By Billy S. Garland

On Monday, Feb. 1 a student-led press conference was held in the Student Activities Center that brought to light the new House Bill 305, which would effectively prohibit public colleges and universities from imposing mandatory meal plans and athletic fees on non-residential commuter students. On Tuesday, Feb. 2 Student Government Association President O.J. Oleka delivered the State of the Student Body Address.
The speech covered topics ranging from the successes and struggles of the current administration to Oleka’s student corollary for the University of Louisville’s 2020 plan. This plan will effectively dictate the agenda of the future SGA administrations over the next decade. However, a significant portion of his focus involved HB 305 and the negative effects he insists would result from its passing.
“Let me be perfectly clear,” said Oleka. “The aim of this administration in higher education is to keep college as affordable as possible to students. This bill, should it pass, would not do that. This bill would remove the fee—the $175 that students pay—but it does not remove the cost. The cost of our meal plan still exists.”
According to Oleka, the cost of the meal plan would still have to come from the students, because it won’t be coming from the state government.
“For student initiatives, the way the university funds them is through three methods: student fees, an increase in tuition, or through state funding,” said Oleka. “So our best option would be to have the state give us the money. To put things into context, in the past decade, the state has cut university funding nine different times. You have a bill that takes away fees, and a state that isn’t going to fund us. So the only other option is tuition.”
It is this shifting of money that worries both Oleka and the activists behind  the Feb. 1 press conference. If a tuition increase were used to cover the cost, on-campus students would have to pay the increased tuition, as well as the meal plan fee they currently pay.
“The reason that we wanted to hold the press conference was just to allow students to hear what’s going on in Frankfort, and the real decisions that are being made,” said John Weber, a sophomore double major in political science and philosophy, as well as vice president of the College Democrats. “We thought that, on the surface, this bill was really good for commuter students. But we don’t want to see the burden shifted onto the on-campus students.”
Sana Abhari, a senior political science major and SGA presidential hopeful, was another activist working to bring the bill to the forefront of student attention. But she insists that she and her team are not specifically supporting the bill.
“We are not pushing the bill, nor are we against it,” said Abhari. “The main goal of the press conference was to communicate this to the students and let them hear what the state representatives are saying. We want to foster the relationship with the students, not make policy for them.”
While the student activists involved may not be working to dictate policy to the students, some within the university administration feel that this is exactly what the state is doing with HB 305.
“Higher education doesn’t have a chance if you have legislators demagoging issues and not letting universities administer the universities,” said Bill Stone, a member of the U of L Board of Trustees.  “Our meal plan, for example, was very carefully studied by everybody responsible for this institution. There’s a difference between having legislators appropriate dollars for use in public education institutions that are vital, and for them to try to use that as a passport to micromanage.”
U of L President Dr. James R. Ramsey agreed with Stone, voicing his opinion in the Board of Trustees meeting on Thursday, Feb. 4.
“We do not think that is a good bill, and we will do everything we can to oppose that bill,” said Ramsey.  “The one thing we have on our side is the facts.”
These purported facts have led many, like independent democratic political consultant Preston Bates, to anticipate that the bill may never be written into law.
“While I support what it stands for, this bill probably won’t get out of committee,” said Bates. “While no bill is perfect, this one’s intentions were moral. I think this is only just the beginning of something larger.”