To the students of the UW System:
Despite the fact that the Madison student body voted last spring to remain in United Council of UW Students, Inc. for another two years, many students have questioned the utility of UC membership. Badger Herald Editor-in-Chief Signe Brewster perhaps summarized the skepticism best in her April 4, 2011 op-ed taking United Council to task for having vague deliverables. “Accomplishments that are not UC’s to claim” include the UW Board of Regents voting in 2010 to grant benefits to domestic partners of UW System staff and the state legislature voting in 2009 to grant in-state tuition to students irrespective of immigration status.
Gay rights interest groups such as GLAAD and GSA lobbied aggressively for the former, whereas immigration rights interest groups such as Caracen and National Alliance for Human Rights lobbied profusely for the latter. While United Council also lobbied for those causes, the time and personnel UC spent on those issues paled in comparison to those allocated by the other interest groups. Where are those interest groups when United Council lobbies for greater funding for the UW System? When will United Council stop hiding behind others’ successes to admit its failures and the need to change strategies?
With the resignation of former Executive Director Nicole Juan in October, now is the perfect time to re-orient staff on how to deliver tangible results on United Council’s own merits as well as to gain lobbying partners. The one good thing I can say about Juan’s tenure as executive director is that the average staff employment period rose from 1.5 years in 2007 to a more stable 2 years in 2010. However, reduced turnover isn’t worth much unless the staff produce tangible results. I address you now to garner support for United Council to focus more intensely on producing budgetary results for UW students.
Although United Council already has 10 of the 13 four-year UW campuses and 11 of the 13 two-year UW campuses as members, United Council must appeal to the broader public to support the UW System. We need to quantify the economic benefits of increased UW funding, for we have reached the limit of support for idealistic suppositions such as, “Higher education betters everyone,” when many graduates are struggling to find jobs which use their course work and internship experience, ultimately leaving the state to find work in what some have coined a “brain drain.” United Council must focus the analytic minds of its staff to identify in what areas of commerce UW graduates contribute most greatly to as well as which academic programs should have the greatest promotional funding to reach out to career-minded students rather than wait for undecided students to declare an appropriate major.
It is a perpetual effort to convince lawmakers of the public benefits of ensuring not only access to the UW System, but also comprehensive, career-relevant training of the quality which will persuade potential employers to hire students from UW-Madison as well as those less celebrated, less financed UW campuses. Turnover of student leaders at the various member campuses can cause United Council’s objectives to meander, so it is important to have an executive director who knows what rhetoric has worked and what has not.
Walking for hours in the Capitol, holding clever signs and yelling at lawmakers do not seem to influence those legislators who wish to further reduce UW System funding. If it did, the UW System would not have experienced a reduction disproportionate to those state agencies losing only 1 percent of their respective budgets. When we combine our argument of the UW System as a public good with re-election money, moderate lawmakers from both sides of the political spectrum are more likely to argue a student-friendly opinion. An example of this willingness to find middle ground lies in the 2011-2013 biennial budget, which appropriates $20 million in financial aid for UW students despite a 5 percent reduction to the overall UW System budget. We can have a better chance of influencing budget cutters by re-allocating funds to make political contributions.
The state already classifies United Council as a political body, and playing this like more influential interest groups do will build UC’s credibility. It would take only $80,000 in revenue to donate enough to six representatives, making United Council one of the top three campaign donors for each representative. Why six? On June 16, the state Assembly approved the 2011-2013 biennial budget by a 19-14 margin. Five votes would have blocked the bill, and six votes would have won a different budget. If hired as executive director, I offer $5,000 of my salary toward that $80,000, with the remainder coming from reductions in program expenses such as speaker honoraria and administrative expenses such as paralegal work and staff perks.
To most effectively leverage our political donations, we must re-allocate time and expenses from self-preservation to lobbying lawmakers and fact-finding missions to accurately inform the civic-minded on the effects of greater UW funding. On the Google Calendar used by UC staff, over 20 campus visit days have been posted for the 2011-2012 academic year, not counting General Assemblies or other conferences. I know from experience that on these visits, UC staff spend the majority of time speaking to the SGA about benefits of UC membership. Additionally, most UC reservations for booths or tables at the Student Union of a given campus occur before a student referendum on UC membership.
In these situations, United Council staff are paid to lobby to protect their own jobs. It is crystal clear that if United Council would work both harder and smarter on convincing moderate lawmakers of how their constituents will benefit from greater UW funding, then UC would no longer have to fear for its very existence because the payoff of membership would be obvious to students within and outside the SGA.
This is not to say that I would cancel visits to campuses; I would more efficiently use staff time to inform SGAs about UC’s latest progress on issue campaigns and to hear concerns. By more effectively using staff time during these visits, we will ensure that each campus gets attention year-round rather than ignoring a campus until it votes to leave UC.
On a more individual level, United Council must appeal to a broader range of student leaders. When campus delegates lose elections for student executive positions such as seats on the Board of Directors, it is important for United Council staff to inform them of other opportunities for meaningful contribution and leadership. In such situations, the difference between an SGA which supports United Council and one which advocates for leaving can be as simple as an executive director who says, “I feel you’re still worthwhile, and I will keep you in the loop on further decision making.” Including less popular voices in debate better equips UC to respond to criticism and to find middle ground during ideological challenges.
In closing, I hope this letter stirs momentum towards a better United Council and subsequently towards a better UW System. My application for executive director, including my r?sum?, is available upon request. If you support my ideas, I encourage you to lobby the United Council Board of Directors, whose members may be contacted here:
http://unitedcouncil.net/about-uc/board-of-directors
Sincerely,
Joseph Ohler, Jr.
Candidate for United Council Executive Director 2010
Graduate of the Public Administration Program at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
