Recently, with the impending financial crisis, and devastating budget cuts to SUNY, the SUNY Student Assembly voted in support of a rational tuition increase plan. Norm Goodman, Vice President Secretary of the SUNY Faculty Senate, supports the plan. He calls it “the most intelligent and wise thing to do.” Joe Antonelli, Stony Brook’s Student Representative, supports it as well, saying it’s “the only responsible path for the students of SUNY to be taking.” This would seem to be the panacea for all our woes, right? This couldn’t be more of a disservice to the students of SUNY. The rational tuition plan is nothing more than a commitment to raise tuition by 3%-5% every year. This is a minimum, not a maximum. Some of the more reasonable students on the Assembly (who voted against it) see it rising as high as 10%. In addition, a rational tuition plan wouldn’t bind legislature preventing a dramatic hike in addition to the rational increases. The lie that is being fed to students is that, with a rational tuition plan, tuition won’t be raised drastically. There is no actual way to prevent this, since it is illegal to tie the hands of future legislation. NYPIRG, in their years of tireless efforts to prevent a rational tuition plan in SUNY, have researched other states tuition plans. They have found that states with a rational tuition plan more often than not receive tuition hikes as well.

This tuition increase was forced upon the students in this time of crisis, and the Student Assembly happily accepted it. You have completely betrayed our trust, members of the Student Assembly. We encourage all those students out their to get in touch with their representative, and yell, “No to rational tuition!”

With the election just a few scant days away, you’ve probably heard all there is to hear, and then some, about that Senator from Illinois and that war hero guy. In fact, if you keep reading, you’ll run into some more stuff about those two dudes (not to mention some much needed coverage for all the other candidates involved.) However, right now we’re going to take the time to talk about something else that will affect our lives come 9 o’clock on November 4, and that is the government in Albany and our lives here in the SUNY system.

We realize that the election for President is exciting and fun to follow, especially with that hip Changey McHope guy running and that lady who shoots dangerous animals on the other ticket. But it is the state elections that will affect our lives much more here at Stony Brook. Dedicated readers of The Press will know that we face serious budget cuts here at Stony Brook, and throughout the SUNY system as a whole. In mid November, SUNY will face an additional budget cut, on top of the one we have already suffered.

Look at your county and district elections. We’re sure there is at least an assembly position open, and probably a state senate seat open. For example, here in Suffolk County, a crucial State Senate election is being held. Brian Foley, a Democrat, is challenging long-standing incumbent, Cesar Trunzo, a half-hobbit, half-turtle Republican. This race could, in fact, determine which party holds the majority in the Albany Senate. Now, it’s pretty much set in stone that.

For those of you who have followed The Stony Brook Press for any length of time, you know that our relationship with University President Shirley Strum Kenny has always centered on our role as the main student critics of her policies. We’ve never been what you’d call ‘chummy’ with her. This is Kenny’s final year as our University President. As such, we have decided to begin a countdown that will chronicle the most questionable, unfortunate and downright bizarre moments of her tenure.

President Kenny has served for fourteen years. There are fourteen issues of The Press due out before she leaves office. It seems only natural, then, to have fourteen moments on our countdown. We hope you will follow, and above all enjoy, this feature with each passing issue. Now, without further ado, we present number fourteen…

The Shirley Strum Kenny Art Festival Fiasco

For this moment, we reach back to just a few months ago. At the end of the spring 2008 semester, the school held its annual Shirley Strum Arts Festival with the headline “A Celebration of Student Expression.” One of the more prominent art pieces on display featured a wire mesh polar bear sculpture suspended over one of the Wang Center fountains. Now, what follows is still a little unclear, but what the sources told us was that Shirley, upon seeing this polar bear, demanded that it be removed from the exhibit. First, the reasoning behind this was that Shirley simply didn’t like it.  After realizing how that justification was total bullshit, a nonsense fire code violation was cooked up. Then, after feeling some heat from the student media (whoo yeah, go student media!) and the other artists in the show, Shirley decreed that the bear could remain on display for an additional few days. In the end, this whole debacle was just a big embarrassment for Shirley and the other powers that be. In addition, her major indecisiveness on the whole justification gave off the image of an old, senile leader at the university’s helm. However, we can’t wait for the next Shirley Strum Arts Festival which “Celebrates Student Expression!…so long as said expression doesn’t confuse or anger President Kenny.”

