Scribd Logo
Hochladen

Welcome to Scribd!

  • BREAKING: False Information in LSRC Proposal

    Uploaded by

    Mohammad Akbar
    42 views3 pages
    The document summarizes information showing that the LSRC referendum proposal contains false premises. It provides evidence that the University had funds available through debt financing to pay for the recreation center, contradicting claims that a student fee was the only way to fund it. It also includes a direct quote from the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities confirming the University could have used other funding sources like debt financing. Over 1400 students signed a petition in support that was based on this false information, compromising the integrity of the referendum results.

    Original Description:

    This document shows that the information presented to students in the LSRC referendum is false.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The document summarizes information showing that the LSRC referendum proposal contains false premises. It provides evidence that the University had funds available through debt financing to pay for the recreation center, contradicting claims that a student fee was the only way to fund it. It also includes a direct quote from the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities confirming the University could have used other funding sources like debt financing. Over 1400 students signed a petition in support that was based on this false information, compromising the integrity of the referendum results.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    42 views3 pages

    BREAKING: False Information in LSRC Proposal

    Uploaded by

    Mohammad Akbar
    The document summarizes information showing that the LSRC referendum proposal contains false premises. It provides evidence that the University had funds available through debt financing to pay for the recreation center, contradicting claims that a student fee was the only way to fund it. It also includes a direct quote from the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities confirming the University could have used other funding sources like debt financing. Over 1400 students signed a petition in support that was based on this false information, compromising the integrity of the referendum results.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    BREAKING: LSRC Referendum Proposal contains false information

    I've got some important information regarding the LSRC Fee referendum. This information appears to show
    that the proposal from the university is based on false premises, and that the University has potentially been
    giving the Yes Side false information.

    The referendum's purpose is based on the idea that the University cannot pay for the Recreation Centre
    without this fee. In addition, the Yes side of this campaign has mentioned multiple times that the only way
    to fund this project is through this referendum because of MTCU Policy. Before we get into that, I want to
    establish for the record that the University of Windsor had enough money outside of the operating budget to
    pay for this project. Below is a screenshot from a document the University released when faculty were
    questioning the spending practices of the University. It shows that the useless Welcome Centre had 8 million
    dollars spent on renovations through debt financing. Several buildings had their costs debt financed, rather
    than receiving grants from the government.

    Based on this document, it is clear that the University had the money or the ability to get the money to fund
    this project, and likely still do. If you look at the Debt Financing column, a total of 36 million was spent on
    projects, not including Debt Financing - Ancillary. This is also not to say that several of the buildings that
    were renovated didnt deserve renovations.

    The argument becomes, why didnt the University simply use these funds or continue to use debt financing
    to cover the cost of this facility?

    This is where things get interesting. One argument was that, even if the University had this money or these
    avenues, they couldnt spend it on the Recreation Centre because of MTCU policy, and that the University
    had to go through the referendum route. I decided to actually reach out to the Ministry of Training, Colleges
    and Universities(MTCU) - a Ministry of the Ontario Government - to find out if this was true. According to
    Adam Mably, Senior Policy Advisor for the MTCU, this is false.
    Here is a direct quote from the conversation I had with Mr. Adam Mably(emphasis, and information within
    parentheses mine):

    Akbar: So essentially, they (the University) could if they wanted to, fund it (the LSRC) through
    bond debentures, through debt financing, they could raise it through sponsorship, right?
    Adam Mably: We dont place any restriction.
    Akbar: So theres nothing stopping them from funding it through those types of projects?
    Adam Mably: Not from our point of view.

    Ive heard that this referendum is the ONLY way to get the funds for this project, and this has been spread
    a fair amount throughout the campaign. Ive attached some screenshots of this, as well as one Yes supporter
    accusing me of not looking like a person who uses the facility, something that is true particularly because I
    live in Waterloo

    Finally, and most importantly, this information has irrevocably been presented to the mass of students.
    According to Kieran Buzek, who created the Yes Votes event page, this information was presented to
    students when collecting signatures. and over 1400 valid signatures were collected. This means that there
    are 1400 students who are engaged and aware this referendum is happening who are convinced of
    something that is simply false. It also means the Yes side precampaigned. Either way, the result tarnishes the
    results. No matter who wins, there is no way to guarantee which students are voting based on false
    information that the University has been pushing. In addition, it shows that the proposal from the University
    itself is based on false information. The results of this referendum have been compromised, and the integrity
    of the referendum must certainly be in question.

    You might also like