Members of student government passed legislation for a new process to obtain funds for student services during a meeting Monday after a heated debate between committee members.
Student Services Finance Committee Chair Sarah Neibart, who authored the legislation for the Campus Services Process, presented it for the committee to debate and amend.
She explained the CSP will constitute a process by which contracts for specific services will be bid for, emphasizing it does not focus on groups but on soliciting bids for a specific service needed on campus.
Neibart said if members of Student Council deem a service lacking on campus, they will propose legislation which – if passed – will go to SSFC for the funds to be itemized and assessed.
After the legislation is passed, a “procurement board” made up of student government representatives will serve as an objective third party to oversee the bidding and contracting process.
“Student Council originally decides what service is missing, and the procurement board decides how it is going to be implemented and in what ways the service will be brought to campus,” she said. “SSFC only checks the monetary amount.”
A main point of debate regarding the CSP centered on whether the legislation should allow student organizations to bid to provide a service.
Rep. David Vines voiced concern that doing so would allow a General Student Services Fund group that lost funding in an area to sidestep the GSSF process to lobby Student Council to get their funds on the agenda.
“As long as we include RSOs in this process, it will be clouded up in this lobbying and politicking,” he said. “My concern is not the legal language, but how it will be implemented.”
Neibart disagreed and said she felt excluding RSOs would be a disservice, and the option to go through the CSP should be available to everyone on campus.
Rep. Tia Nowack also spoke out against the legislation, saying she felt the CSP would make student groups lose autonomy with Student Council telling them what to do.
Rep. Laura Checovich said she was in favor of the legislation because the budgets created through the CSP would be controlled by SSFC and because she felt it could coexist with the GSSF since a group could not go through both processes.
After more debate, Neibart said she felt she should clarify that the CSP is not a solution to the current situation regarding Wisconsin Public Interest Research Group’s funding as it attempts to gain contract status.
She said it is rather a process by which Student Council can see what services are lacking on campus and fund them.
Main amendments to the legislation included disallowing members of SSFC appointed by Student Council to propose CSP legislation, as well as making clear that GSSF groups will not relinquish their status by applying for a CSP bid.
SSFC also passed the Wisconsin Student Lobby budget of $44,959.68 during the meeting.
Student Judiciary also presented its budget for the next fiscal year, and SSFC will reach a decision during its next meeting.
The committee also tabled its decision on the Associated Students of Madison Internal Budget until Jan. 23 to allow more time for members to speak with council members.
