Legal storm clouds are looming on the segregated-fee horizon, even after the Student Services Finance Committee officially completed its budget decisions for the 2002-03 school year.
Monday evening, Student Judiciary heard a complaint from the UW Greens accusing SSFC of unconstitutional budget cuts. The UW Greens requested $25,274.52 during their budget hearing. SSFC awarded them $19,815, less than the organization received in 2000-01.
The Greens’ complaint states that SSFC did not distribute student fees in a viewpoint-neutral manner. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in spring 2000 as part of its Southworth decision that the university must be viewpoint neutral when it distributes student fees.
The Southworth standard has officially been in place since last December, when a U.S. district court ordered UW-Madison to reform its student fee distribution process. The viewpoint-neutral decision came on the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Southworth v. Board of Regents. Southworth sued the university because he felt it was unconstitutional to be forced to pay segregated fees to groups whose ideas he did not believe in. Although the high court ruled against Southworth, they established a new undefined principle of viewpoint neutrality.
Now, after the first budget viewpoint-neutral distribution process, the UW Greens are appealing the decision to cut their budget on the basis that SSFC was not viewpoint neutral. The UW Greens claim SSFC members’ personal political leanings clouded their judgment and led to the budget cut.
“The members of SSFC held members of our group to a different standard,” UW Greens member Matt Stoner said. “They showed themselves to be ignorant of the service [we] provided, so they couldn’t make a decision that was viewpoint neutral.”
SSFC member Matt Modell said he, as well as the whole committee, knows about the services UW Greens provided and that the budget decrease came after a nonpartisan analysis of the Greens’ service.
“We were not misinformed in the service they provide; what they do is clip news articles and file them,” Modell said. “They are basically a library. I see that as somewhat as a duplication of services and not as valuable to students. That’s why I cut their budget. We have to take into account what they do for students, and if a lot of their services are being duplicated, they don’t deserve that much money.”
As Student Judiciary wrestles with the UW Greens budget cut, it is also facing a much larger issue.
“No one defines viewpoint neutrality,” Modell said. “The Supreme Court originally brought it up but did not define it; [District Judge] Shabaz said [ASM’s policy for distributing seg fees] was not viewpoint neutral but did not define it. Student Judiciary won’t define it.”
Although the courts have yet to clearly define viewpoint neutrality, the Greens hope Student Judiciary will recognize ASM’s definition of viewpoint neutrality.
“ASM defines viewpoint neutral as the committee does not take political affiliations into consideration in their decision,” Stoner said.
The Greens’ hearing was held Monday evening. A decision will be handed down within 10 school days.
