H 77°, L 54° | Tomorrow: 
H 82°, L 64°When the Committee to Review Allocable Segregated Fee Policies was formed at the beginning of the year, we were encouraged to see a system so racked by inefficiency and legal battles get some much needed attention and possible reform. While the gravy train committee was formed out of the Board of Regents' desire to prevent segregated fees from funding off-campus rent — and much of the committee sought to codify this in the governing documents of segregated fees — we hoped the committee would look beyond this one item.
Last Tuesday, the committee finalized its recommendations for segregated fee policies, which will now be sent to the University of Wisconsin System President Kevin Reilly for approval. The revisions would prohibit the Student Services Finance Committee from funding off-campus rent and non-university employees with segregated fees.
While these changes may not be groundbreaking revisions to the segregated fee system, they at least solidify the notion that these funds are "segregated university funds," and therefore, should be used only for student-run services. Not only does funding non-university resources place UW on shaky legal ground, it begins to distort the true student service element of the segregated fee system.
While the committee certainly fulfilled its charge, the effort could have gone further.
Committee chair and UW Stevens Point Chancellor Linda Bunnell, according to a Badger Herald report, said, "While I don't think you'll see any substantial changes to the policy, some campuses came in with good suggestions and ideas but, in many cases, they were not really questions of the document."
Ms. Bunnell may explain away more detailed questions as being "beyond the scope" of the committee, but this was up to their discretion. The focus may have been off-campus rent, but there was room to explore related issues, which the committee failed to do. To their credit, students involved in the committee did bring up other issues, such as funding student lobbying efforts. The committee could have benefited from a further evaluation of these student concerns.
However, students' belief that these changes will severely limit their control over segregated fees is without merit. These modifications to policy are a step in the right direction toward reforming the segregated fee system. While students may feel their rights are being taken away, some controls are necessary to ensure that the system currently in place is legal and serves its initial purpose. For this reason, we stand behind the committee's decision.
IP hash: 8bab8a34
The committee is absolutely right. I don’t want to pay for off-campus rent because a group doesn’t want to meet at inopportune time. Fees here are already high enough.
IP hash: c47f2c95
aa ha ha!!! i predicted that your editorial staff would come out in support of these seg fee policy documents, even when your staff was writing articles in opposition to the committee.
are you guys just trying to stir-up controversy again?
i wish you’d just do some investigative work into the history of these policy revisions, and maybe take a look at shared gov violations. might give you something legitmate to write about.
luckily your editorial staff represents the obvious minority opinion on this issue…
IP hash: 741dd961
This is really terrible. The “legal troubles” the Herald discusses are really limited to only a small number of groups, but the new policy both affects a whole plethora of student groups and sets a precedent towards limiting student rights.
The basic fact of the matter is that those fees are paid for by students, and if students feel that the way seg fees are spent is so inefficient, then those policies should be changed. But the new seg fee policy isn’t a result of a student outcry, it’s the result of a legal memo from Pat Brady to Chancellor Wiley. And the reason some groups need off-campus rent isnt because they “meet at an inopportune time,” but because the University has 700+ student groups and two buildings to house them in. With the new SOO building that will change, perhaps, yet even so, it should be students making the decisions as to where that money will go.
IP hash: d7c28b08
This is ridiculous, the university has not provided ample office space to student organizations for years. Reilly should at the bare minimum table this until the new student organization center is finished, but really should scrap it altogether.
Last Thursday at the Office of the Dean of Students seg. fee hearing, Dean Lori Berquam said (after she had approved all the proposed policy changes) that these changes require clarity from the legal arguments that the changes are based off of. The next meeting UW system lawyer and advisor to the council Pat Brady admitted that there was no legal bearing to these changes, it was strictly a policy change. The dean’s office repeatedly looked to SSFC Chair Alex Gallagher to answer specific policy questions. The SSFC has worked to the benefit of students for 20 years, nothing has suddenly shifted that requires these policies changes. If this is an issue that still requires clarifying and students are the experts, therefore it is not fair to UW students to progress on this student unfriendly policy change that limits student organizations’ ability to provide service.
“Students’ belief that these changes will severely limit their control over segregated fee system.” Yes, the new system of running every contested item through the chancellor will be ultra efficient, especially since he’s so in touch with the needs of his students. Student orgs will thrive like never before.
Reilly’s office got over 400 phone calls last Thursday alone from students across the state opposing these policy changes. I would venture to guess it’s the most calls he’s ever received from students regarding any one issue in a single day. Indeed the BH editorial board is in the minority.
IP hash: a403a2c2
Maybe the Badger Herald should change its name to the Administration Herald because they’ve clearly taken the side of our administrators and pegged themselves against their fellow students. Students should be outraged that their student newspaper is in support of taking away student rights and weakening a great system such as ASM. Hey Badger Herald, not all of us can rely on advertisers to fund our work, student groups need to rely on their student government to fund them - like they’ve been doing pretty well for over 20 years.
You guys need to lay off.