Wing repeated a statement that appeared in the Guardian on Jan. 30, 2012. She said that the concerns in a letter from the Student Fees Advisory Committee had referred to an outdated draft of the referendum, and that “all of the issues were addressed in the final draft,” as she was quoted in the Guardian.
However, the copy of the SFAC letter that I have quotes the referendum as follows: “According to Statement 6 in the Statement of Conditions, ‘The ASUCSD Council must annually review and approve the ICA budget.’ In the same statement, ‘[ASUCSD] shall comply with UC and UCSD policies, NCAA policies and regulations and contractual obligations of ICA.’”
The text of the referendum currently available to students on the as.ucsd.edu website reads as follows: “The ASUCSD Council must annually review and approve the ICA budget and shall comply with UC and UCSD policies, NCAA policies and regulations and the contractual commitments of ICA.”
The only change was from contractual ‘obligations’ to contractual ‘commitments.’ I assume that contracts are legally binding regardless of the words used to describe them.
It is possible that the letter I have is inauthentic, and I strongly recommend that the SFAC publish the original letter as an ‘open letter’ as a public service.
That assumption and caveat aside, it is clear that the same text which the SFAC said is “misleading and suggests falsehoods that appear to encourage voter approval” is still published on the as.ucsd.edu website.
But if the letter is accurate, and if the concerns contained in the letter are legitimate, then either one of two things is the case. Either AS Council has failed to make the final draft of the referendum available to the public, or the concerns of the Student Fees Advisory Committee have not been addressed.
I urge the Guardian to fact-check statements made by public figures rather than take them at face value.
Senior, Marshall College