The Badger Herald: Opinion: Initiative, homeless night offer ASM direction

Opinion

Initiative, homeless night offer ASM direction

Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.

Also by Dan Rose:

Mayor Ryan's mistakes could be costly (September 29, 2009)
Introducing ignition device creates winning OWI plan (September 20, 2009)
Minimum markup law vital for preventing monopolies (September 7, 2009)
Wisconsin gun control in sore need of reform (June 5, 2009)
Initiative, homeless night offer ASM direction (April 16, 2009)

By Dan Rose
Thursday, April 16, 2009 10:04 p.m.

3 Vote 0 Votes

I had the pleasure of sitting down for an intensive group discussion with some members of the Associated Students of Madison Wednesday night, as well as other student organizations about ASM’s current and future presence at Madison.

Vice Chair Hannah Karns opened the meeting with a relatively bland statement regarding the goals of the meeting and concluded by stating, “It is a common misconception that ASM is just a funding stream for student orgs.”

Unfortunately, throughout the course of the meeting, Karns proved to be unable to explain to any of the people within our small group why ASM is anything more than a funding stream. At one point she managed to explain, “Campus safety is a big issue, in fact I think it is always an issue.”

These types of statements are exactly what is wrong with ASM. Karns chooses to take a spineless approach and focus on a broad and abstract issue. Obviously campus safety is an issue, and because of its importance, the process should be lead by a group with actual student input. Also, the general nature of her statement only further illuminates that ASM has not actually achieved anything in regard to “campus safety.”

On the other hand, Karns seems to be truly passionate about finding a way to fix “homeless night” (the time between the end of the students’ last leases and the beginning of their new ones). She has recently been in contact with various organizations, including CNI, to try to fix the problem.

Overall though, these efforts seem personally representative of Karns, not of ASM. “Homeless night” is a very real and relevant issue, and as Karns pointed out during the meeting, it has never been truly addressed in Madison. Yet, why not try to seek greater involvement and support within your own organization? There are a billion other committees within the poorly organized hierarchy of ASM. Rather than Karns personally taking on the entire issue herself, she needs to encourage ASM to act as an organization.

Outreach to the student body was a consistent issue brought up by other student organizations present at the meeting. Members of Wisconsin Student Public Interest and Research Group and Student Services Finance Committee are required by their groups’ rules to reach out to at least 51 percent of the campus throughout the course of the year, though members from both groups were able to conveniently leave out how exactly this outreach is measured.

Yet, it wasn’t altogether surprising ASM has no such laws within its organization. It would simply make too much sense for a group that represents and makes decisions on behalf of the students to be required to reach out to the student body.

The most relevant part of the meeting was by far the one-on-one time I had with Chair Brittany Wiegand, as she was the most open-minded and realistic member I encountered that night.

Wiegand pointed out that very few students actually realize the huge role ASM is playing in the currently highly controversial Madison Initiative for Undergraduates. Wiegand stated, “Currently ASM only has a partial endorsement of the Undergrad Initiative. If we were to decide not to endorse the plan, then the Initiative would most likely not pass.”

It is absolutely shocking that ASM, a group most of the student body doesn’t care about, is one of the major factors in deciding whether this initiative will pass or not.

Should a group that can barely be said to represent the student body be allowed such powerful influence on an initiative that will have such a massive effect on the university’s future? ASM has already sent out a survey to about 19,000 students, of which only about 2,000 responded. Wiegand claims another will be sent out shortly to the entire student body. If you feel strongly about this initiative, fill out the surveys. Moreover, bombard and barrage ASM with e-mails and phone calls relating your opinions; force these people to actually represent you.

Overall, I feel that despite the inherent flaws of ASM, the lack of communication between the student body and the student government is a problem caused by both parties. ASM seems to be willing to take a step forward in reaching out to the student body, but without a response, their efforts will be in vain, which will only continue to allow people who are disconnected from the student body make decisions on their behalf.

Dan Rose (drose2@wisc.edu) is a freshman majoring in journalism and pre-medicine.

3 Comments | Leave a comment

Anonymous | April 17, 2009 12:31 AM | Reply
IP hash: f21c802b

“Moreover, bombard and barrage ASM with e-mails and phone calls relating your opinions; force these people to actually represent you”

Done that. They didn’t respond.

Tyler Junger | April 17, 2009 2:26 AM | Reply
IP hash: 4e900e8c

By Tyler Junger, SSFC Secretary:

WARNING: What follows is a cursory explanation of a very complicated funding model. The workings of segregated fee funding are complicated and this description shouldn’t be taken as gospel.

Rose states that the Wisconsin Public Interest Research Group (WISPIRG) and the Student Services Finance Committee (SSFC) have to reach out to 51% of the campus through the course of the year.

First, WISPIRG and the SSFC play different roles in the funding process. The SSFC is a committee in the student government (ASM) which allocates student segregated fees to student groups on campus. The money that the SSFC distributes comes out of what’s called the General Student Services Fund (GSSF). If a group receives money from the GSSF, its budget is comprehensive; it includes programming, supplies, advertising, honoraria/speaker fees, and student staff wages.

WISPIRG, in this example, is a group receiving GSSF funding. WISPIRG and the SSFC are on different levels of the funding process.

Needless to say, some of the GSSF budgets can be large. In the past, groups have received over $1 million from the GSSF. Because of the dollar amounts dealt with, and to retain viewpoint neutrality in accordance with Board of Regents v. Southworth (a US Supreme Court case from 2000 involving a UW student and ASM), groups have to meet a high standard to qualify for GSSF status.

These standards are outlined in the ASM Bylaws and are known as the Eligibility Criteria. There are 19 criteria to meet, and if a group fails to meet one individual criterion, they cannot receive GSSF funds. These criteria range from the mundane (turning forms in on time) to the most densely cerebral, the “Direct Service” requirement.

Groups receiving GSSF funds (the “WISPIRGs,” in this scenario) must provide to the students of the university a “specific and identifiable direct service.” A direct service must be available upon request, must be available year-round, must be tailorable to the needs of students, and must be available to all students regardless of participation in the group. A few examples of direct services include GUTS’s tutoring programs, MEChA’s Muralismo program, and the Working Class Student Union’s peer counseling programs.

Here’s the tricky part. A group’s direct services must be the PRIMARY focus of the group. In these criteria, primary means 50%+1. Focus essentially means “time.” This is time in preparing, publicizing, coordinating, and implementing a particular program.

And this is the second point where Mr. Rose’s examination is incorrect; a group is not required to provide a service to 50%+1 percent of campus every year. It is required to spend 50%+1 of its TIME working on programs which are AIMED AT REACHING ALL STUDENTS. The definition of “aims at reaching” is not given in the ASM bylaws. Some committee members have taken it to mean “advertised to,” while some prefer to use a “reasonable person” system, in which they ask whether a reasonable person could be expected to want or need the service provided.

I apologize that Mr. Rose wasn’t able to get a clear answer at the meeting on Wednesday. Finding a clear answer is damn near impossible. Because of my experience on the SSFC, it’s hard for me to take a step back and remember what it was like not to know how the process works, but I hope this explanation illuminated the process a little bit.

If there are ANY questions about the GSSF process, the SSFC, or other funding matters, please feel free to contact me at tjunger@wisc.edu.

Tyler