The Associated Students, Inc. (ASI) Board of Directors voted at their April 29 meeting on Resolution #15-03, confirming their stance against mandatory on-campus housing for sophomores.
The resolution outlines many unappealing factors of required on-campus housing for sophomores, such as the more expensive cost compared to surrounding areas.
Poly Canyon Village (PCV) is described in Resolution #15-03 as “undesirable to many students due to the lack of a community environment.” In addition, the supervised atmosphere is what “many students feel is too intrusive.”
Resolution #15-03 also addresses a safety issue pertaining to the walking distance from PCV and Cerro Vista to surrounding neighborhoods in Cal Poly as “currently unsafe for students walking home late at night.” The concern specifically highlights the minimal lighting, security patrol and cameras to and from PCV.
The resolution criticizes the mandatory second-year housing presentation from by the university, claiming that the disclosed data was biased and inaccurate.
Many members expressed their approval of the resolution at the meeting.
“I think that right now is the ultimate opportunity for us to actually do our due diligence as ASI Board of Directors and weigh in as official voices of students,” Board of Directors Vice Chair and software engineering junior Myra Lukens said. “This resolution identifies our strong opposition to second-year mandatory housing at Cal Poly as well as the argument in the consultative process this has been going on through university and administration.”
Failure to pass Resolution #15-03 would leave ASI unable to consider a similar resolution for the rest of the year, according to Board of Directors representative and mechanical engineering junior Vittorio Monteverdi.
“I fear that if we fail this resolution, it can be misconstrued to say in that we support mandatory second-year housing, and I know that this body feels strongly against that notion,” Monteverdi said.
Though a majority of the members were in favor of the resolution, some had their concerns with the many amendments made during the meeting.
“My concern with this many amendments (is) it feels as if the main point has not quite been reached in the resolution itself,” Board of Directors representative and political science senior Lauren Cool said. “I worry that what we really want to get across is kind of being taken away or not focused on enough.”
In response, Board of Directors representative and agricultural science sophomore Jana Colombini argued the ASI student body generally felt opposed to this housing issue.
“I believe that it would practically be impossible to combine all of our ideas into one resolution,” Colombini said. “I believe, though, that the amendments that have been made have been accomplishing that purpose and this is the overall general consensus of the way that we had been feeling at workshops throughout the last three weeks.”
After the resolution was passed, Vice President of Student Affairs Keith Humphrey addressed a concern pertaining to the data presented during the last presentation to the Board.
“(There was) a question raised about the data that suggested that studious students lived on campus for the second year and not-studious students lived off campus,” Humphrey said. “We ran the GPA data and the GPAs are very close for students who live on campus versus off campus.”
“All Cal Poly students are really smart no matter where they are,” Humphrey added.
The resolution will be presented to the Cal Poly President Jeffrey Armstrong’s office for review. However, modifications to the plan for required second-year housing will not necessarily be implemented, according to ASI President and political science graduate student Joi Sullivan.
“The university, at the end of the day, they make the final decision and how they choose to incorporate our ASI Board of Director stance or not is completely up to them,” she said.
Sullivan said she, along with Board of Directors Chair and agricultural business junior Nicole Billington, will continue to work toward ensuring there is proper communication of ASI’s opposition to the university’s housing plan.