OPINION & EDITORIAL
Don’t kill ASM, just cut it in two
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Alex Gallagher:
- SSFC makes 'significant' progress in post-Southworth framework (October 1, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Gallagher or not, reform possible (May 4, 2008)
- WisPIRG fails to protect students (October 21, 2002)
- Opt-out system worth a second look (March 6, 2003)
- Corruption in statehouse rampant (January 31, 2006)
- Vote "yes" on "opt-out" referendum (April 7, 2003)
Share This:
by Alex Gallagher
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
The Associated Students of Madison cannot reform. At least it cannot reform without a new conceptualization of its role on campus. Fifteen years ago, when students created ASM out of the ashes of the Wisconsin Student Association, they premised the structure of their new student government on WISPIRG. This organizational style promotes the cultivation of power through organizing and activism. It comes from a culture in which groups without institutionalized power advocate for change.
This structure has been the root of significant friction. ASM has been given two hats to wear. On one hand, ASM has institutionalized power: appointing students to dozens of university committees and allocating millions of dollars of segregated fees. On the other hand, this same group of students is running campaigns for grocery stores. I firmly believe each of these functions has retarded the progress of the other.
If ASM is simply to be a campaign organization, then it seems reasonable to run an internship program. In this case, it makes sense to allocate significant amounts of time to large kickoffs each semester. This is an organization that can prioritize inclusiveness. If you want to get involved, you can join a campaign and run with it. Essentially, ASM would be another WISPIRG.
If ASM is to be a real student government, then the focus has to change to student services and institutionalized participation. This structure does not allow mass participation. To get here, ASM needs to become a little more authoritarian. In a system in which ASM focuses on providing services and representation to students, we do not have the liberty to spend a semester discussing whether it is more important to discuss long-term or short-term goals.
If ASM is to become legitimate, it must drop one of these functions. ASM must either strip down to an organization with a $100,000 budget and a couple interns, or it must give up the idea that it is a grassroots organization.
ASM may implement all the reforms recently outlined and not make any significant progress. Even if it adopts a presidential system, the grassroots strains in ASM will ensure the president is not granted enough power to make the position meaningful. ASM would be left with a poor figurehead who would be accountable for a system he or she has not control over.
It comes down to this: I want a divorce. My reason: irreconcilable differences. If we want to see any functional government, let’s have two. Let’s separate the functions of ASM. One group will allocate segregated fees, appoint students to shared governance committees and manage the Student Activities Center. Then the other group can run campaigns and work with the United States Student Association . These groups will have nothing to do with each other. Then we can stop pretending our student government is a grassroots organization.
This will allow each organization to sink or float on its own terms. Additionally, a little competition for student participation will provide incentives for outreach to the broader student body.
I hope this can be an amicable separation. For years, grassroots committees complained about the bad press gained by the Student Services Finance Committee. Now that SSFC is doing better, they are worrying about how the rest of ASM reflects on their progress. Either way, it seems both sides could benefit by going their separate ways.
I know it may be difficult at first. ASM will have to put the separation on a ballot for a referendum (and change the status on Facebook). But in the end, it is what is best for both parties.
ASM has reached the bottom of the bucket. But look on the bright side — this is a good time for a change.
Alex Gallagher (ahgallagher@wisc.edu) is the former chair of SSFC. He resigned from ASM last week.
Anonymous (May 7, 2008 @ 4:47am):
Jeff Wright already said ASM was dropping hook issues and limiting grandiose, unattainable campaigns next year. Why wasn't this included in the article?
Anonymous (May 7, 2008 @ 7:15am):
Alex,
Welcome to the arm chair quarterback club. It's just too bad you gave up your position where you could put your words into action. Now you're just another one of the ASM bashers that plague ASM.
Hypocrite.
Anonymous (May 7, 2008 @ 10:26am):
Too bad you let your ego get in the way of continuing to serve your fellow students.
Anonymous (May 7, 2008 @ 12:21pm):
So if ASM does break up like you suggest, how will the grassroots, campaign-running half be any different from WISPIRG?
Anonymous (May 7, 2008 @ 1:26pm):
...and the angered, huddled ASM non masses respond with derision. I'll be the one to say it: This is a great vision for ASM.
But, man, Alex. Why'd you resign?
Chynna Haas (May 7, 2008 @ 4:24pm):
Excellent piece and brilliant idea, Alex!
I strongly agree that ASM needs to be reformed and this certainly seems like a tangible way to do so. Students need to take back their student government to make start working for them again. I say this as a former ASM employee, a person who works for an org that receives SSFC funding, president of another org that receives an Operations Grant, and who is a member of the Shared Gov Committee (via a position on LLPC).
I think we need to get call for reform this on the ballot as a referendum for the fall! By splitting ASM we can allow it to be an efficient and effective organization that can better serve the UW-Madison student body.
Anonymous (May 7, 2008 @ 5:38pm):
THANK YOU MEMBER GALLAGHER!
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Don't listen to what these nimrods say about you resigning. I think it was an honorable move. Students elect representives to sit on student council. This is the SAME student council who decides that they don't want your leadership or internalize any of your ideas for reform while you served for the 15th session. The way I see it... you would have been combating their elected officials all year. AND NOW THEY WANT TO COMPLAIN CUZ YOU WONT BE THERE TO GIVE IT TO THEM?
Its going to be a tough lesson learned after this year. I checked out the names. And all I can do is laugh.
ASM lost every ounce of my respect when they decided it was okay to criticize itself in the newspaper.
And now?!? They are calling you a hypocrit because you left?
Anonymous (May 7, 2008 @ 5:40pm):
split the shit.
so academic affairs can work on their book swap. and our student government can work on greater issues of shared governance.
Anonymous (May 7, 2008 @ 11:51pm):
Does ASM have an official stance on today's alleged SigEp poop scandal?
Anonymous (May 9, 2008 @ 12:16am):
This is a fantastic idea...it also would have been much better to achieve if you were more focused on actually affecting change than simply getting your name in the press. Why don't you take a leaf out of Jeff Wright's book and actually try to stick around and make strides instead of staging overdramatic resignations that serve only you. If you're really concerned about acting in the students best interests than why don't you actually shut your mouth and do just that - act. no one likes a saber rattler. But there is some good news, i hear the drama department is holding auditions - you should consider going.
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.
