[media-credit name=’KATE BRENNER/Herald photo’ align=’alignnone’ width=’648′][/media-credit]After being denied student-segregated fee funding by the Associated Students of Madison's Student Services Finance Committee, the Roman Catholic Foundation of the University of Wisconsin brought its case to the ASM Student Judiciary Friday night.

SSFC denied RCF-UW funding last month on the basis that the group — one of the largest on campus — provided no "significant additional component" to student life, as required by ASM bylaws in order to qualify for funding.

RCF-UW attorney Nate Romano, along with petitioner and RCF-UW chair Beth Czarnecki, argued to the three-person tribunal that the bylaw was unfairly enforced.

"To enforce a vague rule is to violate due process," Romano said. "To this day, I don't know what a ‘significant additional component' is, and neither does SSFC."

Czarnecki told SSFC her group's significant additional component was providing "an opportunity for students to explore the Catholic faith." RCF-UW never had a problem in the past with the question, so Czarnecki said she did not read too much into it.

"When I read the question, I thought I understood the meaning of it," she said.

Romano cited many additional examples in which RCF-UW offers a significant additional component, including its mini-courses, mentorship programs, musical programs and sexuality and pro-life programs.

Because of RCF-UW's offerings, Romano and Czarnecki worry SSFC is discriminating against the group for its affiliation with the Roman Catholic Church. The group is in need of SSFC funding because it is no longer affiliated with St. Paul's Catholic Church as a result of a settlement with the UW in May.

SSFC Attorney Patrick Elliot pointed out the committee is made up of different members this year, and these new members clearly thought it was time to enforce all the ASM bylaws.

"The committee made sure this year that they were going to evaluate the criteria differently than in the past," Elliot said. "This isn't just a check box organization. This committee is charged with appropriating funds in the best interest of the students."

Elliot said the decision SFFC reached last week was made in accordance to due process.

"What we're seeing … is that RCF is not happy with the outcome, but that does not warrant review by SJ," Elliot said.

Elliot also said that because events are a major part of what RCF-UW does, the funding in question would be inappropriate for SSFC to give.

"If most of what you're doing and most of what you present to the committee seems like it could be funded with event grants, then [student-segregated fee funding] is not the proper funding source," Elliot said.

Last month, Elliot represented SSFC in similar SJ cases against Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow and the Asian Pacific American Council.

Czarnecki said she doesn't know what to expect from the tribunal, particularly how they will interpret the term "significant additional component."

"I'm confused. I think a lot of different definitions were thrown out there for people to consider," Czarnecki said. "We'll see what definition the justices choose, or if they can even find a definition."

SJ will come to a decision later this week.