Though numerous students might not know the process registered student organizations go through to get funding, many are quick to criticize the Student Services Finance Committee’s decision on allocation of students’ segregated fees to the groups.

“People don’t understand the complexity of the process,” SSFC chair and University of Wisconsin senior Aaron Werner said.

Werner then explained in an interview how student organizations go from an eligibility request for segregated fees to the final stamp of approval by UW officials.

The RSO fills out and turns in the eligibility request at the beginning of the school year. This form includes the background history of the group, the mission statement of the group and, among other things, an explanation of the direct impact of their services and the educational benefits of the group’s existence.

If an RSO is found to be eligible, it is referred to as a group eligible for money from the General Student Services Fund, from which the SSFC can allocate over $19 million of segregated fees. The RSO is found to be either eligible or ineligible for GSSF money on several criteria, of which a major one is whether the organization’s services are available to any student, regardless of race, color, creed or sexual preference.

This year, several new groups applied for GSSF eligibility and received SSFC allocations, including the Jewish Cultural Collective, while veteran GSSF-funded groups such as the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences Student Council did not receive eligibility.

After this step, an RSO has a budget hearing, where it presents a budget turned in ahead of time to SSFC. During this time, the RSO has the chance to convey its concerns for the following fiscal year in respect to its services, office supplies and student or full-time employees. Also at the hearing, SSFC representatives have the chance to ask specific questions about line items in a budget and ask for clarifications on various requests for funding. Werner pointed out that it is important to realize some organizations take questions from SSFC members for a relatively short period of time, while other hearings can last for hours.

The next hurdle for an RSO to receive money is at the budget decision in a following SSFC meeting, where SSFC members debate the budget itself and amend the budget in question. It is also of note, Werner believes, that some student organizations, like the Rape Crisis Center, receive almost their full request, while other groups have their budgets significantly cut from their original proposals. After this step, there is a possibility for an RSO to appeal the decision to have its budget reworked or to have a case brought up in Student Judiciary, sometimes due to issues of viewpoint neutrality.

From that point, the RSO’s budget goes through a process of approval by the ASM Student Council, which, if approved, goes to the chancellor, which precedes the final decision by the Board of Regents.

Another major component that makes up SSFC is a representative appointed by the chancellor. This year, the non-voting representative is Assistant Dean Connie Wilson, who reviews budget requests to ensure the legality on the myriad of funding line items.

The committee consists of 16 voting student members, including four members elected by UW students, four members from within ASM council, four at-large appointments from the student body made by ASM and one member from each of the following: Wisconsin Union, Recreational Sports, University Health Services and the Child Care Tuition Assistance Program. Not all of the spots are filled this year (11 have acting members). SSFC members on the committee before the start of the school year did undergo a training session where rules of SSFC, what to expect of RSOs and what to expect from the press were covered.

Though Werner believes SSFC is “doing a great job this year,” he fears the Student Council will reject some of the committee’s recommendations for funding.

“The fact that we sit there for countless hours and decide these budgets, [while the] Council can [just] say no to these budgets is a travesty in the system.”

Werner also said there are inherent problems in the SSFC structure.

“On the surface, the framework for the process seems to be tangible; however, year after year, situations arise that prove that the system must be reworked.”

Even though there are many critics of SSFC’s recommendations from both the fiscally conservative and liberal end of the spectrum, Werner is confident that this group is the best group of SSFC members in years. He said the amount of work done by every SSFC member is worth recognition and that the committee is doing the best it can with the system in place.