Over the past few weeks, since the first issue of The Terrapin Times hit the campus, our staff members have received a lot of attention. In fact, a recent Washington Times article (April 30) mentioned our presence on the UMD campus. We have had enormously positive feedback both on and off campus, as well as a few critics. However, we have had many questions from all. So, we’d like to do a little better job explaining ourselves.

First, we want to establish that we are an independent student newspaper. We do not receive any funds from the University, including the SGA. We are funded solely by advertisers and donors. We were the recipient of a Balance in Media grant by the Campus Leadership Institute (LI) in Arlington. We applied for this grant in February, after we first thought of the idea to form another campus paper. Basically, the purpose of the grant from LI is to help college students start up alternative publications to challenge the “liberal-dominated, official college campus newspapers.” LI gives money to students only after we show them our progress and the layout of our first issue. The funds we received from them helped with about eighty percent of the costs for the first issue alone.

To survive as an independent paper, however, we need advertising, of which we are dependent on for the rest of our future funds. Of course, we appreciate any other donations anyone would like to give us. But, as of now, we are a non-profit paper. And, that means that all of our staff is unpaid. Many of us on the staff have put in long hours to help put the paper together through editing and layout. And, others contribute articles and help procure advertising, as well as attend weekly meetings. The staff is very dedicated, and since our first issue, student interest in joining our staff is only growing. Because of the unpaid, yet growing staff, and the advertisers that support us, The Terrapin Times is making strides at a faster rate than we all expected.

For now, we plan to be a monthly publication, with quality articles, something that is difficult to do in a daily paper. Yet, our plans include possibly becoming bi-monthly, and with any success, a weekly could be within sight. For now, however, we don’t want to pose a “challenge” to any of the other papers on campus. We seek only to be another voice. And, we want to raise awareness of all those other lost voices on campus. While many of us come from conservative to moderate backgrounds, there is room for other issues to be voiced within our paper, and we welcome them.

Some students that don’t agree with the issues in our paper have told us they still like that we are here. It gives a voice to our side and stimulates more discussion among all sides. This is the purpose of our guest editorials, as well as the competing issues that we voice within our paper. We hope you all enjoy a good read in The Terrapin Times. And, we hope that you keep us in check if you feel we have misrepresented the facts. We seek to inform, not conform.

Last week, during a lame-duck session of the SGA, after hours of debating on various issues, the Legislature voted to remove Compensation For Duties Fulfilled (CFDF) for members of the SGA legislature. I was honestly surprised when I read this in The Diamondback. As it has been said, it was a year-long effort to get this passed. What I am wondering, is why did it take a year? The same legislators proposed a referendum to remove honoraria during last year’s closing session. The issue was tabled. Again this past fall the SGA voted on a referendum, not a complete removal, but a referendum. The referendum failed and was killed. Then in November, the SGA tried to completely remove honoraria. It again failed and was killed. So why exactly did they magically approve the removal of it in the last meeting of the year? Let me tell you why.

If the majority of members are against a referendum, they most likely are for keeping CFDF, which they proved a month later when the majority voted to keep it. For those of you who are unaware, CFDF aka Honoraria, is the compensation that SGA members receive for their “duties fulfilled”. Each member of the SGA is constitutionally required to attend a weekly meeting on Wednesday, many times lasting for many hours. In addition, they are required to work in the SGA office for two hours a week and they must reach out to their constituency by going to meetings such as hall councils or clubs directly related to their constituency. For doing all of this, an SGA legislator gets a very small amount of money. It has been said that SGA legislators get paid approximately two dollars per hour, if that. The estimated amount of student activity fees was not the amount that was needed for CFDF, due to the fact that many SGA members do not do their work sometimes. SGA members do not get paid for doing nothing, so despite what the other newspaper says, the SGA does do a lot for this campus.

So why did SGA members vote down a referendum? A referendum would have let the students decide if they wanted their money to go towards the SGA; it would have helped the legislators to know how their constituency felt. To those who voted for the referendum: you had the right idea. Those who voted against it must be in favor of CFDF and were worried the students would want to remove it.

In November, they said let’s just forget the referendum, let’s just remove it. For the sake of the legislators, and thanks to pressure from The Diamondback, SGA members felt they needed to remove it. Instead of merely reporting facts to students, the other campus newspaper drives forth the agenda of its editor.

When spring rolled around, that meant SGA elections. With CFDF still not removed, The Diamondback jumped at the chance to smear Pat Wu and his entire campaign. On top of it all, The Diamondback found a poster-boy for their agenda of removing CFDF, Aaron Krause! First they smeared the current SGA, and then endorsed a candidate who knew nothing about the SGA besides removing CFDF. The students then elected a legislature and executive body with 90% of FLASH candidates winning. Good call Diamondback.

Now we have approximately three to four legislators who voted on the referendum and CFDF in the fall returning next year to SGA. For the sake of the SGA members again, after a whole year of being told they were useless by the other newspaper, and almost none of them returning, they voted to remove CFDF to feel like they had accomplished something. This could have negative effects on SGA, and some positive effects.

The other school newspaper finds it their job to criticize the SGA President-Elect Tim Daly and the FLASH party. They said that during the election, the FLASH party mentioned nothing about CFDF or removing it. As a newly elected legislator, representing South Hill and a member of the FLASH party, I can tell you this is not true. We had hoped to do a scientific study through OIT asking students their opinions of CFDF to determine how it should be dealt with. The OIT scientific survey was actually done this year by RHA members to determine if students would like HBO on campus next year. The survey was a success and as a result, HBO will be here in the fall. Daly’s idea for a survey of students for the HBO plan was a success in capturing student opinion. The Diamondback claimed that Daly’s FLASH Party never said anything about removing CFDF. Yet, his party was proactive in pushing this issue with the idea of a similar survey to ask student opinion about whether or not to remove CFDF. Now that Daly is SGA President and the FLASH Party controls the majority of seats, The Diamondback has stated it will not cover the issues of the SGA. Can you say sore losers?

With the removal of CFDF, and without a proper opportunity to conduct a survey, we may never know how students truly feel. Instead, we know how The Diamondback thinks, or perhaps Jay Parsons, but regardless it is not how all students feel. Last week, I looked at The Diamondback and saw their annual “Salary Guide.” I also remember constant criticism from them about the SGA receiving a salary. What I want to know is how much do Diamondback reporters get paid? How much does your editor get paid? Where do you get your money from? From student groups paying for ads? From the SGA? The only people on the staff of The Diamondback that deserve salaries are the sports writers who actually travel along with the teams. Those of us who work on The Terrapin Times do not get paid one cent. We write news stories, editorials and are involved with our paper because we want to get the word out to students on campus.

There is a new SGA now, and a new editor of The Diamondback. I believe and I hope that the new editor will be much better and I full-heartedly believe the new SGA will be just as good if not better than this year’s. But do not fret, if you are sick of The Diamondback’s hypocritical actions, we at The Terrapin Times will always be here to make you feel better.

Editor’s Note: Seth Schraier is the outgoing Chair of the Maryland Federation of College Republican. He is graduating this semester with majors in Government and Politics, Economics, and Criminal Justice.