OPINION & EDITORIAL
The ‘Gravy Train’ unfairly railed on
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Kyle Szarzynski:
- John Edwards may prove best option (December 4, 2007)
- America, stop kneeling at altar of religious insanity (November 27, 2007)
- Critics ignore Kumar's progressive strides (November 26, 2007)
- Islam no defense for extremist action (November 20, 2007)
Related Stories:
- SSFC stipend appropriate (December 11, 2007)
- SSFC: We dig you ... Really, we do (September 16, 2002)
- Mo' money, mo' problems (September 28, 2006)
- Full Disclosure (September 29, 2005)
- Trimming the fat (January 30, 2006)
by Kyle Szarzynski
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Defending the Associated Students of Madison, or more specifically, the Student Services Finance Committee at University of Wisconsin, is almost as scandalous as cheering for the Dallas Cowboys in Wisconsin. Impenetrable bylaws, interminable controversies and inopportune tuition increases have all made the SSFC a tasty piece of meat for its ravenous critics — particularly The Badger Herald Editorial Board. The reputation of UW's student government is almost enough to make one forget the body exists to serve the interests of the student population.
Adam Porton, a current member of the SSFC, is a vociferous defender of not only the organization to which he belongs, but also student self-determination and progressive government in general. In his opinion, the anti-SSFC hysteria that has swarmed many quarters of the UW community has less to do with the critics' principle criticism — fiscal irresponsibility — than their politics, which usually betrays at least a tinge of economic libertarianism.
As Mr. Porton explains, SSFC is really the opposite of what its critics make it out to be; it's actually rather stingy. Allocable fees — 12 percent of segregated fees and the only portion over which the SSFC has real control — are sweated over in twice weekly meetings that rarely end before midnight. This money, also called the General Student Services Fund, requires groups to "present their entire budget," which is examined in every trivial detail to ensure that every dollar requested is necessary for the group to function. Receipts must be presented to prove that money was not misspent.
The austerity of this process is perhaps best proven empirically: Most GSSF applicants were denied this semester. Mr. Porton probably didn't exaggerate when he said, "The GSSF involves the most scrutinized budgets at the university."
Non-GSSF funding, relevant for groups that need money for specific occasions, deals with the Finance Committee — another branch of ASM that the SSFC, among its other duties, is responsible for overseeing. Here, too, applicants must undergo a rigorous process. According to Mr. Porton, even money for food at group events (always highly coveted by students) has been "mostly cut off, except when that food serves a specific cultural purpose."
Mr. Porton may seem to indulge in self-congratulations, but the facts do speak for themselves: The GSSF's budget for next year will be about $600,000 less. And anyone who has ever lobbied for funding before the SSFC knows what a stingy process it is. So, why all the complaining?
As Mr. Porton attests, the anti-SSFC stench, emanating most putridly from The Badger Herald Editorial Page, is largely the result of "willful ignorance." It is quite easy to smear a complicated bureaucracy (remember Hillarycare?), especially when that bureaucracy operates on public cash.
Perhaps the most egregious example of this campaign of misinformation (intentional or otherwise) occurred last week, when the Editorial Board slammed the SSFC for voting to pay its members a weekly stipend. A couple of things they didn't mention: the stipend was designed to improve the quality of student government by decreasing turnover (an unpaid 15 hours every week is a lot by anyone's estimation) and it won't take effect until next year, when most current SSFC members will have retired.
Mr. Porton's view of the campus media, perhaps surprisingly, is not a pessimistic one. He hopes for a more productive relationship in the future, one based on mutual understanding and real, genuine dialogue. This is unlikely to occur, however, if student journalists continue to hide behind the claim of fiscal laziness in their criticism, especially when their real desire is to see an abolition of the entire segregated fee system. This prevents constructive engagement and the dissemination of unfiltered information about our student government.
Good fiscal conservatives would best serve their cause by looking in the direction of the chancellor's office. The vast majority of segregated fee money — 78 percent to be exact — is controlled by the chancellor and the university administration. This money, called non-allocable fees, allows SSFC only an advisory role. Non-allocable fees, or "the real 'gravy train,'" as Mr. Porton put it, are never subject to the same type of scrutiny by the campus press, even though they lend themselves to considerably less student oversight and involve a lot more money. Moreover, it is the non-allocable fees that have increased on this year's tuition bill, rising $126.
SSFC is the only tool students have to control their own finances, and its jurisdiction is not particularly large. Rather than aimlessly attacking student government whenever the chance arises, it might be more fruitful to show support on occasion, especially when confronted with a monolithic corporate university. The chancellor's veto of off-campus rent, and the arbitrary restrictions included in the new system policy document, should have outraged all those concerned with student empowerment. This battle, not the first of its kind and certainly not the last, demonstrates the need for vigorous student representation.
"The system isn't perfect, but we're always trying to make it better," said Mr. Porton.
I think we can all agree on this, though I wish everyone's criticisms were made with the ideal of a lively, progressive student democracy in mind.
Kyle Szarzynski (kszarzynski@badgerherald.com) is a junior majoring in Spanish and history.
Anonymous (December 11, 2007 @ 1:58am):
As a member of a GSSF group I can verify the claim that these are "the most scrutinized budgets at the university." Anyone who calls this fund a "gravy train" clearly has never been to a budget hearing or decision.
Anonymous (December 11, 2007 @ 6:04am):
Other student organizations don't pay their members. In fact, many charge dues.
I don't want progressive student government. I want responsible student government.
Anonymous (December 11, 2007 @ 10:07am):
Every year, I always hope that the Editorial Board at the Herald gathers the awareness to realize that most of the "outrageous excesses" of the seg fee budgets are pushed through by the Chancellor's Office rather than by the "incompetent & irresponsible" members of SSFC. SSFC takes all the heat, while the administration gets what they want without a drop of criticism.
Kudos to Mr.Szarsynski for pointing this out. I hope his wisdom does not fall on deaf ears.
Anonymous (December 11, 2007 @ 10:43am):
As a UW employee who occasionally deals with SSFC, I am glad to see that they are going to receive a stipend. They really work hard and receive a lot of criticism. Most of the harshest criticism comes from those who do not how the student fee system works.
Anonymous (December 11, 2007 @ 3:49pm):
Wow! It's about time someone acknowledged the excellent job done by the SSFC. They are truly some of the most dedicated, hard-working and informed students I've ever met. They really struggle over every decision they make, and do their absolute best to uphold the bylaws and remain view-point neutral. I trust them whole-heartedly with my segregated fee money. Any group they grant funding for earns it. Way to go Kyle for recognizing this.
Anonymous (December 11, 2007 @ 6:00pm):
This is different for you Kyle. Something fairly agreeable. Don't expect too many comments, as this is far too agreeable for our tastes. Well written.
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.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
