Alex E. Tavlian!

!
February 20, 2014 Linda P.B. Katehi, Ph.D. Chancellor University of California, Davis 1 Shields Avenue Davis, Calif. 95616

Chancellor Katehi, I write today as a vocal opponent of Measure 1 the so-called Save the Aggie initiative to request consideration of alternative language to the advice approved by students. The California Aggie is a tremendous institution worth saving under the right conditions. It is clear that the approach taken by the leadership of The Aggie Measure 1 will prove to be problematic in the short and long-term. I wish to spell out my full opposition to the current language of this fee increase and provide a reasonable alternative that ensures that all sides of this debate receive an equitable arrangement. I can say safely that I am not unfamiliar with the newspaper industry having served as a reporter for four newspapers two professional newspapers (The Fresno Bee and The Sacramento Business Journal) and two student newspapers (The Vantage of Clovis West High School and The Rampage of Fresno City College). The decline of print journalism has been swift, but should not be a surprise to those working in the industry. It can be assumed that all members of the UC Davis community believe that ensuring access to objective news on a college campus an important initiative worth undertaking. My concern lays with the way in which this fee increase was designed. The California Aggie requested students to decide whether the paper would effectively end operations or be funded at an annual level unprecedented in the past decade. This all-or-nothing approach left students in an almost impossible position of choosing to end 99 years of journalistic tradition or support a never-ending fee hike with which they did not completely agree. The California Aggie, which has repeatedly called itself a watchdog of the University and ASUCD, asked the students to provide large annual endowments under the promise that the paper would expand its operation by paying student staff, adding increasing production and the hiring of a full-time financial manager. However, a permanent fee allows The California Aggie to do whatever it wishes with students money whether in-line with these promises to the students or not without students having any further input or oversight. Put simply, the watchdog does not wish to be watched himself.

Should the fee presented in Measure 1 or one similar to it be enacted, I believe it is best to include a sunset provision that ends the enforcement of the fee after a period of no less than 5 years and no more than 10. This period provides The California Aggie with enough time to stabilize its finances, transition to a more cost-effective medium of news distribution, and acts as an effective check on the paper, ensuring that it is held to the promises it set out from the start of its campaign. This provision would also allow The Aggie to seek out a replacement fee to support future endeavors. Additionally, I request that any enacted fee funding The California Aggie also include a provision requiring The California Aggie to submit a long-term plan effective for the fees lifetime (given a sunset provision is in place) that explicitly discloses the papers planned use of funds acquired via the fee. Along with this long-term plan, The Aggie should also be required to submit an annual report indicating its progress in adopting its long-term plan when introducing its budget. There is incredible value in having a laboratory of journalism on campus. At this moment, we must find an amicable solution that ensures students can work in such a laboratory while holding the newspaper to the same standard it requires of its news subjects. I would be ever grateful to meet in-person to further discuss this important and sensitive issue. Do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions.

!
Sincerely,

!
Alex E. Tavlian