http://http://vimeo.com/7588992

SSFC decision of MCSC budget

In a decision made by the Associated Students of Madison Student Judiciary for the Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow, CFACT’s funding denial by Student Services Finance Committee was affirmed by the court.

In their hearing last week, CFACT brought SSFC to court for two counts of violation of viewpoint neutrality against Rep. Carl Fergus and SSFC, and a count of unfair punishment for unintentional violations.

According to the decision statement, CFACT alleged Fergus had exercised unbridled discretion in his assessment of CFACT’s eligibility for the General Student Services Fund.

“CFACT alleges that Rep. Fergus determined CFACT’s campaigns to be a direct service in his first year as a SSFC representative; this year, he ruled that CFACT’s campaigns were not a direct service; and, as a result, exercised unbridled discretion in his evaluation of CFACT’s GSSF funding application,” Associate Justice Konrad Krebs said.

The decision also said CFACT suggested it would be “difficult to impossible for SSFC representative to make funding decisions without utilizing unbridled discretion” because no rule changes arose that would lead to an inconsistent ruling.

The second count stated CFACT found SSFC to be violating viewpoint neutrality for similar reasons, citing SSFC had ruled last year CFACT’s campaigns were a direct service, but changed their decision and ruling this year that the campaigns were not a direct service.

Both counts were summarily dismissed by the court. For the first count, the court ruled Fergus did, in fact, stay consistent in his assessment of CFACT’s direct services, ruling both years that their campaigns did not provide a direct service or accessibility to students on campus.

“CFACT has, therefore, failed to demonstrate any form of unbridled discretion on the part of Rep. Fergus,” Konrad stated in the decision.

CFACT President Alex Hansen said the decision made for count one was laughable. The point CFACT was trying to make during the appeal hearing was how Fergus’s definition of a direct service was the exact same as how CFACT defines their campaigns.

“What [Rep. Carl Fergus] defines in his written evaluation — what he quoted as a direct service — is what our campaigns are,” Hansen said. “He’s saying our campaigns aren’t our direct service. Maybe we could have presented this point better at Student Judiciary, but [Fergus] definition of what a direct service is, is how we define our campaigns.”

The second count was dismissed on the basis CFACT presented an identical application to SSFC for 2009-10 and last year’s 2008-09 application, and SSFC came to the same decision for direct services in their evaluation, thus staying consistent and not violating viewpoint neutrality.

According to Krebs, the fourth count was affirmed, saying CFACT did not violate ASM or UW System financial policies with their supposed “intentional” violation of Student Activity Center Council Governing Board policies of use of furniture in the SAC. However, the court upheld SSFC’s ruling to deny CFACT funding this year was affirmed and would not be re-addressed.

Legal Counsel for SSFC, Kurt Gosselin, agreed with this ruling because he said the court saw that SSFC had other reasons for denial of CFACT’s eligibility based on service criteria and other points. Therefore, the court could not change the decision because no remedy would be possible.

“I think [the decision] was a fair one, not necessarily the right one,” Hansen said. “I think our points were valid, although I don’t think we were prepared. This was our first time going to Student Judiciary, and I felt a little blindsided. But overall it was a very fair hearing and I was impressed, particularly with Chief Justice (Trenell) Darby’s questioning of both side’s and concern over the issue.”