Opinion: Letter
SSFC stipend appropriate
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:
I am writing in response to the recent editorial ("$$FC," Dec. 6) that denounced the $20 per meeting stipend for Student Services Finance Committee members as a "wasteful" allocation of segregated fees. Until recently I sat on that committee and want to address several concerns regarding the stipend.
To clarify, Brittany Wiegand did not reintroduce the stipend; I did. On the original vote I abstained because I was concerned it would appear to be inappropriate for SSFC to approve its own stipends. I reintroduced it at a reduced level for the following reasons:
The overriding goal of the stipend is to attract and retain qualified and diverse committee members. I believe this has been a problem for SSFC. At the time of my application, seven of 16 seats were unfilled. Another member has subsequently resigned.
SSFC is no small time commitment. SSFC members must meet twice a week in meetings that often run to midnight. Further, not having a stipend discriminates against students with limited finances. To offset rising tuition and book costs, many students must work part-time concurrent to their class commitments. Without a stipend, a student in this financial situation would have little time left to give for a student-faculty committee such as SSFC.
Finally, it is inaccurate and offensive to claim SSFC members are voting to line their own pockets with these stipends. I reintroduced the funding with the understanding that I would not see a single cent. Additionally, members voted on the issue with an understanding that ASM bylaws prohibit representatives from receiving pay raises for which they voted. The entire committee was advised that these bylaws likely applied to the creation of this stipend.
To ensure the sustainability of the segregated fee system, it is imperative that qualified and committed students sit on SSFC. To attract qualified candidates, a stipend is necessary.
Jordan Lippert
UW senior, economics
jlippert@wisc.edu
3 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
weak.
Just because no one wants to put up with the headaches from SSFC meetings does not mean the people that do put up with them deserve to be paid. And just because you pay people doesn't mean you will attract better people. If anything you will simply attract useless people just looking to get some money.
You decide to run for SSFC. Deal with it.
I have conducted research on the compensation that student governments reward officers and members at 1,500 institutions nationwide (the Student Government Salary Survey sponsored by the American Student Government Association). I have been conducting this research since 1997. There is NO evidence that anyone runs for a position because of pay, anywhere.