News
Campus Women’s Center weighs options to fight back
SSFC denies group funding; advocates begin support rally
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Kyle Mianulli:
- Finishing touches leave Randall prepped for puck (February 1, 2010)
- Year of the Tigger! (February 1, 2010)
- Ad hoc report denies reform (January 25, 2010)
- Restructuring no longer dire (January 17, 2010)
- Snow fight set for today (December 9, 2009)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
As grassroots, student-run organizations begin to mobilize campaigns on campus to raise awareness in hopes of a reversal of the decision made by the Student Services Finance Committee to deny funding to the Campus Women’s Center, the group is strategizing how to address the conflict.
According to SSFC Chair Brandon Williams, the denial was made on the grounds that a simple majority, 51 percent, of CWC’s timed focus was not considered to be direct services available to all UW students.
“Some of the programs they offer are only available to students who participate in the group,” Williams said.
Not all members of SSFC agreed the denial should have been made on these grounds, however. Former SSFC Vice Chair and current Rep. Kyle Szarzynski, though not present for the vote, said he believed the direct services portion of CWC’s group programming did in fact constitute at least 51 percent of the organization.
He added the denial was made based on a dispute over 1 percent of the CWC’s programming.
“They really were just asking for this elaborate justification to prove that extra 1 percent. Everybody agreed that at least half of what they do is a direct service,” Szarzynski said.
As the ruling stands, CWC will not be eligible to receive any of the money granted through the General Student Services Fund that is allocated to student organizations on campus through the SSFC.
This year CWC received $85,205 from the GSSF, according to records obtained by The Badger Herald.
While CWC hopes to continue to exist in some capacity without the funding, the group members are worried they will no longer be able to afford funding for student positions, rent for their office in Memorial Union and will likely have to return all of their computers, which are rented through ASM, according to CWC Program Director Tina Trevino-Murphy.
There are several avenues CWC can pursue to have the ruling overturned, according to Williams.
An appeal to the ruling can be made on the grounds there was a viewpoint neutrality violation on the part of SSFC, meaning the views of the CWC played a part in the decision to deny funding by SSFC.
A second ground for appeal is SSFC did not follow due process guidelines in making the decision.
He added the decision certainly could be overturned, but the only effective method of doing so would be to follow the process SSFC has in place to deal with injustices.
“The CWC is disappointed with the vote, as this may eliminate the center’s services such as peer-facilitated support and discussion groups, family services for student parents … and the safe space the CWC office offers for women on campus. However, the CWC looks forward to continue working with the SSFC to resolve this funding conflict,” read a statement released by CWC Wednesday.
As CWC prepares to work with the SSFC to resolve the conflict, a grassroots, student-run organization has begun to orchestrate a campuswide movement to save the CWC.
“Save the Campus Women’s Center is a new and growing coalition of students and community members who value the resources and services provided by the CWC,” the group’s statement read.
The first campaign of Save the CWC is “Badgers Go Blue for CWC,” in which the group is calling for all supporters of the CWC to wear blue on Thursdays.
The purpose of this campaign is twofold, according to the statement: The campaign seeks to raise campus awareness about the SSFC’s denial of CWC’s eligibility and to create a visual representation of campus support for the CWC.
Correction: The article should have stated that Kyle Szarzynski was the former vice chair of SSFC, not chair. The story has been changed to reflect this. We regret the error.
16 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Top Classified Ads (view all)
Place your classified ad online and have it show up here. Your ad will hit thousands of viewers a day!
DON'T READ ME! Too late. If you're reading this, guess how many other people are reading it. See... advertising in The Badger Herald does work!
IP hash: 44b832ac
Kyle Szarzynski was the former vice chair…
You guys need to get better at fact finding.
IP hash: e0dd9a39
Kyle was present at the meeting on Monday. H skipped the part of the meeting where the CWC was discussed, probably because he knew under the rules he would have had to vote “No”. He could have stayed and made his case, but its more fun to play activist afterwards.
IP hash: 30a7a499
This story is framed way off the mark. An organization loses funding and the story is about their quest to get money back. No consideration that only a fraction of a percent of the student body thoroughly understand the issue at hand and how these organizations strategically protect one another to keep their hands directly tied to the cookie jar of student $$$$.
IP hash: 80973eb5
Way to make a totally incoherent argument to support your point of others’ off-the-markness.
IP hash: c7c27e5c
Please correct your articles and your in-house reporting/records system. Kyle was not a former SSFC Chair. He served briefly as Vice Chair. I would request a formal correction be published and that the Herald News Staff make a special note on this issue (as it is the second time this error has been made).
Kurt M. Gosselin SSFC Chair Emeritus
IP hash: debbcbdf
That was the most awkward lede ever.
IP hash: c7c02463
What an embarrassment for ASM. To deny the CWC funding, an organization that has been on campus for over 20 years, is a travesty. The conservative lug heads that voted against funding need to stop playing government and make an effort to act in the best interest of the student body.
