H 74°, L 50° | Tomorrow: 
H 76°, L 56°
The following are the facts.
Associated Students of Madison’s Student Council established a Constitutional Committee during the end of the last academic year. This committee was charged with revising the ASM constitution and creating a strong executive position. The composition of this committee included no active members of large student organizations and lacked diversity in almost every important respect.
Not surprisingly, a concerned group of students, including many of their representative organizations, formed a coalition dedicated to creating a more inclusive, democratic process by which the new constitution was constructed. Their concerns with the new document were three-fold: Funding for student organizations would become jeopardized, the new executive would centralize power in the most undemocratic and dangerous way, and the grassroots power of ASM would be significantly undermined.
These concerns were brought both directly to committee meetings as well as the final two Student Council meetings last semester at which the finalized document was approved for referendum. By the admission of the committee itself via its blog, no fundamental changes were made to address the objections of the coalition. Those students who did voice their concerns during the Student Council Open Forum — theoretically a venue where students can speak freely about their student government — were treated with dismissal, scorn and little else. (Admittedly, this last bit is more of a subjective, rather than purely factual, account of the events).
As a result of both the undemocratic process by which the constitution was constructed, as well as the gaping flaws within the document itself, the coalition concerned with ASM “reform” morphed into a coalition to defeat the new constitution in next week’s referendum.
While those who first raised objections to the “reform” efforts originated from the usual ideological quarters, the Vote No Coalition has since expanded into an objectively diverse and committed movement of students dedicated to remaking ASM in a way that actually uplifts the student community. Currently, the coalition includes such groups as the Teaching Assistants Association, Promoting Awareness and Victim Empowerment, Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow, Campus Women’s Center, Student Labor Action Coalition, Sex Out Loud, MEChA, Student Progressive Dane, Working-Class Student Union and several others. These organizations are more aware than anyone else of the potentially detrimental impact the proposed structure could have on campus social, cultural and political life.
By comparison, I am not aware of a single campus organization which has committed organizing resources to the Vote Yes faction.
Much has been and will be written about the details of the constitution, including by this writer, on these pages and elsewhere, so I won’t dwell on the nuances of the Vote No coalition’s objections. Suffice it to say that it opposes a dictatorial executive and supports a healthy garden of campus organizations, nourished by a student government unabashedly embedded in the grassroots. More information can be found at www.takebackasm.blogspot.com.
The coalition’s essential contention is that ASM’s structure is not what currently ails the organization. Recent history tells us that our student government was actually responsible for achieving a tuition freeze in 1999 and won a major victory against the university’s complicity in sweatshop labor in 2000. These victories were achieved by mobilizing large numbers of students, a strategy that relies on the activist-friendly structure of the current ASM — and precisely what the revisions intend to destroy.
Though the Constitutional Committee will tell you otherwise, our student government will not be a more effective advocate for students by modeling itself — in supremely pretentious style — after the U.S. constitution. What they fail to recognize is that the powerless Student Council will continue to be ineffectual if it goes on making pathetic attempts at governance; it will only mean anything to students if it acts as an aggressive advocate for their interests and the issues about which they care — this means activism.
What currently ails ASM is not its structure, but the people who occupy it. It is nearly impossible to imagine the current leadership of ASM leading walkouts and demonstrations as their predecessors once did so successfully. For this reason, the coalition is proposing a constructive alternative to the Committee’s version of “reform:” It will be running a progressive slate of candidates during the April elections intent on restoring grassroots energy to our student government. Only by connecting ASM to the broader community of campus activists will true reform ever be achieved.
The alternative is the new constitution, a document which even ASM Chair Brittany Weigand, in an editorial last semester, stated will only result in “more bureaucracy.” If a top-down, authoritarian structure is what you want as the culmination of ASM “reform,” then voting “Yes” makes the most sense. But if you want a democratic, activist-based advocacy group to qualify as your student government instead, voting ‘no’ is only the first step in making this vision a reality.
Kyle Szarzynski ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in Spanish and history.
IP hash: 98979971
I have been around since before ASM was created. Going back to a presidential system is a bad, bad, idea. It always leads to bullying, corruption and cronyism.
The current system is diffused, making it almost impossible for a bloc to take power long enough to corrupt the system. It may not accomplish things quickly but think of it this way:
both systems flourish with ethical, hard-working people in place.
Only one of them (the one we have now) can survive unethical, lazy or just plan incompetent people…
IP hash: e18430b5
“By comparison, I am not aware of a single campus organization which has committed organizing resources to the Vote Yes faction.”
The College Democrats and WISPIRG did.
IP hash: e3d15476
If all the hippies and the TAA are voting no, I’m definitely voting yes. With 42,000 students, we actually need a functional republican form of government instead of an unwieldy direct democracy in which only people without jobs or classes (the hippies) show up to protest everything.
