Members of the University of Wisconsin student government debated newly proposed budget options for the UW System in a meeting Monday night.

The new budget options, called Money is Green, outline the flexibilities universities have in the budget, allowing them to potentially use money
more efficiently, Student Services Finance Committee Chair Sarah Neibart said.

Vice Chancellor for Administration Darrell Bazzell opposed the budget options, which were sent to Neibart by UW-Parkside Interim Dean of
Students Cyndi Graham.

“When I spoke to Bazzell about the budget options, he was offended,” Neibart said. “He noted that he was not
in favor of the options because it did not really pertain to students at UW.”

According to Neibart, Bazzell said he is unsure Money Is Green is relevant to UW students, adding students are not worried about
segregated fees.

Neibart said other UW System schools are supportive of the Money Is Green plan, but do not have the same flexibility in handling segregated
fees as UW.

The details of the budget have not been released by the committee at the moment, although they were encouraged by Neibart to share the document
widely with students.

SSFC Vice Chair Chase Wilson also discussed the UW budget itself with Bazzell. At the moment, SSFC members said they wanted to look more
closely at the UW budget because they only have estimated numbers.

Members also questioned whether the proposed UW budget would be feasible.

“What we’re asking is impossible,” Wilson said. “But with just the change of numbers it would be fixable.”

UW’s Child Care Tuition Assistance Program also presented two new budget options in an attempt to handle budget cuts last year.

CCTAP, a program at UW whose mission is to support enrolled students with children to complete their degree programs, also provides financial grants to
support early care and education.

The first budget option increased teacher salaries in order to obtain high-qualified teachers. The second budget plan would still increase
the salaries but it would lower the expenses and supplies.

The program lost 11 teachers last year because of low benefits and salaries, while increasing the budget would allow students’ children to
obtain an education.

However, SSFC members questioned how CCTAP distributed grants and how the two budgets were different. They also wanted to know more
about the CCTAP salaries, which CCTAP staff said they would forward to the
committee.

The committee asked for more verification and specific documents about this year’s budget, but no one questioned whether the program should or
should not obtain money.

“It’s usually not a controversial topic,” Neibart said. “We usually come to agreements after compromising.”

SSFC will be voting on the CCTAP budget proposal and further discussing the Money is Green budget options at the next SSFC meeting.