The Badger Herald

OPINION & EDITORIAL

Inefficiency torments SSFC

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Jason Smathers:

Your Christmas gift: Lighten up! (December 13, 2007)
America in dire need of education on gender identity (December 7, 2007)
Getting off or going down: Is porn destructive? (December 5, 2007)
Catholic group deserves funding, at least for now (November 28, 2007)

by Jason Smathers

Wednesday, May 9, 2007

This year's pointless segregated-fee debate is finally over. The train for next year's pointless segregated fee debate will arrive shortly.

The UW Roman Catholic Foundation settled with the university in exchange for funding to the tune of $253,000. There are outstanding issues, but there is a threat that hasn't been addressed.

The biggest threat to SSFC success is SSFC. All because of a little thing called viewpoint neutrality.

The way ASM doles out segregated fees was dictated by a court case called University of Wisconsin Board of Regents v. Scott Southworth in 2001. It upheld the segregated fee system as long as fees were distributed in a "viewpoint-neutral manner." ASM retooled its entire student government. Viewpoint neutrality was reinforced by the Student Judiciary, which is meant to deal with violations.

Six years later, we're repeating the same mistakes, every year.

As defined by the Supreme Court decision that started all this, viewpoint neutrality is defined as treating "minority views … with the same respect as majority views."

This means an organization providing a benefit to campus should receive the same chance as others, regardless of how many people use it. They can justify amounts large or small to accomplish a mission, be it large or small.

SSFC has trouble figuring out what that justification is; you can't exactly blame them. Although the criteria for funding eligibility are pretty black and white, approving a budget is far more subjective. One of the biggest problems is this criterion:

"An eligible organization/program has demonstrated the request for funds is reasonable within the objectives it has set."

How exactly does one consider it "reasonable" to fund 12 part-time student positions and a bunch of desktop computers? Through whatever goal a group sets for itself? If the group is the only one providing a specific service in this capacity — as that is a requirement for eligibility — then how do you gauge what those objectives require accomplishing?

Viewpoint neutrality isn't working. If you set criteria so vague that it is left up to a wide spectrum of interpretation, members will create more specific criteria in their heads.

The SSFC needs to get with the program and write more specific criteria. Otherwise, you'll have a lot more student judiciary cases reversing "phantom criteria" decisions, only to have it go back to members still applying these imaginary standards.

Let me provide some suggestions for next year's SSFC, so that we don't suffer another case of déjà vu.

First off, there needs to be a different process for placing people on the board. As much as I would love to believe people come on the board for the purpose of fiscal responsibility, I know differently. People find their way to that committee because they've seen certain organizations get stepped on and they want to make things right.

Trying to "make things right" is what got us in trouble in the first place! It's not neutral. There is no place for moral conundrums on SSFC. The process for appointment on that committee should resemble jury selection. Does the candidate have strong ties to a specific segregated fee-funded group? He is out. We can't have anyone on this committee who came here for anything less than the entire student body.

Second, there should be one member of the committee who simply checks facts. He should pour over statements made by committee members and sit there with an air horn to stop proceedings if a member oversteps his bounds. Student Judiciary provides this, but too far after the fact. Once it happens, tension increases and proceedings are on a road to nowhere. Stop ineffective and biased dialogue the second it leaves someone's mouth.

Third, and most importantly, realize that unequal funding can still be viewpoint neutral. UWRCF is only being funded around a quarter of its budget. Could it apply for 100 percent support? Yes. Should it? No! Even UWRCF knows that. Plus, where would that extra $600,000 come from, and who else would be locked out of the public forum? These questions need to be answered.

Despite my frustration, I do have faith in SSFC. All you have to do is provide railing for segregated fee funding.

It might be coming. Yesterday, ASM sent an e-mail asking for applications for the posts of Student Services Finance Committee Legal Council and GSSF Accountability Liaison. The position would promote dialogue, viewpoint neutrality and hold student groups accountable for their part-time positions.

Accountability. Can you make it happen, SSFC? Let's hope so.

Jason Smathers (jsmathers@wisc.edu) is a junior majoring in history and journalism.

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (May 9, 2007 @ 8:56am):

Why aren't the people that complain the loudest about SSFC on the committee?

Anonymous (May 9, 2007 @ 11:57am):

Because they're in the press, silly ;)

Anonymous (May 9, 2007 @ 1:12pm):

We can't change the rules for SSFC, do you want some groups to not get funding or even worse have groups budgets cut!? Besides isn't it great that ASM has no limits to what they can spend.
- Germain E. Stemme

Add a comment

We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.