The Badger Herald

NEWS

Green weighs in on UWRCF

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Andriy Pazuniak:

SSFC wittles Wunk Sheek budget (October 21, 2005)
Cieslewicz, Judge come out on top in spring election (April 9, 2007)
Music industry serves campus (March 22, 2007)
UW to RIAA: No way (March 21, 2007)

by Andriy Pazuniak

Friday, April 21, 2006

The University of Wisconsin Roman Catholic Foundation received a new advocate in its fight for segregated-fee funding Thursday — U.S. Rep. Mark Green, R-Wis., a 2006 Wisconsin gubernatorial candidate.

In a letter to Chancellor John Wiley dated April 20, Green told the chancellor he was concerned over what "appears to be discrimination" against the religiously affiliated student organization.

"I don't want to see the University of Wisconsin Roman Catholic Foundation discriminated against because of its faith," Green said in a phone interview Thursday, "even if the chancellor is using some other excuse for denial of funds."

Green's letter comes in the wake of Wiley returning the proposed segregated-fee budget to the Associated Students of Madison last week for reconsideration, with most of his recommended changes revolving around UWRCF.

Among other issues, Wiley said in a letter to ASM chair Eric Varney and Student Services Finance Committee chair Rachelle Stone that the foundation could not receive funding for a number of its activities, personnel positions and printing, arguing, "[S]tate monies cannot be used to support religious activities, per the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."

Wiley added in his letter that UWRCF was ineligible for funding since it was not a registered student organization and could not receive funding for its maintenance and utilities because it was located at a "non-university" facility.

During its meeting April 17, the ASM Conference Committee upheld many of Wiley's recommended changes. The committee cut $35,462 for "expenses related to electricity, gas and water" from UWRCF's proposed budget and said the foundation should not receive segregated-fee funding until it registers as a student organization.

However, committee members did not cut funding for the foundation's activities, personnel or printing, saying legal questions regarding funding religious organizations would have to be resolved between the chancellor, UWRCF, and state and federal courts.

In his letter to the chancellor, Green asked Wiley to provide more "explanation" for why UWRCF should not receive funding.

"There is a lack of clarity on the issue on the part of ASM and the chancellor," Green said. "I don't have an understanding what the real basis of the denial [of funding] is."

When he returned the budgets to ASM for reconsideration, Wiley cited UW System Financial and Administrative Policy F20, the U.S. Constitution and an Oct. 15, 2004, memo from UW Legal Services as justification for why various cuts had to be made to the UWRCF budget.

However, throughout the budgetary process, many ASM representatives questioned why the chancellor's concerns regarding segregated-fee funding were coming out this year, since some of the issues have existed since 2003.

When asked Thursday whether he thought these funding issues were coming out now because UWRCF's budget came into question, Green responded, "That's the way it seems."

However, UW spokesperson John Lucas maintained the university is not trying to unfairly discriminate against UWRCF.

"No one is trying to single out or discriminate against any campus or religious organization," Lucas said.

He added that many of the funding issues being raised this year were simply the result of the university trying to be more "vigilant" with its segregated-fee budgets.

"Students and regents asked that all campuses be more vigilant against the rise of segregated-fee budgets," Lucas said.

Lucas also noted the university stood by its belief that state funds should not be used to fund "worship purposes."

"We feel very clearly that segregated-fee dollars — when they are collected by the university — become state dollars," Lucas said, "and state dollars cannot be used for a worship purpose."

Green, however, disagrees with this stance.

"There is plenty of legal precedence that that is a misreading of the First Amendment," Green said. "Organizations that happen to be faith-based can receive funding."

Green might actually find support in the same memo Wiley cited to justify cutting funding for UWRCF's rent and utilities. The contentious Oct. 15, 2004 memo cites a federal court case that "established that a public university cannot discriminate on the basis of religious viewpoint."

Lucas said the chancellor had not yet "fully reviewed" the letter but said Wiley would address Green's concerns and questions.

Lucas added that the chancellor hopes to review and make a decision on the segregated-fee budget "in the next week or so."

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (April 21, 2006 @ 7:05am):

"We feel very clearly that segregated-fee dollars-- when they are collected by the university -- become state dollars..." WHAT???

That is the most novel interpretation of the seg-fee process I have ever heard!

The administration at this university needs to get their heads out of the sand and- for once- think about their words and actions when it comes to handling segregated fees.

Segregated fees are not taxes whose rates are set by a vote in the state legislature. Their allocation is not determined by the legislature's budget.

I would like to see how Chancellor Wiley and the rest of the administration reacts when the state legislature decides to take all of next year's segregated fees and puts them toward property tax relief or school choice vouchers. We'll see how long the administration wants to claim that these become state dollars.

It's not complicated. Segregated fees are STUDENT fees, to be used by STUDENT services- hence, the allocation by the STUDENT Services Finance Committee, Finance Committee, and overall consent from ASM Council and then, the administration. At no point does this process go outside of the university.

Chancellor Wiley's office should issue a retraction to this statement immediately.

Anonymous (April 21, 2006 @ 8:40am):

Here's the real test: would Green be concerned if the same thing happened to a Muslim or Jewish organization? If not, he's a bigot.

Anonymous (April 21, 2006 @ 8:56am):

All well and good - as long as the Flying Spagetti Monster is also honored with funds!

Anonymous (April 23, 2006 @ 4:25pm):

With regard to the comment posted at 8:40am: think about this - it *isn't* happening to a Jewish or a Muslim organization because if it did, way more people would be in an uproar about anti-Semitic or anti-Islamic behavior on the part of SSFC/ASM/etc. But instead, it's a Christian organization that's at the heart of the issue, far more susceptible to anti-religious attack and far less likely to receive support in fighting such an attack. The other groups received their funding, only this group is still fighting.