OPINION & EDITORIAL
Full Disclosure
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Badger Herald Editorial Board:
- A security fee-for-all (December 11, 2007)
- Farewell, Chancellor (December 10, 2007)
- $$FC (December 6, 2007)
- In a bind (December 5, 2007)
- Entitlement Town (December 4, 2007)
Related Stories:
- SSFC: We dig you ... Really, we do (September 16, 2002)
- Zero-sum game (November 29, 2005)
- Fool me once... (November 21, 2006)
- SSFC in need of new voice (April 6, 2005)
- Ticket to ride (December 6, 2005)
by Badger Herald Editorial Board
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Last week, the Student Services Finance Committee approved three prominent (and somewhat controversial) groups for segregated fee funding for the 2006-07 school year. The groups included the MultiCultural Student Coalition, Child Care Tuition Assistance Program and Sex Out Loud.
SSFC representative Brad Vogel, who was not able to attend the meeting due to another commitment, found it perplexing the meeting was held rescheduled without thorough notice.
"I find it interesting that there would be a Sunday meeting for some of the more controversial diversity groups," Vogel told The Badger Herald. "I though it was interesting that it would be held on the one day it would be most difficult for students to attend."
At a minimum, we believe the SSFC demonstrated poor judgment by holding the meeting on such short notice on a day not usually reserved for SSFC activity. This action raises questions as to the true intentions of this fee distribution body when setting the meeting date.
For an organization that prides itself on student participation to make important financial decisions regarding segregated fees, we find it baffling the committee did not choose a day that would yield the highest attendance given the significance of the decisions made.
Followed by the MCSC, the Child Care Tuition Assistance Program receives the most seg fee money of any student group. Together, the two groups comprise almost one-third of all funding allocated to student organizations by the SSFC this year. Given the considerable amount of money being allocated to such groups, we feel it was even more important to ensure the largest attendance by SSFC representatives.
While the committee determined last week the seg fee eligibility of the aforementioned groups, we hope in the future the SSFC will allow greater participation in the fee distribution process by giving ample notice before making such decisions. It's just common sense.
Charles Parsons did not participate in the crafting of this editorial.
Anonymous (September 29, 2005 @ 2:33am):
the people on SSFC were told during their retreat that there would be a meeting on a Sunday, and when asked who would be attending, they had enough people to hold a meeting so went forward with the plans. The badgerherald needs to stop their whiney behavior towards SSFC. Don't forget their are 3 seats that remain open on the committee, and hopefully 2 of those up for elections in a few weeks will go to the canidates that actually care about the committee and the future of seg fees, and not in their own personal political interest to manipulate the system (i.e., the robin hood slate who does not want to see groups that don't share their conservative ideology receive funding)
Anonymous (September 29, 2005 @ 6:37am):
ASM still a joke...shocker
Anonymous (September 29, 2005 @ 8:45am):
Why didn't Charles participate? Does he work for one of the groups?
Rocco Rapaldi (September 29, 2005 @ 9:34am):
I read yesterday that SSFC approved a huge travel budget for MCSC. So was it their budget that was approved or their eligibility? I am confused.
Rocco
Anonymous (September 29, 2005 @ 2:13pm):
LOL @ the fear of conservatives
Anonymous (September 29, 2005 @ 11:54pm):
no budgets have been approved yet.
Anonymous (September 30, 2005 @ 1:03am):
SSFC definitely did not approve a huge travel budget for MCSC. This is what MCSC submitted in their budget but we are a number of weeks before we look at their budget. As a member of the committee I will address these clearly absurd grants and vote against funding excess.
Adressing the first post, keep bashing the Robin Hood Slate, the one slate who really only wants a smart small student government. Whether you disagree with their philosophy, they aren't pandering to conservative groups because there really aren't very many. Why spend 8-10 hours a week fighting for one or two groups?
Anonymous (September 30, 2005 @ 12:45pm):
That's a great point. The Robinhood Slate really doesn't have any money to gain from this whole process, except what they would get back individually in lower seg. fees like any other student. CFACT seems to be non-existent, and that was the only arguably conservative group that received funding. And they really weren't/aren't conservative anyway. Just greedy.
It's an oxymoron: no group that is truly conservative would take funds from student fees.
Anonymous (September 30, 2005 @ 4:59pm):
I'm in the middle, neither left nor right. If the right wants to bitch and not do anything like join the council they need to shut up. Secondly if the positions had been reversed the left would be crying foul just as loudly.
Anonymous (October 1, 2005 @ 6:59pm):
The right is doing something, though. Robinhood Slate got one of its members elected chair of Student Council. And they have a number of people on SSFC. So, no, they don't need to shut up. You do. There's nothing in the middle of the road except some yellow lines and a dead armadillo.
Anonymous (October 2, 2005 @ 10:41pm):
the badgerherald really needs to stop quoting Brad Vogel, using his statement here is a clear misrepresentation of the truth, like post #1 says the Council knew of the Sunday meeting ahead of time, whether or not members actaully remembered is another story. The Editorial Board clearl did not do their research here and are spreading blatent lies.
P.S. Using the quotes straight from the Mendota Beacon is not good journalism at all but more like plagarism.
