Commenting on the proposed Associated Students of Madison constitutional rewrite is like stepping into a
field of chirping crickets that is also full of landmines. Most students probably have no interest. The few who
are interested tend to enjoy explosive arguments. Still, a discussion of the proposal needs to take place, and
I’ve heard precious little of substance on the matter so far.
The complaints against the constitutional proposal have, so far, centered mostly on process. Discussions
about process are often the hobgoblins of legislative policy. To complain about how something was drafted is
to announce that one either has not read the document or else has no substantial arguments against it. Who
was involved in drafting the proposal? Who was left out? What kind of public review process did the proposal
have?
These questions ask nothing about the proposal itself. In two years’ time, nobody is going to care about who
talked with whom about drafting what. What will affect us as students is the text of the ASM constitution.
Now that Student Council is debating the ASM Constitutional Committee’s final draft of the proposed constitutional revision, students
need to start thinking about what this constitution could mean for us.
So who ought to support this new constitution? Ironically, many of the same groups on campus who have
objected to the ACC’s proposed draft are the very people who probably should support this new
document most vocally. Funding and segregated fees are always one of the most contentious issues within
ASM. Various student organizations have been rejected for funding in recent years for various reasons, and
this constitutional revision hands those groups practically all they have wanted.
Student government associations within schools and colleges have wanted access to money but were not
able to receive funding consistently through the General Student Services Fund. The proposed revision
creates a College Student Government Fund.
Many student organizations have sought GSSF money in the past, but the direct services model
did not allow them to spend most of their time organizing and hosting events. The proposed constitution
reclassifies series of events as direct services under the GSSF.
Virtually every group who has been denied GSSF eligibility in recent years would be able to gain funding with
relative ease if the constitutional revision were to pass.
In addition, complaints that ASM has been tone deaf to diversity concerns are addressed with the addition of a director of diversity within the new executive branch. Combined with the greater ease that
student groups focused on diversity issues should have in securing funding, this is significant.
So who should skeptically stand opposed to this new constitution? At the top of the list, students
who are concerned about high segregated fees ought to take a long, hard look at what the expanded funding
streams will amount to when they write out their checks for segregated fees each semester. Segregated
fees have been kept low in part because the Student Services Finances Committee has found ways through
narrow funding criteria to say no to certain groups requesting money. With expanded criteria and new
funding streams, segregated fees will rise.
The addition of an executive branch with a president, vice president and cabinet also may give some
students pause. The argument has been that ASM needs these positions to execute legislation and to serve as
a representative figurehead for students. Currently, ASM provides neither of these functions or roles.
The new constitution gives students not just one executive, but at least seven members in an executive
branch, all holding paid positions. The ACC wisely removed from the president the power to nominate
cabinet appointees, as had been initially proposed, and now leaves cabinet selection entirely to the new
senate.
The president, however, is still an incredibly powerful position. His or her veto powers and committee appointment powers are immense. On a campus with a history of
skepticism and resistance toward centralized authority, is this consolidated power the kind of presidential
authority that we want?
The roles of the other executive positions also deserve scrutiny. The vice president has a vacant
job description except for the vague charge to assist the president and to take over for the brief periods
when the president is unable to perform duties. If the president resigns or is removed from office, the vice
president sits in until a special election can be held.
The need
for many new, paid ASM positions is bound to raise some controversy, especially among students who
already feel the ASM government is largely a self-serving body.
Ultimately, students have compelling reasons to revise ASM’s constitution. The current document has been
cobbled together over the past decade and a half or longer, and many sections of the current constitution
and bylaws create conflicts and gaps, having been written at different times by different people who did not
always think about how their narrow revisions affect other parts of student government.
The ACC proposal for a new ASM constitution is commendable for producing a more cohesive document.
Whether or not the new revision is a better document for ASM’s future is for students to decide. My hope
is that students will look at the substance of the proposal itself in making this decision. Whatever students
choose, that decision is likely to be with us for a long time.
Aaron Spooner ([email protected]) is a graduate student in the English Department and serves as director of the Greater
University Tutoring Service.