Golden Words seeks approval during mandatory fee review

After failed fee increase last year, Golden Words’ new goal is to stay above ground

Image supplied by: Journal File Photo
Golden Words staff and contributors at a meeting last December about mandatory student fees

After a proposed fee increase was denied in last year’s winter referendum, Engineering Society satire publication Golden Words is noticeably absent from the list of 2017/18 fee increase bids. 

The paper — whose primary source of funding comes from a mandatory student fee of $2.00 under the AMS Student Activity Fees — sought an additional 25 cents per student last year, but were denied by student vote. This time, the campus source for botched political headlines and near-death experiences at Teriyaki joints are just looking to keep their fee as it is up for a tri-annual review, needing re-affirmation from the student body in next week’s undergraduate-wide referendum.

In an interview, the pair discussed the task ahead. 

At $2 a student, with approximately 25 issues per year, the fee equates to about 6 cents per issue for each student, said Editors-in-Chief Alex Green, ArtSci ’18, and Leah Petersen, Sci ’18. Funds are allocated primarily towards the printing of the paper itself. 

“That’s a cheap newspaper, eh?” Green said with a laugh. 

Former Editor-in-Chief Sam Codrington indicated after last year’s failed referendum increase that the paper would be seeking an increase again this year, saying their staff would do a better job communicating the fiscal efficiency of the newspaper’s operations. 

However, Petersen and Green say they’re confident the student body will see the same value in the paper that they do to maintain the fee, which requires an approval of at least 50 per cent. 

If the fee isn’t renewed, Golden Words’ alternative options are limited. As an affiliated publication with the Engineering Society (EngSoc), the paper could seek support from the Society’s capital fund, which allocates to organizations like Clark Hall Pub each year.

But, that route isn’t a guaranteed fallback.

“Generally we rely on the student fee, it operates best for most students,” Green said. “It’s very little compared to what we see as the value in it. And, as a result, that’s our main goal.” 


Engineering Society, EngSoc, Golden Words, increase, Referendum, student fees

All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s)-in-Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Queen's Journal

© All rights reserved.

Back to Top
Skip to content