IP hash: 2447abbc
Clarification: Kyle is incorrect in saying the dispute was over 1%. The 1% came from the fact that the CWC themselves submitted their own analysis of time spent on their direct services which stated that they spent a minimum of 50% and not the required 50%+1. However, as presented at the meeting, committee members had performed 2 distinct and independent analyses of time spent on the direct services by examining the breakdown of time spent by each staff member, reconciling it with the programs performed that were direct services (and not simply events, unrelated administrative time, etc.), and then taking that in the context of time spent overall. Those two analyses arrived at 40% and 45% of the group’s focus being the direct services to students, and that was under ideal conditions and the assumption that all the programs they asked the SSFC to consider for their direct service were in fact direct services; there was considerable disagreement that this was in fact the case, and so the real number might in fact be much lower. The point in bringing up the 50% minimum was because even in the (unlikely) event the committee’s analyses were completely incorrect, the CWC still did not technically meet the 50%+1 requirement by their own admission.
~someone who was there
IP hash: 88c7d65b
Why is Kyle always the go-to source of quotes on any vaguely ASM or progressive issue? He wasn’t even present at the meeting.
IP hash: 97e9fb85
The funny part about this is how SSFC attempts to make things black and white through their 50%+1 policy. SSFC should not focus on % of time used, but the OVERALL IMPACT of the group being here, or not being here.
Honestly, I don’t know whether the CWC is worth $85,000 and change of student fees - but I also don’t know the impact this group has had on campus - my guess is that there has been a huge impact on some students’ lives, and at least a small impact on the majority of students… What will happen next year without this group??
IP hash: fc49d3a4
It’s important to note that the group will not disappear and when a group is denied funding, the SSFC is very helpful with suggesting other avenues they can take to receive funding. The ASM Finance Committee is one of these avenues.
Regardless the decision will not be overturned because it was made in accordance with ASM policy and therefor the Student Judiciary will uphold it and I doubt an appeal to the administration would yeild great results either.
IP hash: 1588d4ac
It won’t disappear per se, but it won’t have its decade-established office in the union (with no comparable substitutes in SAC), any paid staff members, all computers except one dinosaur that was privately donated, base funding for the publication, free condoms or safety whistles to distribute, even any literature racks to hold the brochures. So even if it’s still technically around, its ability to impact campus has been bottlenecked.
From every women’s center I’ve ever been in contact, UW’s CWC is one of the most capable in the country and head-and-shoulders above any others that are student-run (no doubt stemming from the Supreme Court case enabling seg fees).
If the current decision stands, it’ll take CWC five years, MINIMUM, to rebuild back to where it is today. Ugh.
-Former CWC Coordinator
IP hash: 44b832ac
@3:11 AM - I would hardly say this is an embarrassment for ASM. The group did not meet criteria. Whether or not they have been on campus for 20 years is irrelevant. Further, it is more of an embarrassment to CWC given they had the criteria the SSFC uses to determine eligibility. Also, rumor has it, one of their presenters was on the SSFC when the new criteria was being written…
@11:09 AM - The SSFC should focus on % of time used on direct service. It is the student SERVICES finance committee. The committee funds organizations to put on services. If you want to argue the overall impact, how do you measure that? The number of students served? Your idea of measuring overall impact would cause far more controversy than current criteria.
As for everyone talking about Kyle, he was not even at the meeting where CWC gave their hearing. He claimed on record that he had not listened to the audio recording of the hearing either. His input on this matter is irrelevant and as a representative, he does not speak for the committee, only the Chair does. If you want to start getting accurate information, stop going to a flawed source.
IP hash: f0a7e874
This is some bullshit.
IP hash: 8d5c0bf3
Dear Kyle,
I’m writing to congratulate you for your exemplary article on the Wisconsin Student Public Interest Research Group kickoff. It is well written, and helps to grow a culture of activism amongst students at University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Whereas many campus media outlets skip over stories about students taking action, your article does an excellent job of portraying the student (or alumni) community as capable and powerful. It’s great that you’re letting students know how to get involved in issues like global warming and energy . More student journalists around the country should follow your lead in providing students with the info that they need to be active and engaged citizens in their local communities.
I am very impressed with your writing for The Badger Herald, and I’d like to talk to you about internship opportunities with the National Student News Service. Check out our website (www.nsns.org), sign up for our news feed, and call me/shoot me an email.
I hope your semester is shaping up nicely.
All the best,
Angie Marie Woody Intern, National Student News Service 814-341-436
IP hash: f8758749
Probably not the best avenue to get in touch with Kyle (there are two mentioned on this page alone), but good effort. Hint: There’s this communication device called email…
IP hash: 02f1b21e
Holy run on sentence Batman!
I have an internship for you. How would you like to teach journalism student how not to write?