In the recent fall Associated Students of Madison elections, students voted to mandate that all auxiliary budgets considered by the Student Services Finance Committee must pay all student workers and LTEs a minimum wage of above $10 per hour. This policy is troubling, not necessarily from the ideological standpoint of providing a living wage to workers, but the convoluted process from which the referendum came about.

As a former SSFC chair and advocate of shared governance, I totally agree that students should be actively involved in the segregated fee allocation process. One of the most amazing parts of the segregated fee process is that students are directly involved, either through the direct allocation of fees or the issuing of recommendations to the chancellor on auxiliary budgets. In the past, students have developed policy and passed referenda relating to how SSFC will allocate fees, including wages in allocable budgets. The SSFC, as the independent financial body of the ASM, has and should continue to make decisions regarding wage policies that are both responsible and responsive to workers employed by these services and to the students who rely on them to make thoughtful decisions regarding their segregated fees.

That is perhaps why this current policy regarding LTE wages, its exclusion of SSFC and ASM Student Council from the process, the somewhat confusing way it was placed on the ballot and the lack of notice to both ASM, SSFC and the services affected calls its legitimacy into question.

Students that chose to vote in the fall election supported this measure based on the way it was presented to them by its sponsors, which was clear by the large vote margin. However, what students are probably not aware of are the deeper issues surrounding what seems to be a flawed process. Per the ASM bylaws and constitution, referenda placed on election ballots either need to fill one of three requirements: 500 signatures to amend the bylaws, signatures by 10 percent of the student body to amend the ASM constitution, or sponsorship by an ASM committee, the SSFC or the ASM Student Council. It remains unclear to many whether sponsors of the referendum fulfilled any of the requirements to legally place the measure on the ballot or if the Student Judiciary did its part to publicize this measure to the student body prior to the election. If the response from individuals both inside and outside of the organization is any indication, they did not.

In addition, though it is not required, as an advocate of a process in which SSFC is directly involved in issues that pertain to its governance and operations, the fact that neither the SSFC chair nor vice chair were involved or informed about the placement of the referendum on the ballot concerns me. These individuals are expected to uphold a policy that they knew nothing about and have little information on. The referendum sponsors could have at the very least informed the leadership of ASM who are knowledgeable about the segregated fee process that this measure was going on the ballot so they would be prepared to respond to it, or provide feedback on the implications it will have on SSFC and ASM.

Students should also have been better informed of the direct financial impact that this referendum will have on them, as the cost of its implementation was never directly addressed. It is estimated that for the Wisconsin Union alone, the cost of implementation will fall somewhere between $650,000 and $1.3 million. Not once did the referendum advocates directly address to students how they would be financially impacted and how the costs as a result of the referendum will be covered, except for public declarations that segregated fees wouldn't be affected. As the Union receives no general-public-revenue dollars and the bulk of its revenue comes from food and retail sales and segregated fees, it is absolutely false and misleading to state that there would be no effect on students' pocketbooks. Even if the Union made the ultimate decision to cut its budget in order to find the funds needed to comply with the referendum, it's undeniable that the budget for free programming at the Union would be severely affected. Although this may not have changed student's minds about their support of the measure, these options and this information should have been laid out on the table.

Regardless of whether students were in support of the referendum or not, all students should be concerned about the process in which this measure appeared on the ASM ballot. Passing referenda items on the ASM ballot is a big deal, especially as it affects the operations of the SSFC and has lasting implications for both current and future students. If it was indeed illegal, to protect the integrity of the ASM Constitution and bylaws and not set a dangerous precedent for the placement of referenda items in future elections, ASM and the Student Judiciary must take steps to ensure that a piece of legislation derived from a flawed and incomplete process is not upheld.

Janell Wise ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in political science and journalism.