How about providing us with a link to a page with a copy of the proposed constitution so we can read it and judge for ourselves?

“second, that the president can arbitrarily slash student organization budgets at their whim.”

Epic straw man. The concern is that the president has the power to disrupt an org’s ability to go through the budget process smoothly. There’s the veto power, and this sends the budget to a committee (largely of people appointed by the same president who vetoed).

The proposed change would add MORE red tape in order to fix a system that doesn’t get anything done - that’s inane. While this red tape persists, the ability of the org to maintain day-to-day operations is compromised as staff is forced to divide time. Working through the budget proposal, hearing, and decision process for a single takes scores(hundreds?) of man-hours for everyone involved, especially concentrated in the hearing and decision. Org members can spend 40-50 man-hours a week on their end of a budget hearing/decision, and there’s still the time spent by committee members themselves: 8-10 members, two meetings a week, 5h/meeting = 80-100 man-hours NOT INCLUDING time spent by individual SSFC members reviewing budget proposals which, combined, require a REAM of paper without even trying.

Amplifying a slow process by adding a slower process doesn’t make anything more efficient. VOTE NO

As usual, the Editorial Board’s endorsement of any initiative on campus is the clearest sign that it’s really just a load of crap.

“[The new president] is hardly the recipe for a Stalin or Mussolini.”

True, which is likely why no one on the Vote No side has ever made this claim. While it is very likely that the new president will likely end up being more subservient to the university administration than the student body, even the ideal presidential figure would be bad for student democracy. Following the usual conservative approach, the Constitutional Committee has decided that centralizing power is the answer to ASM’s current woes. This explains their (and your) criticism of the current “bottom-up allocation of responsibility” (the horror of grassroots democracy!) and the creation of a powerful executive.

Yes, the new president could do great damage with his monumental power. An even more important concern, however, is the dysfunction that such an undemocratic system would have on grassroots efforts. Anyone who has ever been involved in any sort of activism (certainly no one who participated in writing this piece) knows that a sustained movement can only operate democratically, not from orders from on high. The energy for change has to come from the members of the effort, not an all-powerful leader.

ASM’s current structure has been responsible for comparatively great achievements, from tuition freezes to responsible labor practices to socially responsible investing. That is a matter of historical fact, no matter how much you choose to ignore it. A presidential system would destroy the grassroots component of ASM that has enabled such victories, which is why so many ASMers from ASM’s heyday are opposed to the proposed changes.

Once again, what currently ails ASM is not its structure, but the people who occupy it.

“The constitution allows the president to “veto” an organization’s budget in total.”

Yes, which will then only slow down the process for all groups, instead of just the targeted one. That sounds much better.

There is nothing that prevents the president from vetoing an entire budget because it doesn’t like one group that gets funding. It is also much easier for a single president to violate Viewpoint Neutrality (there is no stipulation that he has to even justify his veto) than an entire committee (SSFC) which has to justify its actions in more ways than one.

“The president’s “veto,” in these circumstances, simply directs a conference committee to review the budget and made a final decision.”

Yes, but the Conference Committee will almost certainly be controlled by presidential appointees. Is that supposed to make GSSF groups feel better?

“It is quietly hilarious to watch Vote No Coalition — a scrappy assortment of socialist and antiwar organizations — make accusations of ASM identical to those leveled at George W. Bush until very recently.”

Right. I’ll let readers decide if the below groups which comprise the coalition fit your description.

Campus Women’s Center Student Progressive Dane Working-Class Student Union Student Tenant Union Justice for Palestine Student Labor Action Coalition International Socialist Organization Campus Antiwar Network MEChA Action for Environmental Justice Sex Out Loud Teaching Assistants’ Association (TAA) PAVE (Promoting Awareness, Victim Empowerment) Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT)

On the other hand, what groups are actual grassroots participants in the Vote Yes effort? I am not aware of a single one. Maybe student organizations know what is in their best interest.

Kyle Szarzynski szarzynski@wisc.edu

Kyle, “Once again, what currently ails ASM is not its structure, but the people who occupy it.”

hahahahahahaha!!

If only more people like Kyle Szarzynski ran ASM. Except, Kyle cannot make a viewpoint neutral decision on SSFC. The only group’s eligibility he voted no for was CFACT… Wonder why?

If more people like Kyle were running ASM, the GSSF would be abolished. I promise if a bunch of Kyles ran SSFC for two years, the entire system would be done for. So please Kyle, who is protecting student organizations?

In response to the first comment, this is a link to the new ASM Constitution blog where everything on the constitution can be found. http://asmconstitution.wordpress.com/

PDF of the ASM constitution final draft can be found here: http://asmconstitution.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/asm-draft-constitution-final.pdf

It’s possible for a bad system to do productive things when run by good people. The question should really be, are ASM’s (extremely few) accomplishments because of the system or in spite of it?

