The most important thing about Gonzalez overriding the student referendum is that it's an illegal move on Gonzalez's part to do that, and I am shocked Natalie Flynn did not include this in her article.

His veto violates Education Code §89300 as well as CSU Executive Order 1034, and therefore is illegal.

Since Natalie Flynn did not include it in her story, read it for yourself:
http://law.justia.com/california/codes/edc/89300-89304.html
http://www.calstate.edu/EO/EO-1034.html

It is not illegal, the President's at San Diego and Fresno both raised the fees after a failed vote. I for one am elated Gonzalez had the vision and leadership to inact his right to do this, it will benefit the campus and students for many years.

Its clear that Sacramento State students do not want fee increases, where is the student government in all this? They were not even included in this article. So 155 dls will go to ASI, I hope they get on this issue right away and fully represent students.

So the administration decides to burden the students with another fee in a time where students are losing their jobs and cannot afford to pay for their education. Wow!

Are the students the priority at Sacramento State?
Are we going to continue to sit on the floor in our crowded classrooms?
Will our professors continue to admit more students per classroom and lessen the quality in the classroom?

I think for us students is clear what we want! we want a quality education! Throwing more money to athletics wont do it.

I guess what students have to say does not matter on this campus, where regardless of the number of students participating our voice does not count, the Union fee increase was approved and less than 100 students participated in their biased presentations.

I do not know what to think about our administration, I do not think they care what I have to say anyways, and I do not even know if I will be here next semester, as I work to pay for my education.

THANK YOU SO MUCH DR. G!!!

There is a large contingent of folks backing you and the building up of our campus and DI athletics program!

Ummm Rolling Thunder, did you read your own sources? Per link # 2...

"The miscellaneous course fee delegation of authority gives campus presidents the ability to establish miscellaneous course fees on their campus within the ranges established by this executive order."

Your first link has no bearing on his approval of the fee hike. Go home.

Ed Code 89300 says: "The trustees may approve an increase or decrease in the student body fee only after the fee increase or decrease has been approved by a majority of students voting in a referendum established for that purpose." (para 4)

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=edc&group=89001-90000&file=89300-89304

Additionally, CSU Executive Order 1034 says: "The results of the referendum shall be advisory to the fee advisory committee and the president, unless education code requires that the referendum pass." (Att.2, III,C(7)).

http://www.calstate.edu/eo/EO-1034.html

THe Hornet is not an ASI student body fee, so Gonzalez could disregard the student vote on that, but the Athletics fee was an ASI fee, and therefore the referendum approval of the students was mandatory, not advisory according to Education Code 89300 and CSU EO 1034.

Doug, you should go home.

Wow, it sure seems that Gonzalez' move was illegal. The Hornet should explore this possibility. With all due respect to athletics, if Gonzalez wants to fund them he can do so out of the regular budget, not on the backs of students who don't want to pay more. If Gonzalez is bound to respect the student vote in this case, as it seems that he is based on Ed Code 89300, then ALL students should be opposed to this move, regardless of how you feel about athletics. Would you think its ok if Gonzalez robbed a bank and gave the money to the athletics department? I hope not. The ends do not justify the means.

First, it is obvious Doug is in college for sports, not to learn.

Second, Gonzalez doesn't respect the will of the students. Maybe the students should give him a vote of no confidence as the faculty did a few years ago.

89304. "...in addition to any other student fee the trustees are authorized to establish, a building and operating fee, not to exceed forty dollars ($40) per student per academic year,"
Clearly our student fees are WAY above $40 . I think this is something that should be examined too! I think this would potentially nullify the athletics fee. Students should be reacting to this, we should be stopping this theft of our money!

Cry me a river, $18 for the year. $3 a month. You people are the reason this state is disentegrating. This isn't your school, this is the State of California's school and if you haven't noticed, the State is broke. If you want to attend this campus, this is what it costs. If you don't like it, go to Stanislaus, East Bay or Sonoma.

This is to retain current sports, not grow them. Why can't you understand that these 'jocks' are students too. If they can get a 'free' education for doing what they have prepared for most of their young life, more power to them.

