Despite the failure of the $15 per semester student activity fee this year, newly appointed student leaders said students should expect to see a new fee proposal next year.
Newly appointed Associated Students of the University of Arizona Sen. Nathan Bell, who worked on this year's fee proposal, said a group of students are committed to working on the student activity fee next year.
The fee, which would have raised an estimated $1.2 million, would have brought big-name concerts and speakers to campus. The measure was defeated when 56.6 percent of student voters decided to nix the proposal during a special election in April.
Bell said many students on the Collaboration Board, which drafted the fee proposal, had reservations about the fee's structure this year and decided to dedicate themselves to reorganizing the fee for next year.
He said the group, which includes representatives from ASUA, the University Activities Board, Panhellenic Council, Interfraternity Council and the Residence Hall Association, has already met to discuss the possibility of a fee next year.
"I would expect that it's going to be on the March ballot general election," he said. "I'm sure it will take a slightly different form than this year's, though."
Former ASUA Sen. Nick Bajema, who worked on the proposal, said the purpose of the fee was to increase on-campus entertainment, such as concerts and guest speakers, and to provide students with an alternative to drinking.
The fee would have required students to pay $15 to a Student Activity Fee Committee that would distribute 80 percent of the money to entertainment funding, 15 percent for general distribution. Five percent was expected to be refunded.
In a survey conducted by Tucson research firm FMR Associates Inc., 84 percent of students said they would possibly or definitely support such a fee.
But quickly after the fee proposal was made, the fee faced obstacles and criticism from various people around campus concerning its necessity and structure.
The fee was originally put on the general election March ballot but was delayed after student leaders decided there were too many loopholes in its structure.
But when a special election was held for the fee just five days after the ASUA Senate approved the proposal, criticism continued to be voiced over the lack of time.
Student leaders had only a few days to inform students about the fee before the special election because the senate did not approve the referendum until March 31. Elections were from April 5 to April 7.
If approved, the fee would have faced another time crunch, as the Arizona Board of Regents would not be able to approve the fee until April 29, leaving fee organizers with less than three months to implement the fee.
In that time, fee organizers would have had to assemble a Student Activity Fee Committee, select three students at large, establish the role of the committee, hold discussions with the Budget Office, choose a refund policy and talk to the Bursar's Office.
Another special election setback came during the special election when student leaders were accused of running a biased election.
J.P. Benedict, former ASUA president, said if students had voted in favor of the fee, he would have been doubtful of the results.
Biased advertising on the part of clubs and organizations would have diminished the credibility of the results if the fee had passed, he said, after the results were announced.