Opinion
Misunderstanding surrounds CFACT’s funding request
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Letters to the Editor:
- Clegg absurd, biased on CFACT (May 5, 2009)
- Fund peer tutors (April 28, 2009)
- UW policy consistent with nation (April 23, 2009)
- Biddy's initiative not worth it (April 20, 2009)
- A plan for better advising (April 20, 2009)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) is a student organization that promotes free-market capitalism, sound science and personal responsibility as solutions to environmental and consumer challenges.
A significant part of CFACT-Madison is our intern program. We have 54 interns this semester, most receiving three course credits for their internship.
CFACT-Madison is funded only through the Student Services Finance Committee and receives no outside funding.
Nov. 17, 2005, CFACT was minimum-funded. Committee members gave "lack of detail in the funding application" as the reason. However, the application turned in was complete.
Of the $385,921.00 requested by CFACT, $130,000 was exclusively for speaker honorarium. This included six speaking events throughout the academic year: two large speaker events (well-known speakers with significant name recognition), two medium speaker events (talented speakers well-known in their field) and two debates (between experts on issues pertaining to CFACT).
Another significant chunk of the proposed budget is for salaries: $160,000 for five full-time staff. We did not request funding for any student staff because we have found that course-credit and non-monetary incentives work significantly better. However, with an intern program predicted to have over one hundred interns each semester, significant full-time guidance is needed. The positions asked for were a campus organizer, intern program director, regional coordinator—IT director, and two researcher—advocacy positions.
A section of the budget with less detail was the funding for intern-led events. Each semester CFACT runs at least six campaigns. Students decide on the campaigns at the end of the previous semester. Therefore, we do not know what the campaigns will be when we are presenting the budget. Also, CFACT does not simply plan specific intern events and assign interns to complete them. We help students to create their own project under the umbrella of their specific campaign. While we make every attempt to have events as cheaply as possible, they do cost money. In the budget was $10,000 to fund intern projects and events (approximately 200 in total). Since this number includes site rental, printing, paper, event props, and many other materials, $10,000 was an extremely low estimate. All of this was thoroughly discussed in the budget presentation.
CFACT is suing five SSFC committee members for malicious viewpoint neutrality violations. Among them is Lorenzo Edwards. Speaking only once in debate, Edwards stated that he had unanswered questions regarding the budget since he had not attended CFACT's presentation. He said it was the duty of those members who were at the presentation to come forward with evidence in favor of not minimum-funding CFACT. He said that those members should object and state their reasoning. Then, in direct contradiction to his previously expressed motives, Edwards voted to stifle debate.
There have been many misconceptions and some blatant lies regarding CFACT's budget.
If you have any questions or concerns, I ask you to contact me.
Lindsey Ourada (ourada@cfactcampus.org) is a senior majoring in psychology and intern program director for CFACT.
8 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Brother Ali makes an ‘Exclusive’ stop
Muckrakers
Report: Barrett to make decision by the end of the week
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
Too bad the case against Mr. Edwards was dismissed because he didn't do anything wrong.
Too bad they won't win any of their cases against Schulz, Sanders or Knox, and they are wasting everybody's time trying
Yeah, screw CFACT. Conservatives shouldn't get money anyways.
Looks like CFACT had time to write an editorial but didn't have time to attend the preliminary hearing.
Maybe you could've made a speech like this a few weeks ago as opposed to wasting our time at the meeting. You didn't get funded because your presentation was uninformative, unprepared, and completely unorganized. Try a little harder next year.
-SSFC
CFACT isn't even conservative. It's just stupid and greedy.
I read this letter to the editor and also the two articles in the Nov. 29 BH. Until I read this letter by Lindsey Ourada, though, I didn't have much of an opinion. Now I definitely believe the SSFC was correct in minimum funding the organization.
While the information available on the UW student organization site supports the idea that CFACT has similar goals to WISPIRG, Ourada's letter suggests that this isn't true. The UW site says "CFACT is a national network of local student activists working together in the spirit of fellowship for constructive use and stewardship of our land and environment," while "WISPIRG is a student directed advocate for consumer rights, environmental protection, and hunger and homelessness issues. WISPIRG seeks to empower students to make meaningful change on the issues they care about." But Ourada, an apologist for CFACT, points out that "Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) is a student organization that promotes free-market capitalism, sound science and personal responsibility as solutions to environmental and consumer challenges."
The problem I see with the real mission is that free-market capitalism simply doesn't work to protect either the environment or consumers. Free-market capitalism is about making a buck any way you can, no holds barred. What free-market capitalist will put the environment or a customer above making a profit?
Of course, I'm for "sound science," but I suspect that this term is a euphemism for "We need another 100 years to find out if damage is for sure occurring."
Relying on "personal responsibility" as a solution to environmental or consumer "challenges" seems like the ultimate cop-out. I, too, believe that people should care about the environment and should do the right thing to protect it. People should also research what is good for themselves as consumers - whether over-the-counter remedies are effective and safe, for example. BUT, and that's a big BUT, don't most of us just do the easy thing unless we have a little help to do the right thing? That's one reason we have government and laws, to provide an institutional way to protect the resources we all ultimately rely on, to insist on accurate labeling, and so on.
While the Student Services Finance Committee may have decided on minimum funding of CFACT for other reasons that those I've mentioned, I believe they were right to refuse to allocate the requested $385,921. I just don't see how this organization would have been any help for the environment or to consumers! In fact, when I read the goals provided by Ms. Ourade, CFACT sounds more like a front for manufacturers and landowners than an environmental and consumer protection organization.
While CFACT did get shafted by the SSFC and peoples personal bias', the truth is that their budget had many holes in it, their misson statement is vauge and confusing and the actual good they do for students and the campus is not woth $385,000. It's not even worth the $5,000 they got. I would have gave them $50 and told them to go buy some self respect.