UW administrators squelch students on segregated fees

by Jason Smathers

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 00:00

A breath of fresh air.

That's what I thought of the Board of Regents decision to create the Segregated Fee Review Committee. These yearly fights, lawsuits and increasingly dense legal terms would all be reconciled in a solid, concerted effort on both sides to reform this fractured system of funding. What would result would be an efficient, legal and responsible system.

OK, stop laughing, I'm obviously kidding. Efficiency in bureaucratic administration? Perhaps, if you've dropped enough acid to think they've already rebuilt Union South.

We all know this committee was going to be another pothole on the road to nowhere, but I was pretty sure it'd be the students with their hand on the wheel. Instead, it's becoming obvious that it's administration that doesn't know when to stop and ask for directions.

The committee was established after the Board of Regents decided segregated fees couldn't fund off-campus rent. They were charged with the task of building of the merger of two incredibly vague documents outlining segregated fee usage.

So what's gone wrong? First off, it's not exactly balanced. The committee is supposedly comprised of 10 members: five campus administrators and five students from the entire UW system. However, students were surprised to find three administration additions, including Associate Dean of Students Kevin Helmkamp. When student spectators also asked for a spot at the table, they were denied, citing that those administrators asked to speak were "experts" on the subject. That's good, seeing as no one else seemed to know what was going on.

Nothing was really done at the meeting. Basically, UW administrators spent three hours discussing how other student governments run their segregated fee systems and an hour deciding what to discuss next meeting.

While the "discussion" that carried on allowed very little student input, it did open a few eyes. For instance, the committee began by discussing the subject of eligibility for student funding. Now, while it was obvious from the systems discussed that Madison's three-tiered system was the most complicated, the student government representative from UW-Washington County shocked the room when explaining their funding criteria: They fund any student group except political and religious organizations.

I nearly expected a spit-take from everyone else at the table. Apparently, they had no knowledge of viewpoint neutrality. Yet, it begs the question of why administrators had no knowledge of this. Nobody complained, appealed or at least wrote a letter expressing their disagreement? Perhaps UW-Washington County gets ignored on occasion, but how could such a blatant violation of viewpoint neutrality, something we've debated at this campus for years, simply continue as student government policy while administrators don't blink an eye?

It's because these administrators are also uninformed about the system. A similar problem occurred when talking about the switch of UW-Madison's Child Care Tuition Assistance Program from allocable to non-allocable fees. While administrators feebly tried to explain the move, SSFC chair Alex Gallagher clarified — it's not a childcare program with facilities; it's a tuition grant. UW-Madison Dean of Students Lori Berquam then announced to the committee that they are "technically violating policy right now." Despite her concerns, the violation was not elaborated, and the committee said they'd discuss violations "at another point."

With segregated fees causing yearly headaches for UW officials and students, you'd think they would have come prepared with information about the process. However, committee chair and Stevens Point Chancellor Linda Bunnell was not only confused about the process of segregated fees at other schools, she deferred to the judgment of UW-Stevens Point student government for an evaluation of segregated fee protocol.

There may have been few students in attendance, but the ones who witnessed this casual dismissal of their needs were appalled. Adam Porton, a member of ASM's Student Rights Committee, cited Ms. Bunnell's confusion with regards the charge of the committee. "She seemed to feel that the only purpose of the committee was to review one or two issues that had come up this past summer, even though Regent Bradley had specifically charged the committee to build off the merger document."

Certainly, during the meeting, Ms. Bunnell's guidance seemed limited to either discouraging questions not listed on their pre-formed "round robin" syllabus or repeating that the committee's charge is to establish a "minimum" procedure across the system. A minimum of what — restrictions, allowances, framework? Unfortunately, this was never specified, and attempts by Mr. Gallagher to pin her down resulted in a nearly robotic repeat of the "charge of this committee."

I may have scoffed at the Associated Students of Madison before when they said shared governance is under the knife, but this meeting may have sealed the coffin on this apparently novel idea of student management of their own funds. With the next — and possibly last meeting taking place in the middle of student schedules — Monday, Oct. 15 at noon — the idea of student participation in the debate is an absolute farce.

Perhaps administrators will get their way, and they'll reform the way allocable segregated fees are distributed. However, with those most informed about how the system really works — namely, students applying for and ruling on funding decisions — effectively pushed off the table, it doesn't seem likely.

Jason Smathers (jsmathers@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in history and journalism.