Opinion
New constitution worth the chance
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Casey Skeens:
- New budget may endanger future volunteers (April 15, 2009)
- RTA neccessary step for Wisconsin (April 1, 2009)
- Double majoring useful in job hunt (March 10, 2009)
- Grade entitlement threatens college (February 25, 2009)
- New constitution worth the chance (February 10, 2009)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
If you are like most students at the
Few students would argue the point that ASM needs to change and get more involved with students on campus, despite the rigidly polarized stances of the Vote Yes and Vote No coalitions. The Vote Yes initiative for the new constitution claims reform is an important priority and the Vote No initiative does not disagree. Vote No is not trying to block reform efforts in ASM; it merely takes an issue with how the current reform is being considered.
According to the website advocating the new ASM constitution, the three primary roles of ASM are supporting student interests, making appointments to committees and distributing funding. The last point is a major concern for those opposed to the new constitution because they fear a powerful executive branch could redistribute funding to organizations it sees as valuable. Organizations concerned of cut funding include the Campus Women’s Center, Sex Out Loud, Student Tenant Union, Campus Antiwar Network and several others. The other major concern of those opposed to the ASM constitution is that the significant increase in executive power with little legislative oversight could be a major threat to student interests and potentially disastrous if mishandled.
Currently, the ASM consists of a council of 33 members who attempt to address student interests through grassroots campaign committees. This method ends up being inefficient because the complex range of student interests makes it difficult to take any action at all. The new ASM constitution would allow the executive branch to veto any budgets or bylaws, and it would require a three-quarters vote from the senate to override the veto. There would also be an executive order power that though it is considered an emergency provision, would give the president total power over ASM until the senate votes to repeal this authority. Since the ASM constitution is based upon the
However, it is clear ASM, as an organization, is not a functioning, well-oiled machine. Allowing the executive branch to make appointments and guide ASM in a particular direction would provide an opportunity to make the organization work more efficiently in the future. Although there would be potential for corruption, particularly regarding distribution of funding, it does not necessarily mean such corruption will take place. If the Vote No faction agrees reform is necessarily but suspects future corruption, perhaps a better course of action would be to keep a close eye on bureaucratic decisions and to nominate representatives to run as future candidates.
Both Vote Yes and Vote No advocates agree something needs to be done about ASM — it needs to be reformed. As always in American government, both sides have become incredibly polarized and increasingly hostile toward one another. While each camp has valid points, increasing executive power would allow ASM to play a larger role in student life by making it easier to enact legislation. It would also establish more authority and guidance within ASM and so would increase accountability on every level, forcing each individual to work toward a common goal. Despite their binary disagreement, both sides of the constitution issue believe ASM has stagnated and needs to revitalize its relationship with the student population.
After seeing the passionate involvement from both Democrats and Republicans on campus that took place during the recent national election, it is obvious
Casey Skeens (skeens@wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in French.
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
“The new ASM constitution would allow the executive branch to veto any budgets or bylaws, and it would require a three-quarters vote from the senate to override the veto.”
The new Constitution specifies a particular process that actually protects funding decisions by the SSFC/Appropriations Committee to GSSF Organizations. This protection is in the form of Conference Committee, in which an equal number of representatives from each branch reconcile their differences to reach a compromise. It is very plainly spelled out in Article IX, Section 3. In fact, this same section FORBIDS any legislation or executive order to tamper with the budget process.
Very clearly, more homework needs to be done when making overarching statements about the Constitution. The new Constitution undoubtedly provides significantly more protection to organizations receiving funding than the current constitution.
Kurt—why are you the only person who seems to understand the new constitution? How much buy-in can there possibly be if you’re the only ASM member who ever talks about it?
How about spending some time actually working on issues (tuition, financial aid, the $ being wasted on Union South, etc)? Seems to me you’re just making a position for yourself.
Kurt, In your consistently dishonest defenses of the Constitution, you regularly invoke the Conference Committee as a protection of funding for student groups. What you neglect to mention is that this Committee would almost certainly be comprised of a majority presidential appointees. In this sense, the Conference Committee, by providing a much-needed democratic facade on this process, is likely worse for student groups than just a plain veto from the executive.
I would also reiterate that almost half of the groups receiving GSSF funding for next year have officially endorsed the Vote No campaign, while a few others are unofficial endorsers. They know that the current process is hardly flawless, but that, at its core, it is a democratic process worth defending. They are likely better able to discern their interests than yourself, Mr. Chair.