Opinion: Letter
ASM structure worth keeping
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:
- College Dems show progress on UW campus (February 5, 2010)
- Securing affordable tuition with help from state legislature (February 2, 2010)
- Bargnes' bitter bashing barely bearable (January 26, 2010)
- 'Climategate' subject to errors, not false claims (January 22, 2010)
- Combatting prejudice requires comprehensive plan (December 9, 2009)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
Associated Students of Madison has not always been the lackluster organization we know today. A mere nine years ago, ASM was a dynamic organization that effectively championed student interests. With ASM by their sides, students barricaded themselves in the chancellor’s office for four consecutive days. Their efforts forced the University of Wisconsin to adopt a standard of manufacturing for UW products that is sweatshop free.
This occurred under the current ASM structure, which is set up to facilitate strong student organizing. However, in a few weeks, UW students will be voting on the implementation of a new ASM Constitution, which will detrimentally change that structure. It is important to remember the past success of ASM, while analyzing the outcomes of this new constitution. In light of this, we can understand what route of action will be most beneficial to students.
The ability for students to organize as they did in 2000 is compromised under the new constitution. Most problematic is the concentration of power into an executive branch which will be charged with executing ASM’s grassroots campaigns. However, this new department of ASM will contain only two elected positions — a president and vice president. According to §1(c) of Article 5, the rest of the executive branch, including a cabinet and executive staff, will “serve at the pleasure of the president” (§5(d)). Giggles aside, what this clause does is put the effectiveness of ASM into the hands of one individual.
Under the current ASM structure, the 33-member council votes on and participates in ASM’s campaigns through a variety of grassroots committees. This ensures that ASM can organize students in a manner that accurately reflects the desires of the student body. By contrast, the proposed presidential system leaves the power to run campaigns in the hands of one individual who may or may not choose to act on the direction of the senate. As anyone who has ever worked on a grassroots campaign knows, you cannot force someone to run an effective campaign they are not passionate about his/herself. Given the extremely diverse range of issues students care about, it is impossible to assume that whoever gets elected to this position will be able to work on every one with enthusiasm.
The problems with the executive branch do not end there. One of the most disturbing powers lavished upon the president is the veto power found in §3(h). In particular, the president will have the ability to veto organizations’ proposed segregated fee budgets. This will further complicate an already arduous seg fee process, and make it even harder to ensure that seg fees are allocated in a viewpoint-neutral manner. In addition, the veto power will apply to legislation, further increasing the risk that a rogue president could thwart the majority will of students. For reference, to override a veto, the proposed system of checks and balances requires a 2/3 vote of the senate.
By reflecting on past ASM achievements and its current inadequacies, we know its structure has been effective and could easily be effective again. What we then hope for is change, but not a change of bureaucracy.
The people we have elected have failed us, not the system to which they were elected.
What ASM is currently lacking is the ability to organize and unite students. We do not need a larger, top-down structure to do this, rather people to spearhead student-desired movements to change this campus for the better. What we need are community organizers, not a president.
Kelly O’Neil and Jessi Indresano are members of Student Progressive Dane.
8 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Top Classified Ads (view all)
Place your classified ad online and have it show up here. Your ad will hit thousands of viewers a day!
DON'T READ ME! Too late. If you're reading this, guess how many other people are reading it. See... advertising in The Badger Herald does work!
IP hash: 250fdc93
“In particular, the president will have the ability to veto organizations’ proposed segregated fee budgets. This will further complicate an already arduous seg fee process, and make it even harder to ensure that seg fees are allocated in a viewpoint-neutral manner.”
I will constrain my initial comments to only this one of many fallacies presented within this letter. O’Neil, Indresano and the anti-constitutionalists on campus fail to understand that the President in the new structure cannot truly veto any budget. In fact, the new constitution provides a protection that requires a Conference Committee of Appropriations, Executive members and Senators to convene and compromise on any contentious budget issue. This process actually greater ensures that funding decisions are made in a viewpoint neutral manner.
Additionally, whether one person, five people or 100 people are making a seg fee allocation decision concerning a budget for a GSSF organization, viewpoint neutrality must be maintained. This is federal law & an individual/the university could be brought into federal court in the event of a violation. Thus, the President cannot violate viewpoint neutrality just as a current SSFC member cannot and just as a new Appropriations committee member cannot.
Actually, in regard to allocation of segregated fees for student services provided to all students on campus, the new constitution safeguards this process better than the current structure.
Student Services Finance Committee Chair Kurt Gosselin
IP hash: e6fed8b5
A budget veto seems to be only a minor aspect of the “anti-constitutionalists” argument. That being said, the fear seems to be more that such a power would create more red tape and increase the time it takes to get stuff done. Basically, it undercuts the idea that this constitution is making ASM more efficient.
IP hash: 0b92be7b
Re: Kurt
“Actually, in regard to allocation of segregated fees for student services provided to all students on campus, the new constitution safeguards this process better than the current structure.”
Right. I suppose that’s why most GSSF groups are either officially or unofficially opposed to the new Constitution.
And I certainly hope that by signing your name as “SSFC Chair” you don’t mean to give the impression that the committee has a position on this issue. You wouldn’t want to conflate your role on the SSFC with other “non-SSFC related activism,” now would you?
Student Services Finance Committee Secretary Kyle Szarzynski
IP hash: 4b7380f0
haven’t taken a position on this issue yet, but I agree that kurt’s focus on the veto is effectively burrying the majority of the anti-constitutionalists argument. The stronger point seems to be that the new constitution blocks the grassroots powers which have supported asms past victories(cite: victories listed on asms website). On the other hand, they have a long way to go to show that there is a constitution-alternative to holding asm reps accountible
IP hash: f658993a
If the fear that the new constitution will make things less efficient, then obviously you are not familiar with the current structure. To get an idea of how this would increase efficiency, check out this blog post by Brittany Wiegand: http://asmchair.wordpress.com/2009/01/31/thank-you-erik-p/
IP hash: c04a30eb
1787 US Government: Federalists v. Anti-Federalists 2009 UW Student Government: Constitutionalists v. Anti-Constitutionalists
IP hash: 2ae8a9f9
I just don’t understand why a STUDENT government has to concentrate so much power in an executive body?
IP hash: 250fdc93
Szarzynski raises an interesting point. The point raised is why would I sign my position as SSFC Chair on my post. The answer to said point is simple. By the nature of chairing the Student Services Finance Committee, I had a legislatively-appointed role in drafting the constitution as a member of the constitution committee. In this role on the committee and as a member of ASM leadership, I have a responsibility to my constituencies on this campus to ensure that accurate information about the proposed structure is presented. This article is inaccurate, perhaps intentionally false - however, I will refrain from presuming the motives of the individuals authoring the article - and as the official spokesperson on segregated fee matters for the student government, I feel that I am duty-bound to provide a response containing the appropriate information.
Student Services Finance Committee Chair Kurt Gosselin