NEWS
Funding group shoots down earlier decision
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Alexandra Rogers:
- AIDS battle progressing (May 10, 2007)
- Students slam city bar ban (May 3, 2007)
- Neighbors discuss ownership options (April 27, 2007)
- Business mogul donates millions (April 26, 2007)
- Students to help 'cleanup' hunger (April 13, 2007)
Related Stories:
- SSFC denies funding to CALS student council (September 16, 2003)
- Group fails to benefit 'all students' (September 15, 2006)
- SSFC makes cuts to 3 budgets (October 19, 2004)
- Bad day for diversity group (September 12, 2006)
- SSFC puts stamp on largest budget (November 16, 2007)
by Alexandra Rogers
Friday, September 29, 2006
Students concerned about funding cuts for College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Student Council successfully voiced their frustration before the Student Services Finance Committee Thursday causing the funding group to overturn its previous decision.
More than 20 students attended the open forum to speak in defense of the eligibility of CALS Student Council to receive funding from the General Student Services Fund controlled by the SSFC. Eligibility for funding was denied by SSFC earlier this month.
CALS supporters explained they felt the denial of funding eligibility for CALS Student Council was an issue of interpretation of the bylaws by council members.
"When you look at it, if it's an interpretation of the bylaws, it is not so much the bylaws, it's more the opinions of the SSFC members," Associated Students of Madison Representative Andy Peterson said in an interview with The Badger Herald.
The bylaws, which dictate the eligibility of organizations to receive funding from SSFC, decide eligibility based on a number of criteria. The two criteria called into question by SSFC in the CALS Student Council funding case were the accessibility of the organization to all University of Wisconsin students and the possibility that services offered by CALS may be duplicated by other organizations on campus, and are therefore unnecessary.
SSFC previously voted CALS Student Council was only accessible to students in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.
Yet Tyler Wilkinson, a Letters and Science major, wrote in opposition to the SSFC ruling. "Though I am not a CALS major, the student council has invited me to be involved in a number of projects and events and has welcomed me with open arms," Wilkinson wrote.
Many other students involved with the CALS Student Council, but not enrolled in the College, agreed with Wilkinson on behalf of the council and joined in letter writing.
"Denying CALS Student Council necessary funds will have an adverse effect on the college and possibly the university," Wilkinson added.
After an official appeal presentation by the president of CALS Student Council Ryan Scannell, SSFC debated and agreed to overturn the previous decision — with four votes in favor of funding the CALS student council and three against.
"I think, in the end, the right decision was made," Scannell said. "We are an organization who opens its arms up to all UW-Madison students, and we're glad that they recognized that."
SSFC also decided to maintain its earlier decision to cut funding for the student veterans' organization Vets for Vets, saying the group is not accessible to all UW students. Vets for Vets has been on campus for over 30 years and provides guidance to students currently or previously involved in the military.
"No organization can be everything to everyone," Marine Corps veteran and returning adult student Matt Kirpschack said. "If you're going to cut funding on that basis, you'll pretty much have to cut funding for everything."
Kirpschack said it's helpful for him to have Vets for Vets on campus.
"Anytime I've had problems, I know I've got a place I can go for help," he added.
Despite opposition, SSFC held its position that Vets for Vets is an organization run "for veterans and by veterans."
Anonymous (September 29, 2006 @ 9:32am):
The herald didn't mention that two ssfc members abstained from voting. The two students that did not vote abstained because they had been threatened by Ryan Scannell and CALS with a lawsuit. Since Seg fees can't be used for attorney's fees to defend themselves the students felt like they had no choice. Instead of providing a reasonable argument for funding Mr. Scannell & CALS resorted to threats. It's nice to see that those are the ethics being taught at CALS.
Anonymous (September 29, 2006 @ 11:45am):
SSFC and the FC confuse their personal opinion with what the bylaws say.There is a good deal of random chance in what reason they will give for funding or not funding a group. ASM needs to review the process that these committees are using. Also, Vets for Vets and other groups should take up the issue with the Student Judiciary so that the rules are made clear for future funding decisions. I have been in both postions: on the finance committe making funding decisions as well as bringing suit against the fc for improper decisions. The idea that the FC and SSFC are giving funds in a "viewpoint neutral" matter is a complete joke.
I also believe it to be a false conclusion that groups must be open to the entire campus. In fact, the Supreme Court decision in the Southworth case would lead me to the opposite idea. Groups do not have to be open to all students on campus but there must be neutral criteria for deciding how these groups get funded.
Anonymous (September 29, 2006 @ 8:43pm):
Anonymous #1: You're misleading the readers about suits within ASM. CALS Student Council probably filed complaints with the Student Judiciary, a court made up of students, concerning due process violations instead of filing in a "real" court. When the SSFC and its members violate the rules for deciding eligibility and falsely deny that organization funding, an organization has the right to appeal to the Student Judiciary. There are no legal fees involved with the Student Judiciary and the court cannot impose fines on individuals of the SSFC.
Anonymous (October 1, 2006 @ 4:46pm):
Whats with that first commenters smear campaign against Ryan? The SSFC wrongly denied CALS SC funding -- plain and simple. CALS SC is a valuable organization and Ryan worked hard to save its future. Without funding for CALS Sc, Madison students would have lost out on important resources. Where else on campus is there a student org that combines, promotes, and educates on so many facets of agriculture and the life sciences? There is no other student org that does what CALS SC does. Without funding, students would have been denied valuable opportunities to professionally develop themselves in the fields of agriculture and life science
Ryan put together solid case for the appeal based on ASM law. He even used latin legal phrases and cited court cases. He had a 'reasonable argument' - a lot more reasonable than that first comments slander. Ryan put in so much time into the appeal and i - and others-- thank him for it
The only threats that existed were that ASM was going to deprive the Maddison students from having an excellent organization, that ASM wasn't going to represent the students of Madison, that ASM felt no need to act in the best interest of its students, and that ASM was about to commit a grave error and a terrible injustice.
that first comment is terrible. The Herald really should consider removing it.
Anonymous (October 1, 2006 @ 8:52pm):
CALS student council ought to be commended for their actions. This year's SSFC is out of control, denying funding for Students for Sustainable Agriculture, CALS student Council, the Engineering student council (Polygon), and Vets for Vets.
It's good for the students that Sustainable Agriculture and CALS student council succeeded in their appeals. SSFC needs to be commended for realizing their original mistake of denying funding for both, and then correcting those mistakes by reversing their original decisions.
For the sake of the students, I hope SSFC reverses their decisions for polygton and vets 4 vets. How will it look for UW-Madison when groups like Sex Out Loud are considered more deserving of funding than Vets 4 Vets.
