Wunk Sheek appealed to the Associated Students of Madison Student Judiciary Friday, petitioning for a rehearing of their funding eligibility.
The Native American student organization Wunk Sheek was denied eligibility this semester for not having met two of the 19 criteria the Student Services Finance Committee uses when determining organizations’ eligibility.
Wunk Sheek was found to not have used their funds in a fiscally responsible manner in the past year, as well as not fulfilling their direct service requirement, according to SSFC Chair Brandon Williams.
While confirming they were unfamiliar with the application process and they did not fulfill all criteria, Wunk Sheek said they believe they were denied eligibility by a violation of viewpoint neutrality from Rep. Carl Fergus, who served as chair the previous year.
“In his advocacy for denial, Rep. Fergus confirmed that he brought in information that he had received from the chair previous to his position as chair,” Wunk Sheek Co-president Tim Fish said. “He may have affected the views of other council members.”
According to the ASM bylaws, an organization’s eligibility is based on whether direct service requirements have been met, and eligibility does not take into account the organization’s history on campus.
Wunk Sheek believes Fergus violated this when he took their history on campus into consideration by referencing the organization’s past abuse with funds.
When asked if his decision was based entirely off the group’s past abuse of budget entirely, Fergus responded his decision was based on “direct services, as well as questions answered, as well as information every committee member had in front of them at the hearing.”
In response to this allegation, SSFC Legal Counsel Kurt Gosselin stated the history on campus refers to the length of time the organization has been on campus, not the past actions of the organization.
He added SSFC said they believe Wunk Sheek misinterpreted the meaning of history on campus and viewpoint neutrality had not been violated in accordance to their definition.
“They are not correct when they alleged Mr. Fergus took the length of time into consideration when making the appeal. He took information that spoke to the eligibility requirements,” Gosselin said.
Gosselin also noted Wunk Sheek recognized their failure to comply with ASM bylaws, which are grounds for denial of eligibility.
Williams said the decision to deny eligibility was unanimous and many other members voted on the same basis as Fergus.
“It was a generally unanimous opinion that the group did not meet requirements, which shows the decision was consistent and made in similar mindset in viewpoint neutrality within the 19 criteria,” Williams said.
After a question from the judiciary on what Wunk Sheek makes of the other members who voted the same as Fergus, Fish responded they believe other members chose to agree with Fergus upon hearing his decision.
The court proceeded to question Gosselin on Wunk Sheek’s ability to handle funds in a fiscally responsible manner. It was noted during this questioning if Wunk Sheek is able to demonstrate in the future they will be more responsible with funding, they would not fail to meet the criteria.
Student Judiciary will make a final ruling on Wunk Sheek in the coming weeks.