Hey! Guess what. Give up? Okay, we’ll tell you. Every semester you pay around ninety dollars in Student Activity Fees. We say “around ninety dollars” because, in truth, the amount is usually raised a little every semester. To be precise, all undergraduates here at Stony Brook will pay $94.25 in Student Activity Fees for the fall 2008 semester.

Now, we’re not going to use this editorial to rail against the fee and trash the administration. In fact, we love this fee. We wish it were a little higher. Why? Well, that fee, which adds up to millions of dollars in total for the school each year, is what pays for most every student organization on campus. Have you ever attended a club meeting? If so, it was paid for by your Student Activity Fee. Ever go to a club-run event and eaten the free pizza they gave out? Your Student Activity Fee paid for that pizza. Hell, your Student Activity Fee paid for the newspaper you’re reading at this very moment. Each issue of The Stony Brook Press costs thousands of dollars to produce, so we thank you for making what we do possible by paying your Student Activity Fee.

But where are we really going with this? It’s actually quite simple and basic. You all should be taking advantage of your Student Activity Fees. After all, you pay those ninety-something dollars every semester whether you do anything on campus or not. You should join one of the student-funded organizations. You’ll get more value out of the money you pay, and you may even have a little fun while you do it. Or, if you don’t have the time, at least utilize the fee in other ways. Read campus newspapers, watch campus television, go to club organized events (you’ll even get free food that way). You have nothing to lose, and so much to gain.

Every year, during USG elections, we vote on whether or not the Student Activity Fee should be mandatory for all undergrads. Now, seeing as how this fee is so important to student life on campus, you’d think it would be voted mandatory easily every election. However, it’s usually quite close. This past spring, in fact, the election was only decided by 225 votes. Fortunately, “mandatory” won, but on a campus of over 10,000 undergrads, 225 votes is cutting it a bit too close. So just keep that in mind for the next election.

We here at The Stony Brook Press are going to use 32,000 of your collective dollars this year. We’re far from the only club that does so, too. WUSB Radio gets $74,000 and the College Republicans received $27,000. Perhaps you don’t agree with those sorts of figures, or with what one of the many clubs on campus is doing with your money. Well, whether you do or you don’t agree, there’s only one course of action that would really make things better: get involved.

Hey. Guess what. Give up? All right, we’ll tell you again. If you join a club, who knows how far you’ll go. Hell, you may even be one of the students on campus who decides exactly how those thousands of our dollars are being spent every year. And that’s power that no mere $94.25 could ever buy.

The administration’s up to their usual shenanigans again! In a recent email to a select few faculty and students, Barbara Chernow, Vice President for Facilities and Services, announced new changes to parking on campus, effective August 18. These changes, misleadingly called “improvements,” are a slap to the face of both students and faculty.

Most notably among the changes are the shifting of nearly 300 commuter parking spots to metered or faculty spots. Did we mention that they are also planning on raising the prices of said metered lots? Well, they are. Furthermore, in another move that will make student parking even more infuriating on campus, the “improvements” include designating resident sections, under the vague, and laughingly absurd platitude of “reducing our carbon footprint.” What does this really mean? It means that all of you folks who live in Tabler and have a resident parking permit can no longer park in any of the closer resident lots on campus. You will now be restricted to only Tabler, and the same applies for every other residence hall.

We will include a transcript of the actual e-mail below so that you can see the actual meat and biscuits of these “improvements.” The transcript follows:

To All Faculty, Staff and Students:
In an effort to make parking more readily available for our students,
visitors, faculty and staff, we have changed the designation of
certain sections of surface parking lots on campus. Some of the
changes and improvements are:

 * 192 metered parking spaces in the south section of the Stadium
   parking lot. The north section of the Stadium parking lot will
   remain Premium Parking (brown hangtag required) for commuter
   students.  

 * 60 metered parking spaces in the south portion of the
   Mendelsohn & H Quad parking lot, near the Wang Center, for
   visitors.  Mendelsohn & H Quad faculty and staff will have
   access to parking spaces in the Administration Overflow
   parking lot.  

 * 310 spaces in the Tabler Quad surface parking lot will become
   available to Faculty and Staff.  

 * 24 spaces in the Stadium lot will become available to Faculty
   and Staff.  

 * Parking on the east side of Lake Drive will be designated for
   resident students who live in Roth Quad.

