Prior to the winter holiday, the Student Judiciary handed down several decisions on various suits brought against Associated Students of Madison committees and representatives.

Monkey Hoes v. Finance Committee

The Student Judiciary found the Finance Committee in violation of viewpoint-neutrality in a budget decision the committee made last semester.

The Finance Committee had previously denied a $514 travel grant request on Nov. 29 by the Monkey Hoes — a socially oriented student organization at the University of Wisconsin –for a trip to Chicago's Shedd Aquarium that the group took Dec. 2.

"Based on the evidence, it appeared members on the Finance Committee improperly took into consideration the purpose of the organization," Student Judiciary Chief Justice Nick Fox said, adding that the Student Judiciary decision was final with no chance of appeal.

Monkey Hoes will now go before the student council at a later date, where they will receive a new hearing and once again present their case to receive the grant.

In previous committee meetings and hearings, Finance Committee representatives called Monkey Hoes "too social," a categorization that Fox said "tainted" the committee's ultimate decision.

According to ASM bylaws, Finance Committee representatives cannot take into account the expressed purpose of registered student organizations when making decisions on particular budget requests from those organizations.

Student organizations are required to demonstrate the activity has some component that "enhances the educational experience," but Fox said this definition should be applied broadly.

"To say an activity is 'too social' — that is a pretty big claim to make," Fox said, "especially when it's unsupported."

Monkey Hoes representatives said they were "happy" with the decision but were "frustrated" that they once again had to argue their case.

"It's frustrating when the Student Judiciary already agreed with us and we have to argue our case again," former Monkey Hoes President Patrick Elliott said, adding the organization was confident going into the student council hearing. "We know how these grants usually go."

Elliott said the entire suit demonstrated that there were serious problems with the student segregated-fee system.

"They talk about viewpoint-neutrality," Elliott said, "but I think groups aren't getting fair hearings and some type of change in the system is needed."

UWRCF v. Student Services Finance Committee

The Student Judiciary reinstated more than $58,000 in funding that the Student Services Finance Committee had cut from the UW Roman Catholic Foundation's budget Nov. 17.

This decision, however, is subject to an appeal filed by SSFC representative Zach Frey Dec. 23.

SSFC justified many of the budget cuts during previous committee meetings because of the religious nature of many of UWRCF's prospective activities, a budgeting decision Fox called "illegal."

"Committees often get concerned about funding religious activities," Fox said, "but it's important to remember, in a [viewpoint-neutral] forum, the [committee] is not endorsing any religious or non-religious speech."

Fox added religious organizations are able to apply for funding if they fulfill the ASM criteria.

In its decision, the Student Judiciary also cited a "shifting standard" they said SSFC applied to UWRCF and no other organization, a violation of ASM viewpoint-neutrality bylaws.

SSFC had cut more than $35,000 originally earmarked for rent and utilities from UWRCF's budget — the largest individual cut SSFC made to the budget.

Committee members justified the cut with a memo from UW Legal Services that said an organization could not receive funding for rent and utilities if the building was not leased by the university itself.

However, in its decision, the Student Judiciary said SSFC only applied this criterion to UWRCF and to no other organization that received funding from student segregated fees.

In his decision, Fox wrote, "SSFC should follow the advice of the administration. However, that advice should be applied equally to all groups, not just to one or a select few."

Fox said Frey's appeal is based on claims that the court overlooked previous case law and past precedent.

UWRCF representatives, however, believe Frey filed the appeal for other reasons.

"He didn't have time to participate in the [original budget] hearing and now he wants to redo it," UWRCF representative Tim Kruse said.

Kruse added the organization is considering filing suit against UW in outside courts, seeking an injunction against the university to "cease and desist" prying into the religious nature of UWRCF and interfering with student-government processes.

Kruse said the Alliance Defense Fund is helping investigate UWRCF's legal options.

CFACT v. Rachelle Stone, et al

The Student Judiciary reversed a Dec. 13 decision it made in a viewpoint-neutrality suit against Student Services Finance Committee representative Kellie Sanders.

Student Judiciary representatives said they no longer believed Sanders' bias affected SSFC's decision to minimally fund the Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow, a politically oriented student organization at UW.

"[Sanders] probably did have a bias," Student Judiciary Chief Justice Nick Fox said, "but we don't believe she acted on it."

Sanders, a one-time chair of WisPIRG — a student organization many consider CFACT's rival on the UW campus — had been found guilty of a malicious violation of viewpoint-neutrality after it was discovered she posted negative comments about CFACT on an Internet blog site.

During an SSFC budget-decision meeting last December, Sanders voted to end debate on CFACT's budget, which subsequently led to the case against her.

However, Sanders did not cast a vote for the final budget, which Fox said was the primary reason for the reversal of the Student Judiciary's original decision.

"We can't find you guilty of something you're not doing," Fox said.

With the reversal, Fox said Sanders is reinstated and can return to her position on ASM and SSFC.

During a phone interview, Sanders said she was "relieved" and "excited" to rejoin SSFC.

"I have had a lot of support behind me," Sanders said. "A lot of people were upset with the initial decision, and I think [the Student Judiciary] did the right thing."

The decision to reverse the Dec. 13 ruling — the third such reversal in the past month — has raised concerns over the credibility of the student segregated-fee system, but Fox said it is just part of the process.

"There are multiple stages of review and multiple levels of checks and balances," Fox said. "People have the opportunity to appeal, and the Student Judiciary has the opportunity to reverse [a decision]."