Don’t call the prposed constitution “reform”…moving AWAY from grassroots government is not an improvement! Centralizing power takes away student’s ability to have direct voice in government.

This new proposal will not solve the problem in ASM, which is lack of involvement. This is a problem which we are experencing on all levels of government city, state, federal. The solution will come from students actually taking advantage of ASM government structure and using it to make much needed changes on campus. Similarly, solving our national problems such as endless wars, corporate welfare, and the attack on civil liberties (spying, patriot act, extraordinary rendition) requires a greater citizen engagement and voice in government. What if we had a national referendum on the war instaed of allowing our corporate controlled Congress to decide? Keep ASM grassroots, and let’s do the hard work of making student participation a priority!

Some changes I’d like to see on campus are: better quality food served on campus, less emphasis on tests, more emphasis on interactive learning, more value given to participation in student orgs, lowered tuition (which could be paid for by ending the wars in the Middle East)

Kyle’s vote on the SSFC regarding CFACT was upheld TWICE and UNANIMOUSLY by the Student Judiciary, and for some odd reason, CFACT is apart of the same Vote No Coalition that he is. Weird!

Just because Kyle was cleared by SJ doesn’t mean that he was not being maliciously partisan. Everyone knows that SJ is the biggest joke in ASM. And if Kyle and Chynna were able to scare CFACT into believing that this new constitution will take away their seg fees, then I can see why they would be on the vote no side.

Something to note: SSFC’s decision to deny CFACT eligibility was unanimous.

2:42- I am not saying their decision was the wrong one. I was saying that Kyle voted for many groups who clearly did not meet the criteria, but who he personally agreed with, but voted no on CFACT. That is how he got away with it. If Kyle was to be viewpoint neutral he had to vote yes on CFACT, since he ignored the criteria for every other group. He treated CFACT differently. Classic VPN violation.

SJ a joke? it has always been more moderate than the rest of ASM. If anything they SHOULD have voted against Kyle. Don’t try to attack them because they sided with the guy you hate twice, and Kurt even spoke in his defense!

Kyle violated vpn on many of his decisions this year. Just because Shawn & Kurt were able to put together a better case than CFACT, doesnt mean the decision was vpn. Of course kyle showed no evidence in the meetings, but it is clear that he funds/defunds groups based on a personal political agenda.

Come on, we all know the constitution will be passed. If it goes down, ASM will find a way to invalidate the results, making us vote again, and again, and again, until they finally get what they want.

Hurray for online voting.

As I’ve learned during my time at UW, people tend to resort to personal slander when they have no arguments. Pretty much everything that has said above regarding CFACT is inaccurate.

The decision to deny CFACT eligibilty was unanimous and was probably one of the least controversial decisions made by the SSFC this year. The group didn’t turn in their paperwork on time and had nothing resembling a direct service as defined by ASM bylaws. In this sense, voting to affirm their eligibility would have been a direct violation of our own standards and would have qualified as a definitional violation of viewpoint neutrality. If I was so intent on denying CFACT eligibility, I could have just voted for their eligibility (a real vpn violation) and the denial would have stood regardless since everyone else voted against them.

Only a tiny component of CFACT’s lawsuit against the SSFC was related to a vpn violation on my part, their only justification for it being that I am a “leftist” who writes for the Badger Herald. The entire accusation was laughable and frivolous, and frankly, I think that CFACT members realized this very quickly, which likely explains why they never made this a focus of their case against the SSFC. Unsurprisingly, the entire lawsuit was dismissed - twice.

Further, CFACT is not the only group’s eligibility I voted against. Voting records of all committee members can be obtained by filing an open records request with Secretary Tyler Junger at tjunger@wisc.edu.

I hope this clears up the confusion.

SSFC Vice Chair Kyle Szarzynski szarzynski@wisc.edu

Let’s think about this for a minute: Why would we put all kinds of power in the hands of one person? For example, under the new constitution, as it is my understanding, the president could wield veto power over groups funded by seg fees. So if say, Sex Out Loud were to rub someone the wrong way because of its mission to inform students about sex and sexuality, the president could veto the entire budget and render the organization unfunded. Is anyone else seeing this as being problematic? I’m sorry, but I don’t want someone who’s elected by less than 1/10 of the student body having that kind of power.

If ASM wants some reform, they should pass an amendment requiring weighty decisions such as this to be passed by AT LEAST 10% of the student body. Oh, and while they’re at it, if an amendment fails twice, it should die and not be put up for vote time after time after time until its passed. That’s not progress, that’s throwing a temper tantrum.

As it stands, ASM is not representative of students, it is representative of what seem to be a group of power-hungry students with too much time on their hands.

Kyle, you’re helping me with those open records requests.