There is no better example of campuswide inefficiency, fiscal irresponsibility and administrative confusion than the University of Wisconsin's segregated fee system. The introduction of unspecific vague systemwide regulations and the "shared governance" state statute in the 1970s created a fatally flawed foundation.

Since former UW student Scott Southworth challenged the legality of the fee, this imperfect system has devolved into a bloated and costly burden — more than $700 per capita last year — on the student body. Viewpoint neutrality, a legal necessity following Southworth, has become an all-purpose exchangeable ticket for the never-ending gravy train. With a group's funding determined by its stated needs, organizations are able to drive their funding upward, with no cap in sight.

However, after years of frustration, rising costs and a barrage of editorials, change may finally be within sight. The Board of Regents, after rejecting the Associated Students of Madison appeal to fund student organization's off-campus rent, ordered the formation of a systemwide shared governance committee. The stated goal of the committee is to "review the segregated fee policy and propose revisions to the Board of Regents." It is our sincere hope that this committee will weigh the benefits of drastic reforms, perhaps even abolition, of the segregated fee system.

While Although we hope ASM is equally genuine in its attempt to overhaul the fees, its first steps are hardly encouraging. ASM gave interested parties only four days to apply for a student position on the committee , and sent the notice out only to the shared governance e-mail list. As this issue is one that affects every UW student's wallet, we wonder why the e-mail was not sent to the entire student body. We can only hope whoever ASM appoints to this committee will be a strong voice for fiscal responsibility.

Although the committee plans to focus on off-campus rent, the opportunity for reform should not be limited to such a minute issue. Segregated fees suffer from vague and overlapping documents on the same policy, a state statute that has misled ASM into thinking they control allocable fees and funding criteria that make most organization budgets unchallengeable. A serious attempt to clarify segregated fee policy could end the yearly debacle of lawsuits and funding free-for-alls we have come to expect. The time for wishful thinking is over. This year, students should demand nothing less than definitive reform.