The Wisconsin Student Public Interest Research Group’s funding eligibility saga continued Tuesday night while the Student Judiciary considered the future of its eligibility and reviewed changes it made to funding eligibility criteria earlier this year.
The Student Judiciary heard two appeals about issues involving the Student Services Finance Committee and the WISPIRG.
SSFC denied WISPIRG General Student Service Fund eligibility twice this year. WISPIRG appealed both SSFC decisions to the Student Judiciary, and its case was remanded back to SSFC both times.
In its last appeal, WISPIRG alleged SSFC had made a viewpoint neutral violation in its General Student Services Fund eligibility.
The Student Judiciary did not find SSFC guilty of committing any non-viewpoint neutral violation but did find the committee had made a procedural violation in using unreasonable interpretation of some of its eligibility criteria.
The first appeal on Tuesday was brought forth by the WISPIRG. Members again alleged SSFC had made non-viewpoint neutral decisions in the group’s GSSF eligibility through the inconsistent application of its General Student Services Fund eligibility criteria.
Rashi Mangalick, the current WISPIRG chair, said the unreasonable interpretation and application of the eligibility criteria in WISPIRG’s case led to the group receiving unfair GSSF funding consideration.
“SSFC has shown further evidence that they would not give us a fair meeting if we were to go back to them,” Mangalick said. “So a third hearing with SSFC would only bring us back (in front of the Student Judiciary).”
She added because she believes WISPIRG would not receive a fair hearing in front of SSFC, the group’s eligibility decision should be handled by the Associated Students of Madison Student Council.
SSFC Chair Matt Manes said the core of the issue is the interpretation of WISPIRG’s direct service adding the group’s campaigns are not considered direct services. WISPIRG not meet the eligibility as the committee reasonably interpreted it, Manes said.
“SSFC interpreted our bylaw,” Manes said. “That’s our job.”
SSFC also brought forth an appeal as well, asking the court to reexamine some of the revisions it made to GSSF eligibility criteria earlier this year.
Specifically, Tyler Junger, SSFC’s legal counsel, identified the panel’s interpretation of the GSSF eligibility criterion involving the the ability to request, tailor and access direct services as disconcerting.
Junger said it is unreasonable for the panel and WISPIRG to expect that the criteria will be interpreted in the exact same way as it has been in the past.
“There isn’t just one plain reading of any of these criteria,” Junger said.
He added the GSSF eligibility criteria are all subject to the reasonable interpretation of the members of the committee who are elected officials.
Incoming WISPIRG Chair Matt Kozlowski said GSSF eligibility decisions need to be based on the criteria itself.
“Allowing SSFC to make decisions that are not rational and not consistent with the criteria is essentially equivalent to throwing out the criteria,” Kozlowski said.
He added he agreed with the decision made by the panel to provide criterion revisions because SSFC has interpreted the criteria inconsistently.
A final decision on both cases will be made in two weeks.