Stony Brook is committed to reduce its campus carbon footprint. To
encourage less vehicle use on campus and improve pedestrian safety,
students will be assigned parking hangtags that will allow parking in
specific parking zones in proximity to their residence hall or
apartment. Students will be allowed to park only in their assigned
zone.  Apartment and resident parking zones have been assigned as
follows:  

Zone    Parking Lot Name & Location
R1      West Apartment Parking Lots
        Kelly Resident Parking Lots
        Roosevelt Resident Parking Lots
R2      Schomburg Apartment Parking Lots
R3      Tabler Resident Parking Lots
R4      Roth Resident Parking Lots
R5      Mendelsohn & H Quad Resident Parking Lots
R6      Chapin Apartment Parking Lots 

To view these changes on a campus map please visit our website:
http://www.stonybrook.edu/parking/parkingmap

Vital maintenance of our parking lots and garages necessitates the
following updates in parking rates: 

 * The rate for parking meters will change from 25 cents for 15
   minutes to 25 cents for 10 minutes.

 * The visitor parking rate in Parking Garages will change
   from $1.50 per hour and $7.50 per day to $2.75 per hour and
   $13.75 per day. 

 * The cost for University Parking Garage validation stickers
   will change from $3.50 to $4.50. 

 * Evening rates in the Administration Parking Garage will
   change from $3.00 to $5.50. 

 * Fall 200 Surface Paring 

 * Hospital Parking Garage visitor 30 day pass will change
   from $25 to $40. 

If you have any questions about these changes, please contact James
O'Connor, Director of Transportation and Parking Operations, at
"Customer Feedback" page located at
http://naples.cc.sunysb.edu/Admin/asacomments.nsf/park.
These changes will be effective August 18, 2008.

Thank you.

In reality, these changes are, at worst, a bureaucratic money making scheme, and at best a major inconvenience to the people who make Stony Brook great, the students and faculty.

We don’t suppose we should wonder why these administrative money hogs instate these changes during the summer. These sort of sneaky moves, while the overwhelming majority of students aren’t on campus, characterize the sort of disregard for student/faculty interests. We’re sorry Ms. Chernow, but we don’t see how making parking for students a difficult, nightmarish process has anything to do with improving Stony Brook’s environmental impact. We also don’t see how anyone in their right mind can consider reducing the number of student spots and increasing every parking rate an “improvement.” Screw you. We hope someone parks in your spot every day next year.

Student journalists should only take stances which they are qualified to defend—there’s a stance for you.

But now that we’re on the subject of the proposed congestion pricing plan for New York City, here are a few more words from the hip.

Opposing the pricing plan by suggesting that it would create a regressive tax for low-income families that “would still most likely do so by car,” as one Statesman writer wrote, is not an opposition to Bloomberg’s method, it is resistance to his goal.  That is, if the plans for the funds specify a large supply of express buses to the outer boroughs (367 new buses, actually), and one’s response is that commuters will either pay the toll or park outside the pricing zones, that response is not that the pricing plan is a worthless venture, but that commuters are either reluctant to change their travel habits or ignorant to mass transit’s benefits.

Commuters unwilling to use public transportation in a city with the third largest population density in the country are not only selfishly dismissing to the societal benefits of increased mass transit, but are seemingly ignorant to the opportunity for a cheaper, faster and more relaxed commute.

The critiques of Bloomberg’s plans are unfounded.  Since a similar plan was introduced in London in 2003, emissions of the principle greenhouse gas, carbon-dioxide, decreased an exciting 15% percent.  Vehicle speeds in their business district have increased 37%.  In talks about the plan, the expense of congestion has been much ignored in regards to the current system; estimates at the cost of shipping delays, service tie-ups, and wasted fuel are as high as $13 billion annually.

But even if all the evidence didn’t point towards a successful launch, and even if all the evidence didn’t suggest the plan would be a fiscal success ($4.5 billion in investible capital over five years), opponents of the pricing plan would be acting, at best, picky, and more likely, shallow and self-absorbed.

Anyone with even a remote historical perspective of the greatest city in the world is well aware of the link between an effective mass transit system and New York’s fiscal and cultural prosperity.  The recent defeat of Bloomberg’s plan is just a win for a 66-year-old Assembly Speaker, and a squandered opportunity for a more efficient city, cleaner air and forward thinking.