And Gonzalez didn't have to give the students any say in this, he is the President of the campus. He can enact what is best for the overall benefit of the campus. Students attend this campus, they don't rule it.

And yes, the alumni you like to berate are what subsidizes this campus and pay higher taxes so you cry babies can get 'a cheap education'.

Get real and grow up. If you can't afford it, the highly respected US military is recruiting.

Phil T:

I bet you voted for Obama?

Under Education Code 89300: "Upon the favorable vote of two-thirds of the students voting in an election held." Because two-thirds of the total votes cast were not a "no," It was a close vote if memory serves, this does not apply. There is nothing in the code that indicates that Gonzales did anything against CSU policy or code. The code has a REQUIREMENT of two-thirds in favor or against for the voting to count, the voting did not yield two-thirds in favor of yes or no to the fee increase. The $40 maximum also does not apply in this instance, again because of the vote.

The code also does not say that it is a requirement to get the opinion of the student body before raising fees to support building and operational fees. 89304 pertains more to organizations and businesses that operate on campus, it has nothing to do with the election that didnt mean anything. Perhaps, if some of you didnt want this to happen, you should have expressed your opinion more on campus.

Go ahead, interpret the code however you want. Im not advocating for institutions to raise fees whenever they want, but when certain functions need additional financial support, it is the students' responsibility to step up and support the place that is giving them their education.

Go Hornets!

I give my vote of no confidence to Mr. G! It seems Mr. G is used to receiving votes of no confidence! Board of Trustees should be doing something about this!

Let's face it our governing bodies which control the school don't really care what we the students want. Unlike the rest of the US Sac State apparently is not a democracy, sounds more like a dictatorship with a hidden agenda, as expected.

Phil T:

You should transfer to another school, as much as you think people dont care about athletics, you are ignorant. Sac State is very competitive in the sports it competes in, has the thrid highest fottball attendance numbers in the Big Sky, has a great baseball program, as well as numerous ohter successful teams/programs.

Chico, where athletics are virtually non existant, would be a better fit for you, please leave Sac State. By the way, I donate enough each year to support the increased fees for at least a dozen students.

It appears that the 'students' will be facing an additional 30% increase in fees for Fall '09 as dictated by the Regents recently. Finally, maybe we can have people at Sac State who want to be here and will sacrifice to attend. No more adult summer camp.

From Education Code §89300: "The trustees may approve an increase or decrease in the student body fee only after the fee increase or decrease has been approved by a majority of students voting in a referendum established for that purpose."

Clearly the majority of students did not want the fee increase and the president instituted it anyway. I think this sums up the violation.

I am totally for having athletics programs at school and allowing students to attend college based on their abilities. I just don't want them to be paid by increasing the fees of otehr college students. Why don't we tax Java City and other corporations on campus to fund our programs and restore our classrooms, etc?

I received the following email today from CSUS because a) I was on the Student Fee Advisory Committee last semester and b) I complained to the administration about the violation of Education Code §89300 when President Gonzalez overturned the student referendum during the summer break. I wanted to share it with the rest of the students on campus.
-----------------------
Hello,

Please see information regarding the restructuring of Category II Fees. These changes have been made to the current student accounts as of August 19th.

Coded Budget Memorandum B-09-03, Restructuring of Category II Fees, below:
http://www.calstate.edu/budget/fybudget/coded-memos/B-09-03.pdf
----------------------
I responded today by emailing back a strenuous objection, which follows for your review. The above coded memo effectively removes, without any student involvement, student control over the athletics fee, the transportation fee and the Rec Sports fee which students have had until now. Students passed these fees with the understanding that they would have control over future increases in these fees, and now that control has been removed. My below response covers the primary three issues raised by this memo.
----------------------

To Members of the Student Fee Advisory Committee, Students and CSU Administration:

With all due respect to the members of the Committee and to the support staff in the administration and the CSU, I have to strenuously object to this memo and this course of action on three grounds.

