There has been a lot of discussion as of late regarding the chancellor’s controversial decision to grant funding eligibility to MEChA. This is an unprecedented decision never performed by a chancellor in ASM’s history. This decision should send a chill down the spine of every student on campus.
Students can agree or disagree with the granting of eligibility to MEChA, but we cannot tolerate an overturning of a decision when no student government leaders were even consulted. In the interest of having as much accurate information as possible, adequate communication must exist among all the parties involved. In fact, there are two specific comments contained within the chancellor’s ruling that I would like to address.
In the chancellor’s letter, it was stated that the official vote for MEChA eligibility was 11-15-1 with the chair abstaining, which is correct. He later states that the evaluation forms “indicate that 12 votes in favor were recorded, 14 votes against were recorded, and [another] one vote against was recorded with the following notation: “I would like to abstain on this matter, but because there is no option provided, I must vote no.” So this means the vote total according to the chancellor was 12-15 or 12-14-1. Big problem.
The chancellor ignored the official vote total of 11-15-1 and added a yes vote from the chair, Bryan Gadow, even though he didn’t vote at the meeting. He filled out an evaluation form afterwards and voted yes. Explaining the voting logistics of the impact of this overlooked fact is too complicated for this article, but we still end up with a failed eligibility vote for MEChA.
The second problem is that the administration has interpreted GAP 15 (one section of the regent’s policy papers) contrary to its spirit for what some could argue as political purposes. It states clearly that segregated fees cannot be used for “recruitment and retention” of students. The chancellor does not dispute that MEChA engages in these activities but that they are protected because they are merely “complementary.” No one with the authority to articulate this questionable interpretation of the administration was even at the Student Council meeting.
The good news is that the process of segregated-fee funding for a student organization does not stop with the chancellor. His decision may be appealed to the Board of Regents as outlined in ASM bylaws and the Board of Regents policy papers. The chancellor’s interpretation of GAP 15 is only his. Student government has a right to make sure that policy papers are being followed as well, and the Board of Regents will be the final say on this issue. In the meantime, there may be enough factual problems in the chancellor’s ruling to uphold student government’s decision regardless of what the Board of Regents rules on Chancellor Wiley’s overturning of the eligibility decision.
Student Council has now exercised its right to disagree with the chancellor’s determination and present a case to the Board of Regents. The chancellor has opened a very big can of worms and in doing so has proven that students should be making these funding decisions, not unelected administrators. This is student money.
In response to this decision, a group of Democrats, Republicans and Libertarians are organizing an optional funding system where students have the choice of which groups they fund on their tuition bill. It is time that we implement real choice so that we have the authority over these decisions. Please email [email protected] to find out how you can help sign a petition or collect signatures. It’s time for students to say enough is enough to the financial corruption of ASM.
Roman Patzner ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in finance, member of the College Democrats, and the SSFC Chair.
