NEWS
New seg fee rules in regents’ hands
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Kailey Bender:
- Vets take advantage of G.I. Bill (December 11, 2007)
- UW System enrollment increases 2.1 percent across state (December 6, 2007)
- Jihad speaker draws concern (November 30, 2007)
- New seg fee rules in regents' hands (November 28, 2007)
- Roll out the kettle (November 26, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Students protest seg fee policy (November 8, 2007)
- UW holding forum on segregated fees (November 26, 2007)
- Regents create new segregated fee committee (August 31, 2007)
- Students disapprove seg fee changes (November 29, 2007)
- Regents to address seg fees, textbooks (December 6, 2007)
by Kailey Bender
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
The Committee to Review Allocable Segregated Fee Policies, composed of five University of Wisconsin System students and five UW System administrators, met for the fourth and final time yesterday to finalize recommendations for the segregated fee policy.
The recommendations will be given to Board of Regents president Kevin Reilly, who will take the committee's recommendation into consideration when deciding on the segregated fee policy during the Board of Regents meeting Dec. 6.
The meeting focused on comments coming from UW campuses regarding the draft of the policy the committee had drawn up during previous meetings.
There were 28 responses to the draft from UW System staff and students, according to Linda Bunnell, chair of the committee and UW-Stevens Point chancellor.
"While I don't think you'll see any substantial changes to the policy, some campuses came in with good suggestions and ideas but, in many cases, they were not really questions of the document," Bunnell said. "We had a really good long discussion [on] what kind of limitations there are on segregated fees — a lot of this was not our charge, but it will lead to thoughtful analysis for the future."
Some issues, such as student organizations using segregated fees to lobby, were found to be beyond the scope of the group.
"I think a lot of these issues are up to the individual campuses," said Michael Viney, Assistant Chancellor for Student Affairs at UW-Platteville and committee member.
Viney said the committee was "setting minimal standards for the UW System as a whole to follow."
Ray French, UW-Eau Claire student and member of the committee, said segregated fees should be treated differently than state money.
"Segregated fees are not the same as general purpose revenue, so it should not have the same limitations," French said.
Alex Gallagher, Associated Students of Madison finance committee chair and member of the committee, said the policy passed 6-3 in the committee.
"One of my problems was the formation and premise of the committee; it didn't have a majority of students sitting on it," said Gallagher, who voted against the policy. "The segregated fee policy stems from problems on Madison’s campus, so I didn't think it was appropriate to be decided on at a system level."
Gallagher said the final segregated fee policy changes are still dependent on Reilly.
"If he uses the recommendation from the committee, it will affect Madison's campus in terms of what segregated fees are allowed to be spent on," Gallagher said.
The policy the committee recommended yesterday makes it "pretty much impossible" for a student organization to hire full-time staff, Gallagher said, adding student organizations cannot independently rent space in a non-campus building with money from segregated fees.
Gallagher will be submitting a dissent to Reilly outlining why he does not agree with the policy recommended by the committee.
However, Bunnell said the committee was successful because they worked hard — especially the student members.
"I think we worked very hard, these are difficult issues; the students were always there and had good ideas, they expressed themselves, were articulate and were really good committee members," Bunnell said. "I enjoyed working with them."
The committee made positive steps, even though it was at times problematic, Gallagher said.
"If it affects student life and interests, the decisions are clearly the responsibility of students," Gallagher said. "The committee feared giving a majority to the students because then they wouldn't get the results they were looking for."
Anonymous (November 28, 2007 @ 8:28am):
I think it's perfectly appropriate for the university's facilities staff to handle all rental agreements involving seg fees -- they know the ins and outs of contracts and can ensure that students don't get screwed in the deal. The rest of the policy is crap and the Dean of Students office should be lobbying System hard to scrap it -- but they aren't
Ray French (November 28, 2007 @ 9:35am):
I would like to clarify what is represented as my view in the article above. As a non-UW-Madison student I don't expect as much press time as Alex Gallagher, but that one statement does not represent my view. It was not said in an interview but taken from discussion during the committee.
When I made the statement that Segregated Fees are different from general purpose revenue and should be treated as such, I was operating under what appears to be a false assumption. I was given a memo to pass onto the committee by the Legislative Fiscal Bureau. Because I'm not a budgetary analyst I needed it to be interpreted. The interpretation I was given was wrong, as explained to me by the committee, and so this statement reflects my misunderstanding. While Segregated Fees are considered Program Revenue and not General Purpose Revenue, that doesn't mean they don't have the same limitations that GPR dollars have when expended by the University. The university, as a state agency, has limitations on the procedures and types of expenditures for its monies received. Therefore, Segregated Fees do need to follow these same requirements. No one can give me evidence to the contrary.
That is one of the biggest reasons for my supporting the consolidated policy document. All of the arguments made by the legal counsel are sound and the discussion of the committee gave me no reason to doubt the document's accuracy.
So the statement reported in this article does not accurately reflect my support for this document. I just want that to be clear.
Anonymous (November 28, 2007 @ 4:36pm):
The last paragraph of that memo says that student fees are program revenue dollars and are different from general tax dollars, which are classified as "general purpose revenue." the two are different. As if that's not clear enough, the previous paragraph says the money is "limited only by the available revenues from which the appropriation is made." meaning if there's money in the account, it can be spent on segregated fee related activity. and nowhere in state statutes does it say it's illegal for student organizations to have office space, staff, etc.
the fatal flaw of this committee was that they relied on the legal opinion of one lawyer, and she said exactly what she was paid to say. that's how lawyers work!
chin up to those who are confused and emberrased about their actions on the committee. the rest of the committee was confused too.
Anonymous (November 28, 2007 @ 5:29pm):
I'm not sure about all of the details of this SegFee debate, but I do think that as students we should be able to lobby with our money. It's our money and lobbying one way for us to impact change and make sure that our voices are represented. Using SegFees to lobby is one way that student exercise their right organize in any form or fashion and should always be an option for me and other students at this campus!
(5) STUDENTS. The students of each institution or campus subject
to the responsibilities and powers of the board, the president,
the chancellor and the faculty shall be active participants in the
immediate governance of and policy development for such institutions.
As such, students shall have primary responsibility for the
formulation and review of policies concerning student life, services
and interests. Students in consultation with the chancellor
and subject to the final confirmation of the board shall have the
responsibility for the disposition of those student fees which
constitute substantial support for campus student activities. The
students of each institution or campus shall have the right to organize
themselves in a manner they determine and to select their representatives
to participate in institutional governance.
Anonymous (November 28, 2007 @ 10:56pm):
Ray French sold out students on this one. I'm surprised he went to such lengths to highlight that fact, given this article originally made it look like he actually had examined the facts...
Ray French (November 29, 2007 @ 7:04am):
I apologize for nothing and stand by my decisions. I think everyone needs to take a look at the information instead of jumping to conclusions and reading poorly written "news" articles.
Isn't it interesting that the only groups on the Madison campus that are against the policy are the ones that stand to lose if it is adopted? Don't forget about the majority of other UW campuses' student governments that are supportive of these changes. You on the Madison campus had 3 students out of 5 on your side from the very beginning. I would assert the votes of the students on the committee do not represent the views of students at all the campuses but were partly driven by the SRC. You think I sold out students? It's too bad I support the majority of UW campuses and not the extremely vocal minority. I haven't heard from anyone that I didn't give both sides a chance. I didn't walk in with my mind made up like SRC would have liked.
I have my integrity.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
