News
SSFC declines re-vote on CWC
Vets for Vets and and Student Tenant Resource Center funding decisions delayed
SAJIKA GALLEGE/Herald photo
SSFC members hear testimony from students concerning funding decisions Thursday at the SAC.
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by David Brazy:
- Reviewers voice concern about campus transit (November 16, 2009)
- UW Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention receives $9 million grant (November 13, 2009)
- Value-Added Research Center begins at UW (November 6, 2009)
- Bill could add finance funds for justice elections (October 23, 2009)
- University of Wisconsin Colleges, Wisconsin-Extension receives diversity award (October 9, 2009)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
Despite requests from around two dozen Campus Women’s Center supporters, the Student Services Finance Committee declined to revote on funding for the group in a meeting Thursday night.
CWC was originally denied funding Monday because SSFC believed 51 percent of their programs and resources did not constitute a direct service to the entire campus. To receive funding, the group has to have a majority of their direct services open to all University of Wisconsin students.
CWC submitted new numbers Thursday they say meet the requirements.
More than 20 students walked into the meeting and some gave speeches to show support for CWC. Several student organizations — including Panhellenic Association, Interfraternity Council and LGBT Allies — spoke to the group’s eligibility for funding.
The new numbers did not convince the committee to reverse its decision. SSFC Secretary Matthew Manes said the group has submitted several different numbers already and cannot keep changing their projections just to fit the requirements.
SSFC Chair Brandon Williams stressed the need for the committee to stay impartial in its decisions.
“Public pressure (im-pacting decisions) would be detrimental to the committee and to the campus. We must stay neutral in our decisions or we risk losing student control over financing,” Williams said.
For SSFC to revote on the issue, one of the committee members who originally voted to deny funding would have had to change their mind and call to reopen the discussion.
Despite pleas from supporters, none of the nay votes reconsidered their decision.
Also during the meeting, SSFC voted to delay its decision on funding two organizations — Vets for Vets and Student Tenant Resource Center — until Monday.
SSFC Vice Chair Michael Romenesko said there were legal issues and conflicts with another similar group, Student Tenant Union, that could affect STRC. STU already receives funding for similar services, which would normally make STRC ineligible, Williams said. However, STU is not reapplying for funding, creating a grey area SSFC needs to discuss further.
STRC, while technically a new group that has never received eligibility, had been funded years earlier under different formations.
Vets for Vets was delayed due to confusion about their direct service elements. The group had received funding until this year, as SSFC denied them eligibility in 2008.
Two new groups asking for funding at the meeting were WisChoices, an alcohol awareness group, and Adventure Learning Programs, an organization that provides experiential education through work-shops.
WisChoices provides peer-on-peer advising and discussions about alcohol education and awareness on campus.
“Most times it’s adults like parents and teachers who talk about alcohol issues,” WisChoices coordinator Stacy Lorenz said. “It brings a new perspective to the issue when you are talking with people your own age.”
ALPs provides workshops for groups to do ground and ropes courses free of charge with trained facilitators. These workshops are aimed at groups gaining “experiential education” in an environment that is “physically and emotionally stable,” according to their website.
“We are the only organization on campus for experiential education,” ALPs coordinator Jessica Erdman said.
10 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: 8ef9f881
This is at least evidence that Kyle S isn’t violating VPN by abstaining. Right now CWC’s best chance is a Motion to Reconsider, which must be initiated by one of the Nay voters (and Kyle knows this). It’s from Standing Rules Regarding other SSFC business #1.
If Kyle was unfairly biased in favor of CWC, he definitely would’ve shown up to vote Nay so that he could later initiate a Motion to Reconsider himself.
Full text of standing rule #1: “An initial eligibility decision or budgetary recommendation of a group can be appealed and changed only through a Motion to Reconsider. An SSFC member who voted in the majority of the initial eligibility decision or budgetary recommendation for the group must make this motion. This motion requires a second and will pass by a two-thirds vote. Only if a motion to reconsider passes can any SSFC member make a Motion to Amend.”
IP hash: f7ce16b0
Good decision SSFC. You followed your processes and came to a decision. Campus Women’s Center, tough luck, re-tool your program so that you meet the criteria next year and you will be fine.
IP hash: 8ef9f881
There’s still grounds for CWC to file an appeal with SSFC under Standing Rule #4. If that doesn’t work, they can try their luck with SJ.
This situation is weeks from concluding.
IP hash: 1a5bfe4f
What exactly is standing rule number 4?
IP hash: 1588d4ac
“4. Groups wishing to appeal their eligibility decision or their initial budgetary recommendation on a procedural or similar violation shall inform the Chairperson of the SSFC in writing within 5 school days of the announcement of the SSFC decision. SSFC will hold a hearing within 5 school days of the filing of the appeal, and publish a written decision justifying its position within 5 school days of the hearing. The appeal hearing shall follow that of the hearing process with a group’s presentation and committee questions.” https://mywebspace.wisc.edu/kgosselin/web/SSFC%20Docs%20for%20Web/Standing%20Rules%20Revises%20(ALL).doc?uniq=-jnie0s
IP hash: 94027db6
Explain the STU and STRC thing to me? STRC is STU. The last Herald article said Kyle is the leader of both. Also, wasn’t there another article that said STU had multiple violations of the SSFC rules? Doesn’t add up.
IP hash: 8d99539f
the SSFC doesn’t work for the student body, nor do their requirements serve the best student interest. Nor do they know anything about the groups they actually fund- something drastic needs to be done.
IP hash: 30a7a499
if we only had a presidential system CWC could do something about it BUT OH WAIT, Kyle and friends FUCKED THEMSELVES on that one hahahah the delicious irony
IP hash: 8ef9f881
It wouldn’t have helped. This didn’t happen because douchers hate the Women’s Center, it happened because even the most liberal SSFC member is bound by VPN.
IP hash: a4357e96
delicious irony or thinly veiled conspiracy?