News
SSFC kicks off budgetary year
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by James Davison:
- Overnight sit-in ends with arrests (December 13, 2004)
- Asian tsunami's devastation extends to college students (January 17, 2005)
- Bowl ticket sales kick off (December 2, 2004)
- UW names official (December 6, 2004)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
Each fall, a group of 16 University of Wisconsin students assemble to decide the fate of more that $19 million of student segregated fees, a required student tax paid in addition to tuition.
The Student Services Finance Committee meets annually in September, October and November to decide the eligibility and funding of campus organizations and to make recommendations to the Associated Students of Madison student council.
The group’s first budgetary meeting of the year is tonight.
Eligibility goes to groups who offer a unique service to campus while creating educational benefits and diversifying the campus climate, according to elected member Catherine Quinn.
“Students pay between $300 and $500 [in addition to] their tuition — we’re in control of that money,” Quinn said.
Organizations interested in funding first apply for eligibility to receive segregated funds, which is required every two years.
“Different student groups present applications of eligibility showing what it does on campus, what it does for students, if [anyone] can be involved, if it is unique,” Quinn said, adding most groups who apply are granted eligibility.
During the 2005-06 eligibility hearings, Sept. 9, 13 and 15, only one group — the International Socialist Organization — was denied.
ISO member Bill Linville said he is disappointed they did not receive eligibility.
“I feel like we do a lot of work on campus and are extremely active,” Linville said. “We’ll just have to go another year of self funding for all the stuff we do.”
Quinn said ISO was close to receiving eligibility, but various factors, including an incomplete application and other discrepancies in requirements, rendered them ineligible.
“I feel bad they didn’t [receive eligibility],” Quinn said, noting that, contrary to popular belief, the political agendas of SSFC members do not influence decisions.
If voted eligible, groups are guaranteed at least $4,100, but most groups ask for more, Quinn noted.
This is done during the budgeting process, in which groups present a budget outlining everything they could use money for over the year. The committee has the right, and often does, change funding for a student organization’s budget — either the total amount given or specific allocation of funds.
Quinn said budget inflation is sometimes a problem, but SSFC encourages groups to be as realistic as possible when configuring numbers.
“If [a group] needs $250,000 and [are realistic about their budget], we’ll give it to them,” Quinn said. She said when groups are more realistic, the budgeting process is much easier and quicker for SSFC.
13 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Brother Ali makes an ‘Exclusive’ stop
Muckrakers
Report: Barrett to make decision by the end of the week
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
I just wanted to correct Mr. Davison. One other group was denied eligibility as well. It was some Leadership group based out of the student organization office. This groups presentation was lead by Mr. ASM himself Austin Evans. A call should have been placed to Mr. Evans to get him on the record thanking the ISO for knocking him out of the top spot for worst presentation of the year (possibly the worst in the history of the seg fee process). Given his amazing credentials on his ASM resume, one would think applying for funding would be a simple task. But alas Mr. Evans and his crew seemed a little out of their element while demanding the students pick up the tab for a program the university already said no to. Ah well, maybe next year assuming Mr. Evans has not gone on to the bigger and better things we all know he is destined for.
Did you see that? Free money. If you want $250k, just ask for it. Every religious, moderate, and conservative group should apply for its own share. Until the Left is forced to pay significant dollars to things with which they disagree, the situation will not change.
Acutually there was a third group that was denied eligibility. (Way to fact-check, Badger Herald!) CFACT (Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow) was denied eligibility for 20 minutes before members reconsidered and reversed the decision.
Ok, whoever keeps posting that comment on just about every seg fee related story about how every religious, conservative and moderate groups should apply for money to make the “Left” not want seg fees obviously doesn’t get the point of Seg Fees and the marketplace of ideas. I’m sure people on the left would be happy to fund whatever groups apply for money, be it conservative, moderate, or liberal or whatever. Everyone deserves a hearing and every deserving idea should be funded.
Also, it’s fine if you want to call Segregated Fees a “tax” but then you also have to call tuition a “tax”, the money you spend on textbooks a “tax” and so on. It doesn’t sound very objective of you to use a loaded term like “tax” if you are not using it consistently to describe all similar things.
Every “deserving idea” should be funded? Who determines what a “deserving idea” is? Is that consistent with the Supreme Court ruling? Is viewpoint neutrality really neutral? Or are some viewpoints more deserving than others?
Instead of saying which ideas are deserving and which aren’t, maybe we should just fund all ideas at a set amount.
Hey, Fact-checkers. Check this out (pun intended): The Tenant Resource Center was denied funding as well. Poor preparation, poor presentation and the mistaken assumption that they would just get the funding seems to have contributed to the denial of eligibility, which means no funding.
All viewpoints are deserving - by deserving I just meant that the group has to be actually doing something for some group of students and not just trying to grab money to prove some ideological point. Funding all ideas at a set amount doesn’t make any sense because different student services have different needs. As long as the criteria for what a “deserving idea” is are clear and fair, it is totally consistent with the Supreme Court ruling.
Also, the Supreme Court has upheld the idea it is constitutional for students to elect a group of students to distribute money to student groups, as long as they are viewpoint neutral. If you say they are not being viewpoint neutral you have to find evidence of groups that they have denied funding because of their viewpoint.
Which is why all religious, moderate, and conservative groups should apply. One way to prove that the system is not viewpoint neutral is for a group to be turned down. The Leftys will be forced to fund the groups to avoid providing this evidence.
BTW, even in the absence of a group being turned down, explicit rules against certain types of viewpoints or a system that grants unfettered discretion is unconstitional.
I agree that all religious, moderate and conservative groups should apply, and I’m a lefty. I disagree that anyone will care, or that anyone on the left would not want those groups to be funded. I have yet to see any evidence that there is some vast left-wing conspiracy to deny funding to right-wing groups on campus.
No conspiracy. Just human nature. The fee would double or triple if all ideologies were represented. People would take notice of that, regardless of their ideology. It is easy to argue in the abstract for a “marketplace of ideas” when no significant money goes to the right. Yes, in the last couple of years there have been a couple groups that would fit that description, but not equal funding.