The Campus Women’s Center petitioned the Associated Students of Madison’s Student Judiciary Wednesday against the Student Services Finance Committee, appealing for a rehearing of their funding eligibility.
According to CWC Programming Coordinator Tina Trevi?o-Murphy, SSFC’s decision to deny CWC’s eligibility was based off misinterpretation and misinformation of its direct services and as a result, led to an invalid ruling. The results of SJ’s decision will be released by Nov. 4.
“The eligibility and direct service issues were not made by an informed committee. The appeal did not result in reconsideration,” Trevi?o-Murphy said. “SSFC failed to follow its own procedures.”
CWC spelled out two bases for appeals in the complaint and petition relief form they submitted to SJ.
CWC’s eligibility hearing was held Sept. 17, at which point SSFC committee members expressed their confusion regarding direct service estimate breakdowns.
According to the appeal, CWC went back after the eligibility hearing and broke down their numbers further during a lobby meeting with Rep. Carl Fergus to provide further clarification for SSFC.
In this meeting, two programs run by CWC, “Kids Night Out” and “Kids Time,” were determined not to be direct services and were removed from the eligibility application.
CWC was denied funding Sept. 21.
While SSFC argued the new breakdown for direct services did not reach eligibility requirements, CWC said their numbers were correct and in fact indicated their direct services made them eligible.
“With the remaining direct services presented, they add up to more than 50 percent, according to our numbers,” said Cale Plamann, a University of Wisconsin law student assisting CWC with the case.
Trevi?o-Murphy said his group is contesting the numbers SSFC came to during the decision hearing because they did not correspond to the numbers CWC provided. She added they were incorrect and CWC was not sure where SSFC got them.
Plamann also argued the ASM bylaws were violated through the inadequate appeals procedure provided by SSFC to CWC.
SSFC Legal Counsel Kurt Gosselin said it was the duty of SSFC to look at information provided by student organizations, to analyze it and to render a decision according to the criteria provided.
“The overall application had vague components. It fell then to ask during question-and-answer session what the numbers actually were,” said SSFC Chair Brandon Williams. “We were presented with a fractional breakdown. Committee members referenced those numbers. No one said they were confused.”
Gosselin went on to say the appeals process did not violate SSFC standing rules or ASM bylaws. CWC submitted its appeals request and was given a hearing with a question-and-answer section.
“For a member to vote against (eligibility), they must find one of 19 criteria to be non-applicable to the organization. The committee determined they didn’t meet the direct service requirement of 50 percent plus one,” Gosselin said.
He added SSFC is responsible for interpreting the information presented. Student organizations cannot claim misinformation or misinterpretation merely because they do not agree with SSFC’s decision.
Both CWC and SSFC said they felt the meeting went well and both sides presented their cases with sound arguments.
“I think we definitely proved we should be given a remand,” Plamann said. “Had these confusions not been made, there would have been a different outcome.”
Student Judiciary has until Nov. 4 to release their opinion on the hearing.
