Opinion

Chancellor to reverse MEChA decision

Nothing is confirmed, nothing is on the record. But the word on the street is shocking — UW’s seg-fee drama may take another unsuspecting twist, and not from an ambitious elected official, clamorous student group, or distant federal court. This time, the shocker might come down from Bascom Hill.

At least one source close to the seg-fee process said there is a “99 percent chance” Chancellor John Wiley will ignore the decision made by ASM this fall to deny funding to MEChA. If this source is correct and Chancellor Wiley overturns the decision, it will be a set back for both sides of the seg-fee debate.

While far left liberals in ASM will like the short-term outcome for MEChA, it is detrimental to the student fee independence liberals desperately desire (and believe they receive from state statute 36.09(5) from the administration). Any interference from Bascom will set a precedent for future intervention — something moderates and conservatives have tried to get the chancellor to do for years.

What is disturbing about this potential reversal is that SSFC chair Roman Patzner and Student Council Secretary Austin Evans confirm that neither the chancellor or his staff have requested any information about the MEChA case — no minutes, notes or arguments from the meeting during which MEChA’s case was heard nor even the group’s original eligibility application. The chancellor has never attended an SSFC hearing for any group and attempts by Patzner to meet with Wiley have fallen on deaf ears.

MEChA was initially denied funding by SSFC for several valid reasons. They failed to demonstrate that they offer “significant service components beyond programming” to the student body at large. In addition, MEChA did not prove the service they claim to provide is substantially different from services provided by other campus groups, such as MCSC.

Additionally, MEChA’s failure to provide a unique and viable service has historical background. When the group applied for a small annual funding grant in the early 1990s, it was denied then because its services were considered duplicative. Nothing has changed.

This year, ASM also found MEChA in violation of Board of Regent Policy Papers 15 and 37 for using seg-fee money to engage in student recruitment activities. The regents mandate that seg-fee dollars cannot be allocated for the purpose of recruiting students to apply for admission to the UW. The regents also mandate that if a disagreement in interpretation of policy papers arises, the chancellor and student government officials are directed to meet and attempt to resolve their disagreements. This has not happened.

Failure by the chancellor to work with students on any disagreement in interpreting regent policy will force a direct conflict at the summer Board of Regents meeting when seg fees are finalized for the upcoming year — a scenario not particularly beneficial for students or for Wiley.

To overturn the MEChA eligibility decision, which was made by SSFC and held up by Student Council, the chancellor must have overwhelming evidence that ASM violated “viewpoint-neutrality” as it is mandated by the United States Supreme Court decision in Southworth v. Board of Regents. Because of this ruling by the high court, seg fees as we know them remain legally viable.

During an appeal of the Southworth decision, UW’s seg-fee system was again found constitutional by federal courts but only under the condition that ASM bylaws are followed to the letter. The Chicago court of appeals issued its ruling under the assumption ASM bylaws would be properly applied—not ignored.

If Wiley is to consider a reversal of ASM’s “zero-fund” decision of MEChA, he should also examine the Student Judiciary decisions this year regarding the very same issue. If the MEChA zero-fund decision is to be reversed, the procedures followed by Student Judiciary as the MEChA case played out must also face scrutiny.

The abuses by Student Judiciary over the past semester are begging for a federal lawsuit if the chancellor does not step in to correct obvious errors in the application of bylaws and court orders — specifically viewpoint-neutrality.

When MEChA appealed its initial “zero-fund” eligibility decision to Student Judiciary, the current vice chair was not only serving in his post illegally, but he infused terms such as “malicious” and “non-malicious” viewpoint-neutrality in his decision — though they never previously existed. This hair-splitting redefinition of the U.S. Supreme Court’s key justification for maintaining seg fees by the whim of one student’s pen is worthy of much deeper scrutiny.

Chancellor Wiley is known and respected on campus for making careful decisions after a thorough review of the facts. He is, by all accounts, a “straight shooter” and a fair administrator. There is no question that Chancellor Wiley has a difficult job, and seg fees are only one of the hundreds of issues he has to deal with regularly. Hopefully, he will take the time to fully review the MEChA case and other issues Student Judiciary has dealt with this year. It will save the UW System money in the long run and would be consistent with what the courts expect from him.

Fighting the constitutionality of seg fees has probably cost the UW System hundreds of thousands of dollars; so it would seem in the university’s best interest to take a closer look at all the abuses and violations by our Student Judiciary in order to avoid more potential conflict. As students, we can only hope the chancellor will stop and consider why they were denied and the consequences of a reversal before rushing to overturn the decision ASM made.

Matt Modell (mmodell@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in journalism and political science.