TEXT OF EMAIL EXCHANGE BETWEEN DIANA BUBSER, COLLEGE
OF NEW
----------------------------
Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: The Daily Targum
From: Ken Swalagin, Executive Secretary of the Rutgers University Senate
Date: Fri, January 30, 2009 11:51 am
To: "Diana Elizabeth Bubser" <bubser3@tcnj.edu>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Ms. Bubser,
Thank you for your message, and your interest in other perspectives on this
issue. Please allow me to suggest that you review the report that was issued
and adopted by the Rutgers University Senate, which is online at:
http://senate.rutgers.edu/USGConS0107ReferendumGuidelinesREPORTAsAdopted.pdf
as well as the related, updated and revised Rutgers University Procedures
Regarding Special Student Organizations (the new "Referendum
Guidelines"), which are online at:
http://senate.rutgers.edu/ReferendumGuidelinesRevised2008AsAdopted.pdf
I will answer your questions in the order you pose them, but first some
background on the Rutgers University Senate (RUS) and this issue of Targum
funding: The RUS is unlike most university senates in that the vast majority of
university senates are composed of faculty only. Since 1971, the RUS has
included students as well (and currently also includes administrators, alumni,
staff, and part-time faculty).
explore and make recommendations on university-wide issues. We rarely are
involved in campus-specific issues unless asked by our central administration
to do so. (This last factor is important because Targum is based in
http://senate.rutgers.edu/
Although the report linked above states that the committee considered revisions
to the referendum guidelines for three years, the charge number S-0107
accurately reflects that the charge was the seventh issued in 2001, a full
seven years before the revisions reached the Senate. To my knowledge, no single
charge has been on the RUS docket for a comparable
length of time. This is reflective of the complexity and comprehensive nature
of the work done by the RUS’s University Structure and Governance Committee and
Student Affairs Committee on this charge.
You will notice that neither the report nor the revised guidelines mention
Targum anywhere. They are guidelines for all referenda conducted to establish
funding for special student organizations (currently The Daily Targum and
NJPIRG Student Chapters, both of which are independently incorporated outside
of
As to your specific questions:
1. Presently, students can receive a refund of $9.75 a semester from the Targum
Publishing company if desired. Roughly how many students a year take advantage
of this option?
ANSWER: This was not a consideration of the University Senate, given that its
charge was to revise guidelines generally, and was not related to Targum’s
finances specifically. Part of the debate over the refunds was based on what
was required of students who do request refunds within the current system
(going to the Targum office, completing a form, and waiting for their refunds to be sent by check). Targum itself, or
2. If the new proposal is passed, how many more students do you think will opt
to not pay the fee? Would the option have a significant effect on the Targum’s
budget?
ANSWER: Any quantitative response from me on this question would be
purely
conjecture, so I won’t venture a numerical guess. It seems
reasonable to expect
that the number of students opting out would increase, since the steps
of going
to the Targum office, filling out the form, and waiting for a refund
would be
eliminated. First-year students, unfamiliar with the significant
community value of The Daily Targum, may be especially inclined to
opt out on their first term bill. After one, or certainly after two
semesters,
most students on
The Daily Targum has not provided the Rutgers University Senate with hard data
on its finances or business practices. These were not part of the RUS
deliberations while revising the referendum guidelines. Targum itself should be
given the opportunity to provide data supporting its statements and concerns
about its finances and revenues.
3. According to the petition, students have approved this procedure through a
referendum vote held every three years. Why did the Senate propose and pass
this new change?
ANSWER: Please review the report which accompanies the revised guidelines (link
above). The issue of concern to Targum, and which is the focus of the petition,
is only one element of a comprehensive report which took many years and much
input from students to create. Also, the referenda conducted every three years
enable the special student organizations to place their fee on the term bill of
students on campuses where the referenda are passed; they do not establish the
procedures by which referenda are conducted (which would be the chicken-or-egg
conundrum). The only other special student organization currently conducting
referenda on
4. In one part of the petition, it states that before the vote, many students
and others were blocked from sharing their opinions on the bill because
discussions were limited at the meeting. Why were the discussions limited?
ANSWER: The Rutgers University Senate is, as indicated above, a very large,
mostly deliberative and advisory body (although it does have some legislative
components). We operate under Robert’s Rules of Order and established
parliamentary procedure. Without this structure, order and decorum would be
difficult in a group of the RUS’s size. On motion and duly seconded and adopted
by the Senate, time limits were set for discussion at the meeting before
discussion began on this item. When time expired, after it had been extended,
discussion closed. The unfortunate timing of that time expiration coincided
with the presence of several non-Senator students reaching the microphones.
Those students were told that the time established by the Senate for the end of that discussion had
expired, but were shortly thereafter given privilege of the floor under “Old
Business” to make their statements.
The Senate’s operating rules (bylaws and handbook) have been available online
for over a decade. There are provisions for non-Senator speakers to request that
they be placed on a speaker’s list. No such requests were made. Even in the
absence of a speaker’s-list request, non-Senator speakers can be heard after
all Senators who wish to speak have been heard (under common parliamentary
procedure), but only if previously established time limits for a discussion
have not been reached or exceeded. The Targum supporters were, under “Old
Business” given privilege of the floor and were heard. Some had been heard
prior to expiration of the allotted time as well.
For a item-by-item, or motion-by-motion, description of the RUS proceedings at
the November meeting, please see the online minutes at:
http://senate.rutgers.edu/112108se.html
5. The change would, according to Editor-in-Chief Dan Bracaglia, force the
Targum to make significant cuts to its staff, page count, and number of days a
week it is published. Why does the Senate want to lower the Targum’s budget?
ANSWER: This question cannot be answered by me as posed. As I explain above,
the Senate’s actions and report and revised referendum guidelines are not about
Targum; they are about guidelines for referenda conducted by special student
organizations seeking funding from
I hope this is helpful.
Ken Swalagin
Executive Secretary of the
TEXT OF MS. BUBSER'S EMAIL TO KEN SWALAGIN:
Hi Mr. Swalagin,
I’m Diana Bubser, news editor of The Signal, the campus newspaper at The
College of New Jersey. As you know, the University Senate Charge S-0107 is
awaiting the approval of President McCormick. If approved, students or parents
paying a term bill could choose to opt out of the $9.75 fee for The Daily
Targum by checking off a box. Right now, an online petition opposing the
measure is posted on the Targum’s homepage to “allow the student body to show
the president that you care about the paper and its future.” I am writing an
article for The Signal about the Targum’s situation and was wondering if you
could answer a couple of questions.
1 Presently, students can receive a refund of $9.75 a semester from the Targum
Publishing company if desired. Roughly how many students a year take advantage
of this option?
2. If the new proposal is passed, how many more students do you think will opt
to not pay the fee? Would the option have a significant effect on the Targum’s
budget?
3. According to the petition, students have approved this procedure through a
referendum vote held every three years. Why did the Senate propose and pass
this new change?
4. In one part of the petition, it states that “before the vote, many students
and others were blocked from sharing their opinions on the bill because
discussions were limited at the meeting.” Why were the discussions limited?
5. The change would, according to Editor-in-Chief Dan Bracaglia, force the
Targum to make significant cuts to its staff, page count, and number of days a
week it is published. Why does the Senate want to lower the Targum’s budget?
A response by Friday would be appreciated. Thank you for your time!
Diana Bubser
Signal News Editor