Peris JonesStudents will vote on several plebiscites this year. Most renew existing faculty or residence fees. One — Course Materials Access (CMA) — would fundamentally change how students pay for textbooks. Not all plebiscites carry the same weight.
Course Materials Access
The CMA plebiscite asks whether the university should proceed with the CMA program. Under the proposal, students would pay a flat $259 in the fall and winter terms and $139 in the spring and summer terms. The program is opt-out, meaning students are automatically enrolled unless they remove themselves before the add/drop deadline.
The flat-fee structure raises immediate concerns.
Students approach textbook purchasing in very different ways. Some buy used copies, some split costs with classmates, and some rely on library reserves or older editions. Others take courses with minimal material costs. A single flat rate does not reflect those differences. Students who already minimize their expenses would still pay the same amount unless they actively opt out. Many will default into paying because the system assumes participation.
There is also the issue of ownership. Programs like CMA often rely heavily on digital access codes and time-limited licenses. Instead of purchasing a physical textbook they can keep, resell, annotate, or reference in future courses, students receive temporary access. Once the term ends, that access can disappear. That means no resale value, no building a personal academic library, and no retaining foundational texts for professional exams or later coursework.
For disciplines like nursing, science, and education, textbooks function as long-term references. Losing the ability to keep a physical copy is not a small trade-off. It shifts textbooks from owned materials to rented access.
Yes, students in fully Zero Textbook Cost (ZTC) schedules would be automatically opted out. But most students have mixed course loads. And there’s a gap in professors reporting ZTC courses. The likely outcome is reduced flexibility, reduced ownership, and more cross-subsidization across programs.
Should it pass?
No. The opt-out design places the burden on students to avoid paying, the flat fee ignores cost differences across programs, and the loss of ownership creates long-term academic downsides. A structural change of this scale requires stronger guarantees than convenience alone.
Golden Bears and Pandas Legacy Fund
Students are being asked to renew the Golden Bears and Pandas Legacy Fund at $5.11 per semester. The fund supports athletics projects, student employment, practicum roles, and matched funding initiatives.
The fee is modest and long-standing. It funds defined programming and includes student oversight over spending decisions.
Should it pass?
Yes. The amount is minor, the programming is concrete, and the fund has a clear track record. There is little evidence that discontinuing it would improve affordability in any meaningful way.
Interdepartmental Science Students’ Society (ISSS)
Science students are voting on increasing their faculty association membership fee from $5 to $7 per semester. The additional $2 would support scholarships, departmental groups, career fairs, and expanded professional development programming.
The fee remains opt-out and applies only to science students.
Should it pass?
Yes. The increase is modest, targeted, and justified by inflation and expanded services. The benefits remain within the faculty paying the fee.
Lister Hall Students’ Association (LHSA)
Lister residents are voting on renewing a $75 annual opt-out fee to fund residence programming and student leadership positions.
Residence life programming and peer advocacy can significantly shape first-year experiences. The fee applies only to residents and directly supports services within Lister.
Should it pass?
Yes. The scope is contained to those who benefit, and the services are visible and immediate.
Nursing Undergraduate Association (NUA)
Nursing students are voting on a renewal that includes a small increase. Full-time students would pay $15 per term instead of $14.31, while part-time students would pay $11 instead of $10.60.
Without renewal, the NUA would lose its primary source of revenue and its ability to fund operations and national representation.
Should it pass?
Yes. The adjustment is small, and the consequences of losing core funding would outweigh the marginal cost increase.
Education Students’ Association (ESA)
Education students are voting to maintain their current $8 per year fee. The fee has not increased and funds scholarships, professional development sessions, networking events, and faculty-specific services.
Should it pass?
Yes. The cost is minimal, predictable, and tied to defined programming within the faculty.
East Campus Students’ Association (ECSA) referendum
East Campus residents have something slightly different on their ballot this year — not a renewal, but the creation of a new fee.
The East Campus Students’ Association (ECSA) is asking residents to approve a $10 per semester student representative association membership fee (SRAMF). The fee would apply in the fall and winter terms and would be opt-out.
Unlike Lister, HUB, or International-House, East Campus currently does not have a dedicated membership fee. ECSA has been operating off leftover funds from previous years. That money will not last forever. This referendum would create a stable revenue source.
ECSA represents residents in Peter Lougheed Hall, Alder House, Linden House, and upper-year residences like Nîpisîy, Aspen, Maple, Pinecrest, and Tamarack. The group positions itself as an autonomous advocacy body — separate from residence administration — where students can raise concerns. It also focuses on community-building in upper-year residences, where programming often drops off after first year.
The proposed $10 per semester fee is lower than many other residence association fees. ECSA has also committed to making it opt-out. Additionally, if there is more than $1,000 in excess funds at the end of the year, the surplus would be refunded to students.
Should it pass?
Likely yes — with caution. A $10 opt-out fee for dedicated residence advocacy and programming is not unreasonable, especially when compared to other residence fees. The commitment to refunds for significant surplus adds a layer of accountability.
That said, this is the creation of a new fee, not the renewal of an old one. Once implemented, it becomes part of the standard cost-of-living in East Campus. Residents should vote with that in mind.
If East Campus wants stronger community programming and a more formal advocacy structure, this fee provides the mechanism. The question is whether residents believe the benefits outweigh adding another line to their tuition statement.
