CSUN football hopes dashed because of finances

Ivette Lopez

Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.


Email This Story






Correction: In both the print and online versions of this story, Mr. Benson’s name was spelled incorrectly on first reference.

 

A petition to bring back Matador football was rejected by the Associated Students judicial court, which decided to temporarily refuse moving the proposal forward due to financial discrepancies.

The initiative, which sought to implement NCAA football, women’s lacrosse crew, field hockey and other scholarships, underwent a long process prior to the court’s decision.

The proposal sought to charge students $25 each semester, a fee that would increase to $86, to pay for the new programs.

A.S. senators Tuesday accepted a judicial court report that will halt the initiative on campus.

“They couldn’t legally put forward a referendum that couldn’t pay for itself,” said A.S. President Amanda Flavin.

Vice President of Student Affairs Dr. William Watkins said that the proposal provided insufficient funding and details regarding the particulars involved with the introduction of the new sports, according to an email from chair of the student fee advisory committee Sharon Eichten.

In March, CSUN student Jeff Benson along with other CSUN students gathered signatures from 10 percent of the student population supporting the petition.

The senate is now facing the last stages of a petition started by Benson. However, they do not hold the power to pass any further legislation on the matter.

This initiative was the first A.S. received in at least 20 years, according to emails from A.S. General Manager David Crandall and Student Leadership Coordinator Leanne Vincent.

Adding the proposal of student fees to the petition forced it to go straight to A.S. judicial court for review. The entity deemed the petition valid in May because it had 3,330 of the required 3,252 signatures.

The initiative then traveled to the student fee advisory committee in September for financial review.

Judicial court reviewed the committee’s observations and decided a referendum would not be valid because the project does not support itself.