OPINION & EDITORIAL
Nice try ASM, but enough is enough
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Jason Smathers:
- Obama, Clinton being schooled? (March 12, 2008)
- Dems political muscle atrophies (March 4, 2008)
- Voting far from 'absolute' injustice (February 26, 2008)
Related Stories:
- Lapidus best candidate for County Board (March 30, 2006)
- Direct election wrong for Board of Regents (February 20, 2006)
- ASM Chair reacts to election gone awry (March 31, 2006)
- Lapidus for County Board (March 30, 2006)
- Lapidus for Dane County Board (February 16, 2006)
by Jason Smathers
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
I couldn’t help but feel a bittersweet appreciation for the Associated Students of Madison this week.
After being so wrapped up in the April Fools’ election for Dane County Board, I almost missed ASM’s attempt to herald their own triumph of democracy. In preparation for the three-day online ASM elections, their part-time webmaster created something I’ve been wanting to see since fall 2006 — justification for the ASM candidates.
Ever since I cast my vote based on poorly photocopied pamphlets with an unexplained category of “slate,” I’ve been waiting — since my very first column for The Badger Herald — for ASM to take my plea for substantive campaign promises and reasoning seriously.
This time they offered a veritable bounty of electoral hors d’oeuvre and, with the occasional freshman candidate, comedic dessert. Despite bare-bones statements from some, the change could encourage students to vote for an ASM leader based on his or her determination for reform, something that has been completely obliterated from ASM’s lexicon.
Instead, the most inspiring message was also the most bleak. When asked in the ASM questionnaire what Student Council — the legislative and “central” body of ASM — actually does, Alex Gallagher, candidate and current chair of the Student Services Finance Committee, submitted a response that puts it as bluntly as possible:
“[F]rankly I cannot say exactly what it does. It’s hard to say ASM represents the students when fewer than 10 percent vote in elections and Council often loses quorum halfway through the meeting.”
Ouch.
To say that ASM has some flaws is like saying smallpox is just a few pimples. The proposals they’ve actually made can be lampooned at some length — the grocery store “hook issue” may have been the UW equivalent to Mayor Dave’s trolley system — and very few initiatives actually take hold. The Student Rights Campaign, though a noble effort to advocate for students, came too late to change the Segregated Fee Committee’s already solidified alterations. (Although those changes may have been a good thing for the system in the end.)
However, it’s more a question of what ASM hasn’t done: govern.
Which brings us back to Student Council. I challenge anyone on campus not connected to ASM or who is not a close friend of a representatives to list a single person serving on SC. The council does not exist to advocate on behalf of students, it exists to masquerade as representation. There has been almost no communication between SC and the student body — or this newspaper — and it rarely initiates any legislation itself. The one commendable measure was capping ASM’s internal budget to a 7.4 percent increase per year. However, that happened to be Mr. Gallagher’s SSFC carryover and not an act SC would have initiated without his influence.
Furthermore, their duties are suspect at best. There is a requirement for SC members to make at least one effort a year to lobby for lower tuition. If they do not accomplish this before April 1, it counts as an unexcused absence on their record. If the current tally of lobbying efforts on ASM’s website is correct — which requires quite the leap of faith — then every member of SC has some legislators to talk to.
The same goes for required town hall meetings; they’re supposed to inform their constituents of ASM’s activity at some point during the year, but only
one member of SC has done so, according to ASM’s requirement records.
By all indications, ASM has a major problem in its central leadership but even more so with its inherent structure.
And so it’s music to my ears to hear that candidate and current Shared Governance chair Jeffery Wright has his head on straight. Mr. Wright says he’ll work to reform SC by rewriting the bylaws to force SC to evaluate and approve all ASM campaigns and measures, try to reconfigure past campaigns — such as course evaluations — and generally have ASM hold themselves accountable to the student body.
This all sounds like an improvement. And I’d go a step further and say that perhaps a popularly elected figurehead president would be in order — one authoritative voice that can lobby City Council, the state Legislature and UW administration.
But then there’s another alternative. One that ASM probably wouldn’t like, but seems to eliminate some of the problems of our student government.
Scrap it.
Well, not completely. Basically, the skeleton of ASM would be finance and SSFC. Those committees, Student Judiciary and a greatly reduced SC would stay intact, but only to deal with the finances of segregated fees.
However, the remnants of Shared Governance could form as a special interest group — think of it as Capitol Neighborhoods Inc. for students. In that group, which would have open membership to the student body, the policies normally discussed in smaller committees and thrown under SC’s rubber stamp would be hammered out at these meetings, and the group would pass resolutions to lobby for issues as a whole — be it higher tuition, better labor standards or even beating CNI on the alcohol issue. If ASM is so concerned with having a “seat at the table,” maybe they should just bring their own table.
But notions of campus revolution went out with “The Student Government.” Maybe we don’t need another standoff like that, but if ASM is going to have any credibility in the future, it better change something.
