An article published in the Daily 49er this month divulged the salaries of CSULB’s ASI Officers. The president, vice president, and treasurer receive an annual compensation of $22,762 each.
Jameson Nyeholt, ASI Treasurer, explained the components of their payment:
- A salary of $16,752
-Free tuition and other student fees totaling $4,810
-$1,200 food credit for 49er Shops, Inc. vendors
The Chief Programming Officer and Chief of Staff make $14,160 in salary plus $4,180 in free student fees for a total of $18,340. Other ASI officers, such as senators, receive little to no pay; $200 to $300 stipend per semester.
According to the 2010-11 projected budget their salaries come from ASI’s nearly $12 million projected annual revenue, of which about $8 million is from student fees.
The duties of the officers are important to the student body and directly affect the campus. However, because CSULB is suffering from the budget cuts – having fewer classes, higher tuition – some students are confused why our ASI officers are among the highest paid in the CSU system.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
THE VALUE OF OUR DOLLAR
When 20 CSULB students were asked the value of the Student Recreation and Wellness Center (SRWC) and the money that we as students have to pay for it, this is what they had to say.
1. Do you use the SRWC?
YES-55% NO-45%
2. Do you think it was fair to add the $118 fee to the University Student Union fee whether or you choose to use the SRWC or not?
YES-50% NO-50%
3. In the midst of the budget cuts, do you think the money spent on the SRWC could have been spent on something better?
YES-70% NO-30%
It is surprising to see that 70 percent of the students surveyed believe that their money spent on SWRC could be used on other essentials that would be more beneficial to the students or the campus. However, it was the students themselves who voted to have the SWRC the created.
Justin Alfonso, a former ASI member in 2008 when the SWRC was first being promoted, said “I know a lot of students didn’t want to spend the money on that [SWRC]. But a majority of students thought if they would spend money, it might as well be on a recreation center. Every big school has one.”
The real questions may be, why did we vote to approve the construction of the SWRC if the money could be spent elsewhere? And what would we rather spend our money on?
Photo: Interior of the CSULB SWRC; By: Jeff Gritchen for the Press-Telegram
1. Do you use the SRWC?
YES-55% NO-45%
2. Do you think it was fair to add the $118 fee to the University Student Union fee whether or you choose to use the SRWC or not?
YES-50% NO-50%
3. In the midst of the budget cuts, do you think the money spent on the SRWC could have been spent on something better?
YES-70% NO-30%
It is surprising to see that 70 percent of the students surveyed believe that their money spent on SWRC could be used on other essentials that would be more beneficial to the students or the campus. However, it was the students themselves who voted to have the SWRC the created.
The real questions may be, why did we vote to approve the construction of the SWRC if the money could be spent elsewhere? And what would we rather spend our money on?
Photo: Interior of the CSULB SWRC; By: Jeff Gritchen for the Press-Telegram
Monday, October 18, 2010
FIRST STEP TO RESTORATION
President F. King Alexander gladly announced to the campus community, via email, that the passed California 2010-2011 budget contained $199 million for California State University (CSU) funding. An extra $60.6 million is intended for future enrollment increase. This $2.62 billion increase signals the first restoration of the CSU budget since 2007.
A supplementary one-time only federal stimulus fund of $106 million will also be awarded to the CSU. When combined, these additional resources will permit the CSU to accept up to 30,000 new students for the winter, spring, and fall 2011 semesters.
CSULB has had to reduce admissions by approximately 4,000 students due to budget cuts. About 40,000 students were declined statewide.
This budget returns 30 percent of the budget cuts. It returns the budget to 2005-2006 support levels. Preceding this new budget, the CSULB budget had been at its lowest position since 1999-2000.
Photo: President F. King Alexander; By: J. Emilio Flores For The New York Times
A supplementary one-time only federal stimulus fund of $106 million will also be awarded to the CSU. When combined, these additional resources will permit the CSU to accept up to 30,000 new students for the winter, spring, and fall 2011 semesters.
CSULB has had to reduce admissions by approximately 4,000 students due to budget cuts. About 40,000 students were declined statewide.
This budget returns 30 percent of the budget cuts. It returns the budget to 2005-2006 support levels. Preceding this new budget, the CSULB budget had been at its lowest position since 1999-2000.
Photo: President F. King Alexander; By: J. Emilio Flores For The New York Times
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
CALIFORNIA IN FIRST PLACE, BUT NOT A WINNER
According to a Los Angeles Times article, a study shows that California spends the most money on first-year college students who drop out.
During these economic times when the California State University system is in need of funding, news of wasted taxpayers money is not easily swallowed. The study conducted by the Washington-based American Institutes for Research, called “Finishing the First Lap: The Cost of First Year Student Attrition in America’s Four Year Colleges and Universities,” revealed that
California spent $467 million on students who did not return the following year.
Mark Schneider, the author of the study, suggests that state governments be stricter on colleges’ productivity and efficiency. In essence, the colleges should accommodate the students’ needs to help the students be more satisfied and urge them to stay at school.
When CSULB student Dennis Luu was asked what he thought of this data he thought that the schools and the government are already doing a good job. He said that some students did not return to school because they were forced to leave due to uncontrollable circumstances, and they did not necessarily choose to leave. For example some students need to have full-time employment to support themselves or their family and do not have the time to go to school.
Because there are many unknown variables as to why students do not return for their second year, it seems that this will be a difficult endeavor for the state government to decide how to wisely spend school funding in the future.
During these economic times when the California State University system is in need of funding, news of wasted taxpayers money is not easily swallowed. The study conducted by the Washington-based American Institutes for Research, called “Finishing the First Lap: The Cost of First Year Student Attrition in America’s Four Year Colleges and Universities,” revealed that
California spent $467 million on students who did not return the following year.Mark Schneider, the author of the study, suggests that state governments be stricter on colleges’ productivity and efficiency. In essence, the colleges should accommodate the students’ needs to help the students be more satisfied and urge them to stay at school.
When CSULB student Dennis Luu was asked what he thought of this data he thought that the schools and the government are already doing a good job. He said that some students did not return to school because they were forced to leave due to uncontrollable circumstances, and they did not necessarily choose to leave. For example some students need to have full-time employment to support themselves or their family and do not have the time to go to school.
Because there are many unknown variables as to why students do not return for their second year, it seems that this will be a difficult endeavor for the state government to decide how to wisely spend school funding in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)