Editorial Board

Issue: After several amendments and a lengthy debate, the Students’ Association approved a major events fund which the University Program Council will oversee to bring in major talent acts to SDSU.

No one is opposed the idea of bringing in major talent acts to SDSU in itself. As with most issues, the reality of finances is and must be a high, if not the main, concern.

UPC’s original proposal was a $50,000 major events fund that was to be replenished every year. Depending on what was spent and what was earned back, this amount would vary from year to year, with SA replenishing it no matter what the cost.

Three amendments were proposed, one granting an initial $31,000 and $10,000 per year, another giving UPC $21,000 initially and $10,000 per year, and finally, the amendment that passed, creating a UPC major events fund that receives $10,000 per year with no larger initial funding and reevaluation in three years.

We commend SA on this responsible move.

While we believe a larger initial investment would have been useful to get things off the ground, we see the rejection of the proposal in its original form as a positive step in the practice of fiscal responsibility.

Nearly everyone agrees that making a profit from these major events will be nearly impossible. If SA was to have passed legislation guaranteeing replenishing the fund to $50,000 every year, they could have faced dire economic consequences. SA does not need a bailout from the university analogous to the situation our nation’s government and economy faced.

With $10,000 being given to UPC each year, the current proposal encourages rewards being financially frugal with funds; it encourages them to make decisions and manage their finances in a responsible manner. If UPC is not happy with the amount of money, we suggest they cut a small number of acts they sponsor during the year. The creation of a large events fund is a big deal, and UPC should make their own concessions to bring this to life.

In the near future, SDSU will reach its cap of students, and the large influx of money from student fees – tied to student enrollment – will soon level off. SA must look forward and practice monetary management with the future in mind, and in this case, it seems SA did just that.

Stance: We applaud the fiscal responsibility of SA. Healthy debate and compromise tends to bring good legislation, and we believe this is just what happened.