Because this is certainly not government. And it hasn’t been for some time now.
Jason Smathers (jsmathers@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in journalism and history.
Anonymous (March 25, 2008 @ 7:13am):
Oh, wow. Only a 7.4 percent increase in their budget...how do they ever survive?
Anonymous (March 25, 2008 @ 8:36am):
On the plus side, at least we don't have the smug, self-important, law school-feeding "student legislatures" that other schools have. Just look at UWM, they're trying to charge newspapers with sedition.
Anonymous (March 25, 2008 @ 8:57am):
At least in high school I knew who my class President... ASM is a joke.
Anonymous (March 25, 2008 @ 8:58am):
No one cares, dude.
Anonymous (March 25, 2008 @ 9:16am):
Student Government is not dead. I just read about it in the Mendota Beacon the other day.
- Germain Q. Stemme
Anonymous (March 25, 2008 @ 9:20am):
When has this paper done any real reporting on the ASM elections? When was the last time any of the student newspapers sponsored a debate between candidates?
Representative government needs two types of participants, the candidates and the public that they represent. If the only people that actually fill a role in the election process are candidates and a tiny hand full of of electors who's fault is that?
If the public (students) don't participate in the process you get a governing body that represents only a small minority.
We should never allow the current governing body of any organization be the ones to promote the election of their replacements.
Would anyone reading this want the Bush administration facilitating the promotion of the up coming election. For those on the right would you want a Clinton administration facilitating the promotion of an election.
I think the answer to both those questions are no.
So, I ask that the student body and the campus newspapers step up and take responsibility for who gets elected to represent their interests.
Anonymous (March 25, 2008 @ 10:38am):
Well, the increase was greater then the inflationary rate to allow for some unique expenses ASM was facing this year. Namely, ASM is implementing a staff equity plan to ensure that ASM unclassified staff are being paid an appropriate amount when compared with other unclassified staff in hired by the Office of the Dean of Students who perform similar duties. This is rooted in a staff equity plan spearheaded by the Office of the Dean of Students and pursued by ASM. It was important for ASM to do this in order to ensure that they can hire more competitively and retain staff longer. Currently, ASM has fairly high turnover in their full-time staff. This means more resources devoted to hiring and lost productivity. This increase will hopefully enhance ASM's overall productivity and strengthen organizational continuity. Of the total $22,000 increase in the ASM budget, this accounted for about $16,000.
Without this cap or any effort on the part of Coordinating Council or Student Council to limit their own spending, the ASM budget could have increased by up to 18%. ASM engaged in lengthy conversations to prioritize parts of their budget and cut other parts which were less important.
In addition to the staff equity plan, Student Council decided to become members of the United States Student association, the largest national student organization in the country. This organization lobbies (surprisingly, to a certain degree of success) for increased financial aid and other federal higher education programs.
In order to make room for USSA in the budget, while still remaining under 7.4%, ASM leadership all voluntarily took $400 cuts in their already low stipends. This shows a very sincere dedication to students.
The 7.4% cap also represents the first step in the process of fostering a sense of fiscal awareness on the part of ASM. By no means would I argue that yearly increases of 7.4% are appropriate for any organization, but when coupled with other decreases in allocable seg fees this year, ASM has taken mean positive steps to enforce it own accountability to a seemingly apathetic student population.
Alex Gallagher
ahgallagher@wisc.edu
Anonymous (March 25, 2008 @ 11:48am):
best. editorial. ever.
Anonymous (March 25, 2008 @ 1:49pm):
Jason - aren't you a member of ASM Shared Gov? Yet, you can't seem to bother yourself with being part of the solution to a challenge plaguing an organization that YOU are part of. I suppose it IS easier to simply complain.
Anonymous (March 25, 2008 @ 4:16pm):
The USSA is a fraud and a disaster that cares more about decriminalizing marijuana than ensuring that students get a quality education.
Anonymous (March 25, 2008 @ 4:41pm):
The USSA is also a pet project of ASM Chair Gestina Sewell, so it is unlikely that she will let it go anywhere. After all, self-interests such as these are the reasons people run for student council!
Anonymous (March 25, 2008 @ 8:46pm):
The two comments about USSA are blatantly false. I would challenge anyone to provide real evidence to back them up.
Anonymous (March 26, 2008 @ 12:33am):
Why do we bother here? The BH is blatantly conservative, while, as we all know, ASM is liberal. The BH has never and will never accept the existence of ASM, and no matter what they do, as long as it's assumedly liberal, it will do everything it can to marginalize ASM.
Anonymous (March 26, 2008 @ 1:41am):
If by liberal, you mean do absolutely nothing, then, sure, they're "liberal."
Frankly, I would welcome a liberal student government, if they only had some power to push a policy.
Any policy, really. Just to prove they could do it.
Anonymous (March 26, 2008 @ 6:22pm):
Judge away. I have yet to see you do anything to change the situation around here. Oh wait, you write about it...that must count for...NOTHING.
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.