IP hash: 3e61251b
Wait, so the new ASM constitution is going to protect our segfees from being used at will by small orgs like the ones you are active in?
I’m suppose to feel bad for you?
Your a communist that needs capitalist funds, you fail so hard its amazing
The fact is if a litmus test of “Does this org benefit the student body?” was done most of these orgs would not pass
So you and Chynna and the rest of the vote no groups can waste your own money and leave the rest of us alone
IP hash: df6b95c6
Kyle forgets that there were more space on the Constitutional Committee for non-ASM members than for ASM members. The positions were publicized and no one applied. This is the story about so many of ASM’s reforms. No one cares until they feel their funding might be in jeopardy. It is this very reason why the vote-no side is so ridicules. They had abundant opportunities to get involved from the beginning and did not take them. No after all this work has been completed, they are mad.
What I really do not get is why the vote-no side wants to return to the ASM of 1999-2000. They cite that during this time ASM barricaded themselves in the chancellor’s office, fought for better licensing laws, received a tuition freeze. Besides the fact that ASM’s role in these events is being over played, is that really a role we want to return to? Sure ASM was advocating, but the funding of organizations was a shit show. The GSSF was nearly destroyed by the supreme court. Groups would have their own members elected to SSFC to beef up their budgets. The entire process was corrupt and undemocratic. Additionally, we could not get people appointed to shared governance committees.
Kyle may argue that activism and responsible management of seg fees and shared governance are not mutually exclusive. I would say they are. The reason we could not build a good SSFC, was because it was viewed as a partisan hack show. Same thing with shared governance. Does any one remember the cronyism of Patrick McCloud?
Secondly, Kyle argues that funding might be in jeopardy. If any current ASM members are thinking abolishing funding for student organizations, they are idiots. An astute observer would know that seg fee funding represents the nexus of ASM’s power. ASM is able to provide for significant services and activism through funding. Then ASM is able to worry about the bureaucratic work, while student organizations can barricade themselves in Biddy’s office.
And the new constitution has provided extraordinary steps to protect organizations. They have decreased the discretion of the senate, and now president, to change the budgets. Additionally, through the bylaws, groups now get a six month notification of changes. Currently, bylaws could be changes in 48 hours. This is a pretty huge set of protections, and I bet they were added because ASM knows where its power lies.
In conclusion. This new constitution is very good for student organizations and it finally helps ASM get its priorities straight.
IP hash: 82808046
It’s simple: if you vote with the moron who wrote this editorial, you must be high.
IP hash: bda0b094
4:07, You are incorrect. WISPIRG has not taken a stand on the Constitution (though some of its members are involved in the Vote No effort), while the College Dems have only endorsed the Constitution (they have not “committed organizing resources,” as all the members of the Vote No Coalition have done).
IP hash: 1bedc024
Two things about Kyle that show he is not the unbiased writer this editorial makes him out to be:
1) He is the Vice Chair of the SSFC.
2) He is a leader in the Vote No group to defeat the Constitution.
Maybe the Herald should be more forthright about who their writers really are.
IP hash: c11b69ce
@1:05: If they did that, they’d need to reveal their own biases. Notice how everything in op/ed today is “vote yes” except this? That’s 4:1 against.
IP hash: df6b95c6
@2:08- The paper is not required to go out and look for idiots who are against the constitution. They had 1 person from the vote no camp, 1 from the vote yes (Erik) and 2 op-eds and an ed board piece which were independently crafted. Just because they all came up with the same conclusion just shows the significant support for this document.
IP hash: 1bedc024
@2:08, A few opinion writers in the Herald taking a pro-Constitution position = “significant support?” Are you kidding me? The other side has the support of most major student orgs. I think that is real support
IP hash: 02152fc8
@4:15 ahahahahahahahahahahaha
what percentage of the 45000 students are on students orgs?
what percentage of students read the herald?
with a 2 day web vote and people like you to drive votes to yes don’t count on it being only the campus elite
IP hash: 7df66c3c
@4:15: You underestimate the potential of the media. Come Monday, both sides are going to be screaming to vote but really, how many voters will have enough information to make an informed decision? There’s not enough student interest in ASM for many to take the time to properly read up—who cares about an entity that doesn’t do anything, and especially doesn’t do anything for YOU?—so they’ll log on to the voting site, think about yes or no, remember headlines of “Vote Yes” and “Necessary Reform” and plunk it. “Sure, why not?”
IP hash: 2996aece
There are sooooo many student orgs that aren’t part of Kyle’s hippie vote no coalition. Every engineering major has a student org and groups like Hoofers or even this paper. His list might include a lot of the GSSF groups, but it only makes up a small minority of the total number of student groups on campus.