ASM holds volatile town-hall meeting
By Micah S. Berken, Campus Writer
A group of about 20 students strongly questioned Monday the recent actions of the Student Services Finance Committee and their allocations of segregated fees at an ASM town-hall meeting in the Memorial Union.
The meeting was separated into three parts, with 20 minutes allocated to seg-fee questions, 40 minutes to other questions, and time at the end for a an open forum. Students were asked to pose their questions anonymously and in written form. The questions were then answered by any ASM member who stepped to the podium.
Questions asked specifically to the SSFC began with “Why, if the SSFC is viewpoint-neutral, do votes fall on party lines?”
“I like to think that all votes are in a viewpoint-neutral fashion,” said SSFC representative Rob Welygan in response. “We have to weigh the overall benefits of the organizations budget, and look at their overall fiscal responsibility.”
Another asked how SSFC members could vote on an issue after skipping the organization’s testimonial.
Welygan again answered, saying, “I’m sad to say there’s no bylaw that prohibits it.”
SSFC representative Tom Clark added, “Members look at monster packets of eligibility forms and budget information primarily. In the end it comes down to the individual member.”
The most poignant questioning of the SSFC and seg fees in general came during the open forum session from student Micheal Hahn, who spoke for over five minutes against current ASM policies.
Hahn specifically targeted seg-fee allocation to groups that stand mainly for a certain ethnicity, issue, or group.
“Why do these groups exist with seg fees?” he said. “I believe its because the ASM is afraid. Afraid that if you disagree you’ll be labeled a racist and a bigot.”
“Let us judge each other on the merits of our beliefs and not the beliefs themselves. We are suppressing the discussion that creates new ideas and beliefs,” Hahn said as he spoke against allocating money to groups through a political mechanism. “Let us demand a real discussion and a real dialogue about our differences.”
To a standing ovation from some ASM members, Hahn concluded with, “Programs that support an ideology or an issue are not a place for the government to be putting its money. You can have student groups like that, but I know they can find other funding. Find other people to support you.”
George Jungbluth, a representative from Sex Out Loud and John Alaniz, from the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender student group, asked to respond to Hahn’s comments.
“If they weren’t funded I never would have heard of them and then would have been denied an educational opportunity,” Jungbluth said.
However, Alaniz was silenced by ASM representative Steve Weiss, who shouted, “If you want to ask questions, ask questions. If you want to give a speech or weird stuff like that there’s a forum.”
Another question concerned controversy surrounding last year’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Film Festival. Specifically cited was a film that showed the medical transformation of a transgender person.
“It was challenged as showing pornography,” said ASM representative Kevin Otten. “In the name of education, showing a film about transexuality isn’t porn.”
Weiss took the podium to disagree. “If something like that were to be shown, I’d be against it,” said Weiss. “I don’t think that’s something the majority of students would want to pay for.”
In the end, SSFC representative Jacqueline Helmrick spoke against the issue of viewpoint-neutrality, one issue about which students have heard over and over again in the last few years.
“Would you ever ask a legislator to be viewpoint-neutral?” she asked. “No. You elect those legislators based on their stance on the issues. We’re asking these ASM members to drop their viewpoints at the door. Yet viewpoint-neutrality is impossible for any person to do.”
