Opinion

An open letter to Chancellor Wiley

Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.

Related stories:

• Drumming in the dark (October 12, 2006)
• Hansen wrong on race policies (February 7, 2007)
• Letter to Chancellor Wiley (September 14, 2001)
• Thank you, Chancellor (September 11, 2003)
• Wiley's real stance (November 3, 2004)

Also by Badger Herald Editorial Board:

• The Invisible Man Award: Wyndham Manning (May 7, 2009)
• The People's Choice Award: Jacqueline Hitchon et. al (May 7, 2009)
• The Lifetime Achievement Award: ASM (May 7, 2009)
• Honest representation (May 5, 2009)
• Junger for ASM Chair (May 5, 2009)

Sharing tools:

E-mail this article:

Your e-mail address:

Recipient e-mail address:

Optional message:

Share on:

• Facebook
• Digg
• Newsvine
• reddit
• StumbleUpon
• delicious
• Google
• Yahoo! My Web
• BlogMarks
• Linkroll
• Simpy

• Spurl
• Connotea
• Fark
• Feed Me Links

• Magnolia
• BlinkList
• Sphere
• LinkedIn

• Furl
• Technorati
• AddToAny
• Permalink

Dear Chancellor Wiley:

We read with great interest last Friday your apparent change of heart regarding the Associated Students of Madison’s proposed segregated fee hike for next semester.

To recap, our student government is hoping to levy a record increase in allocable segregated fees next year — 84 percent for student organizations. For the most part, this unprecedented increase will go to hire, fund and support hundreds of students to work for a few select student organizations.

While many of the budget increases are appropriate, as you and we both noted during the process, many of the services purportedly provided by these organizations are services either duplicated by the administration or would be offered if you could get more state money.

By and large, these funding decisions were made without consultation or input from your administration; this tuition increase will not be part of a coherent plan or vision.

At the same time, these budget decisions were made without the consultation or input from most students. The student politicians who voted on the budget allocations were elected by a paltry 11 percent of the student body.

Aside from leaving the door ajar during student council meetings, there was no effort to gather student input during the process. In fact, student council leaders have admitted to intentionally keeping a low profile this semester. The vast majority of students who did offer input during the process were either former or current members of the beneficiary organizations.

Our point is simple: No one should be deluded into thinking this budget decision represents the will of the student body.

To its credit, our segregated fee system has a series of checks and balances designed to both guarantee and protect students’ rights and interests. Student government committees are directed to consider cases of discrimination and bias, while the administration should stop abuse. If ever there was a case of abuse, this is it. If ever there was a budget that should be sent back to the student council for further review, this is it.

We also hope you understand the signal this budget sends to the state Legislature. How can students ever again lobby for lower tuition or for more money for Plan 2008 when student government has shown the willingness to nearly double their portion of tuition to pay for programs you said you would offer if only you had the state money? We appreciate your willingness to let students control their own money. That is why we hope you will stop ASM from monopolizing ours.