and having a resource-recovery sewage plant there would be an ideal alternative. For more information on this: http://sites.google.com/site/uvicsewageplant/

  • Jon Oct. 29, 2009, 10:47 a.m.

    hahah, John Newcomb is predictably crazy! Keep it coming man, I love it!!

    S, maybe you should make it to the gym once in a while. You know fitness is the key to a healthy, long life, and typically fit, healthy people are happier.

  • Jon Oct. 29, 2009, 10:47 a.m.

    hahah, John Newcomb is predictably crazy! Keep it coming man, I love it!!

    S, maybe you should make it to the gym once in a while. You know fitness is the key to a healthy, long life, and typically fit, healthy people are happier.

  • Leo Zhang Oct. 29, 2009, 1 p.m.

    I would love having the new building but I voted No...can't afford to pay an extra 55 every term...that's the reason I came here anyway...cheaper tuition. Beside shouldn't it be the university and the govenemnt's responsibility anyway to keep our instituion not out-dated?

  • Leo Zhang Oct. 29, 2009, 1 p.m.

    I would love having the new building but I voted No...can't afford to pay an extra 55 every term...that's the reason I came here anyway...cheaper tuition. Beside shouldn't it be the university and the govenemnt's responsibility anyway to keep our instituion not out-dated?

  • Kevin Oct. 29, 2009, 2:08 p.m.

    53% of 20% is hardly a majority of students. But sure, pretend that it is!

  • Kevin Oct. 29, 2009, 2:08 p.m.

    53% of 20% is hardly a majority of students. But sure, pretend that it is!

  • Justin Oct. 29, 2009, 2:16 p.m.

    It is important to clarify that the fee increase does not come into play until 2012--when the facility is open. It is also important that the facility's detractors (or more specifically those who critique the consolation process) be fully informed before passing judgment. The effort to spread awareness was much more significant than 'S' suggests--certainly beyond 'the ones who want the complex'. Don't confuse conspiracy with democracy or dare I say--apathy.

  • Justin Oct. 29, 2009, 2:16 p.m.

    It is important to clarify that the fee increase does not come into play until 2012--when the facility is open. It is also important that the facility's detractors (or more specifically those who critique the consolation process) be fully informed before passing judgment. The effort to spread awareness was much more significant than 'S' suggests--certainly beyond 'the ones who want the complex'. Don't confuse conspiracy with democracy or dare I say--apathy.

  • Kim Oct. 29, 2009, 3:11 p.m.

    Justin's statement Don't confuse conspiracy with democracy or dare I say-apathy. may be the most correct comment yet. On october 19, 2009 at 11:24:48 am an e mail was sent out to students explaining the Proposed New Athletics and Recreation Building and Fee from the University Secretary. Getting the corect information is always tough. The Martlet says UBC's athletic fee is approximatley $105 to be a little more correct: Athletic and Recreation fee $189.66, Athletic and Intramural fee $21.00 for a total of $210.66. Find out the facts.

  • Kim Oct. 29, 2009, 3:11 p.m.

    Justin's statement Don't confuse conspiracy with democracy or dare I say-apathy. may be the most correct comment yet. On october 19, 2009 at 11:24:48 am an e mail was sent out to students explaining the Proposed New Athletics and Recreation Building and Fee from the University Secretary. Getting the corect information is always tough. The Martlet says UBC's athletic fee is approximatley $105 to be a little more correct: Athletic and Recreation fee $189.66, Athletic and Intramural fee $21.00 for a total of $210.66. Find out the facts.

  • Andrew A Oct. 29, 2009, 9:13 p.m.

    In some fairness to S, the signage and information pamphlets were only posted in and around McKinnon and ISC. There was a clear effort made to ensure that those who were most likely to support the referendum would be informed about it and vote. I would consider that more getting out the vote than trying to keep the referendum a secret.

    The email Kim references, two Martlet articles (plus the references to it in the ones on Sewage Treatment) and the fact that many students would have passed by the signs near McKinnon and on McKenzie Ave. lead me to believe that the general student population should have known the referendum was happening.

  • Andrew A Oct. 29, 2009, 9:13 p.m.

    In some fairness to S, the signage and information pamphlets were only posted in and around McKinnon and ISC. There was a clear effort made to ensure that those who were most likely to support the referendum would be informed about it and vote. I would consider that more getting out the vote than trying to keep the referendum a secret.

    The email Kim references, two Martlet articles (plus the references to it in the ones on Sewage Treatment) and the fact that many students would have passed by the signs near McKinnon and on McKenzie Ave. lead me to believe that the general student population should have known the referendum was happening.

  • Me Nov. 10, 2009, 12:12 a.m.

    The email Kim references, two Martlet articles (plus the references to it in the ones on Sewage Treatment) and the fact that many students would have passed by the signs near McKinnon and on McKenzie Ave. lead me to believe that the general student population should have known the referendum was happening.

    Ahh...what percentage of the student body walks that way? Then what percent of the student body reads things while walking that way?

    I agree with Kevin,

    53% of 20% is hardly a majority of students. But sure, pretend that it is!

    I didn't really know about the vote until a last minute email which didn't provide me any time to actually read anything and then vote. Total lack of awareness (except to those who use the gym and are more likely to vote YES).

  • Me Nov. 10, 2009, 12:12 a.m.

    The email Kim references, two Martlet articles (plus the references to it in the ones on Sewage Treatment) and the fact that many students would have passed by the signs near McKinnon and on McKenzie Ave. lead me to believe that the general student population should have known the referendum was happening.

    Ahh...what percentage of the student body walks that way? Then what percent of the student body reads things while walking that way?

    I agree with Kevin,

    53% of 20% is hardly a majority of students. But sure, pretend that it is!

    I didn't really know about the vote until a last minute email which didn't provide me any time to actually read anything and then vote. Total lack of awareness (except to those who use the gym and are more likely to vote YES).

 

Martlet Video

Sustainable Ecological Aquaculture:

The Martlet on Twitter

  • May 18, 2012, 6:27 p.m. It's not just "peaceful assemblies" under fire; Charest plans to withhold funding from student societies who don't play nice. #ggi #loi78
Join our mailing list