#1: EX POST FACTO JUSTIFICATION OF AN ILLEGAL ACT.
This memo and purported change in policy is a blatant effort to circumvent the rules in place at the time the student referendum was held last semester. At the time the election was held, the intercollegiate athletics fee was subject to Ed Code §89300 and could ONLY have been approved with a passing student vote at the referendum. President Gonzalez illegally overturned the student vote and imposed the increase in violation of Ed Code §89300, and when I complained he then conspired with the Chancellor to issue this memo to attempt to give him a legal basis to maintain the increase where he previously had none whatsoever. Clearly the date of the issuance of the memo is AFTER the date of the referendum, yet the memo's amount for the intercollegiate athletics fee includes the measure 1 increase even though that was illegally passed. This memo is an attempt to support and justify ex post facto Gonzalez' decision to disregard the referendum even though that action was clearly illegal at the time it was done.

The proper course is for this memo to take effect with the intercollegiate fee amount as it was PRIOR TO the measure one increase from last semester which was DISAPPROVED BY THE STUDENTS AND THEREFORE UNDER §89300 WAS NOT A VALID INCREASE, and then if the President wants to increase it AFTER the date of this policy change, he would be within his legal right.

#2: VIOLATION OF CAMPUS POLICY AND PROCEDURES ON MODIFYING CATEGORY II FEES
Campus policy clearly defines the procedure for changing category two fees and policy relating to them. It is located here:
http://www.csus.edu/aba/procedures/forms/STUDENT%20FEE%20PROCESS.pdf
This means that the Chancellor's office does not instigate such reorganizations unilaterally, but only approves them once the procedure above has been followed. That means that the separation of these fees into four separate category II fees needs to be subject to the same process as every other adjustment of a fee. Technically, this memo creates three new fees, and the process for creating new fees also requires a referendum or alternative consultation and the involvement of the Student Fee Advisory committee to make a recommendation, a decision by the president and THEN the Chancellor's office can approve the President's decision. The procedure defined in campus policy is controlled by state law, and this policy change violates state law.

This memo violates campus procedure by disenfranchising the students in the decision making process and taking away their right to be involved as guaranteed by state law. CSU and Campus policy is supposed to ensure that student rights are protected, and instead they are being used to violate the students' rights.

#3: PERMANENT DISENFRANCHISEMENT OF STUDENTS BY THIS POLICY
Not only does this memo violate student rights by disenfranchising students in the decision making process regarding this policy change, but it also would permanently disenfranchise students from control over the three new fees being created by this policy change. By separating these fees now into four separate fees and defining them so that only the first is subject to Ed Code §89300, this means that the other three fees are no longer subject to student control as protected under §89300. This is an improper reorganization because these fees were originally passed by students with the understanding that they could control these fees going forward and that they could NOT be increased without their approval, and now that they have passed them that control is being taken away permanently by a memo issued in violation of state law, CSU and Campus policy. This is a classic bait and switch, and is unfair to the students, and is a violation of their rights.

CONCLUSION
I understand that the CSU is strapped and looking to supplement the budget any way possible, but violating state law, campus policy and student rights to justify a clear mistake by the president's office is NOT the way to fix the problem. This memo makes a mockery of student rights, CSU policy, campus policy and state law. I object in the strongest terms possible and demand as a member of this committee, as a member of the campus community, and as a member of the citizenry of this state, that this matter be forwarded to Cathy McCoy and the auditing department for analysis of whether this memo in fact violates state law, CSU and campus policy. Furthermore, I also demand that until such analysis is complete the intercollegiate athletics fee be returned to the amount it was prior to the referendum last semester and before President Gonzalez illegally increased the fee in violation of Education Code §89300.

Sincerely,

Ed Ober
Sac State Student Fee Advisory Committee, Spring 2009
------------------
I think students need to know about this. I have since graduated, but I still know beyond doubt that the President exceeded his authority in overturning the student vote. Does the coded memo of July 29, 2009 ex post facto forgive the President's transgression of state law in June 2009? I don't think the Chancellor has the authority to disregard state law any more than the President does, so no, I don't believe this memo exhonorates the President one iota. Since this policy change occurred without any student participation, I believe that it is invalid, and students should be upset that they are losing control over more fee increases. Where the President was legally obligated to honor the student vote in §89300-protected fees, he has no such obligation under non-§89300 fees. There can still be a referendum, but he can ignore it with impunity now. This is another blow to student rights and the stage is now set for even higher student fees.