Members of the Student Services Finance Committee waited on the edge of their seats Monday night waiting for a final vote from the temporary chair to decide the budgetary fate of four separate student groups.

The deciding vote hung on the shoulders of Jason Davis, who sat with his head bowed for what observers said seemed like hours.

Davis’ eventual vote “No” threw the student groups’ budgets back into limbo.

According to council policy, SSFC budget decisions are sent to the Associated Students of Madison for general approval. If ASM does not approve the budgets there, it sends them to a conference committee that attempts to find a compromise. Then, the compromise goes back to SSFC for approval.

Because SSFC voted against the compromise, the conference committee will meet again to come up with new budget proposals for Safe Arrival for Everyone, Asian and Pacific American Council, Multicultural Student Coalition and Wunk Sheek.

SSFC chair Roman Patzner temporarily stepped down Monday because he had served on the conference committee and felt there was a conflict of interest in leading the meeting.

“We met for eight hours and hammered out some ideas for groups that failed student council,” Patzner said. “There are representatives of student organizations that are not enthusiastic about these cuts. Some people’s philosophy is that these cuts are not enough. We responded to each other’s viewpoints.”

Patzner said he was not without feelings on the matter, even though he abstained from voting.

“I would urge SSFC to pass these budgets to tell students at UW we can work out our differences,” Patzner said.

Several other members supported the earlier compromise, saying it had made concessions on both sides of the debate.

“Good government is where no one gets their way exactly,” said Rep. Andrew Werner.

But other council members said SSFC was right to reject the budget compromises.

“I disagree with these budgets. They’re not taking into consideration the students’ best interests,” said Rep. Monica SanMiguel. “We should stick to the decisions we made as a body.”

“Apparently there are sides here, and numbers are an issue. The issue is about students,” said Rep. Gilbert Villalpando. “We’re about students. We’re representing students. We’ve listened to students. This isn’t what students want.”

Rep. Drew Horn put the conflict in another light, claiming students want to see their government moving forward rather than continually feuding.

“It’s about two ideas. I talk to my constituents, and a lot of them would be unhappy with even this,” Horn said. “You have to realize that it’s not going to get any better than this on either side.”

As the vote neared, rhetoric grew heated, and representatives warned of consequence from denying the motion.

“It would just be ridiculous if we failed this,” Werner said. “People on the street say student government is just a mess, and this would give them another reason to think so.”

“This is spitting in the face of the conference committee if we fail this package,” Patzner said. “We are in February; this was supposed to be done in December. It’s supposed to be on the chancellor’s desk in March. We can’t fail it just because we don’t like these numbers.”

In the end, with the inclusion of Davis’ final vote, the motion failed 5-6. It is not clear when the conference committee will reevaluate the budgets.