Defending the Associated Students
of Madison, or more specifically, the Student Services Finance Committee at
University of Wisconsin, is almost as scandalous as cheering for the Dallas
Cowboys in Wisconsin. Impenetrable bylaws, interminable controversies and
inopportune tuition increases have all made the SSFC a tasty piece of meat for
its ravenous critics — particularly The Badger Herald Editorial Board. The
reputation of UW's student government is almost enough to make one forget the
body exists to serve the interests of the student population.

Adam Porton, a current member of
the SSFC, is a vociferous defender of not only the organization to which he
belongs, but also student self-determination and progressive government in
general. In his opinion, the anti-SSFC hysteria that has swarmed many quarters
of the UW community has less to do with the critics' principle criticism —
fiscal irresponsibility — than their politics, which usually betrays at least a
tinge of economic libertarianism.

As Mr. Porton explains, SSFC is
really the opposite of what its critics make it out to be; it's actually rather
stingy. Allocable fees — 12 percent of segregated fees and the only portion
over which the SSFC has real control — are sweated over in twice weekly
meetings that rarely end before midnight. This money, also called the General
Student Services Fund, requires groups to "present their entire budget," which
is examined in every trivial detail to ensure that every dollar requested is
necessary for the group to function. Receipts must be presented to prove that
money was not misspent.

The austerity of this process is
perhaps best proven empirically: Most GSSF applicants were denied this
semester. Mr. Porton probably didn't exaggerate when he said, "The GSSF
involves the most scrutinized budgets at the university."

Non-GSSF funding, relevant for
groups that need money for specific occasions, deals with the Finance Committee
— another branch of ASM that the SSFC, among its other duties, is responsible
for overseeing. Here, too, applicants must undergo a rigorous process.
According to Mr. Porton, even money for food at group events (always highly
coveted by students) has been "mostly cut off, except when that food serves a
specific cultural purpose."

Mr. Porton may seem to indulge in
self-congratulations, but the facts do speak for themselves: The GSSF's budget
for next year will be about $600,000 less. And anyone who has ever lobbied for
funding before the SSFC knows what a stingy process it is. So, why all the
complaining?

As Mr. Porton attests, the
anti-SSFC stench, emanating most putridly from The Badger Herald Editorial
Page, is largely the result of "willful ignorance." It is quite easy to smear a
complicated bureaucracy (remember Hillarycare?), especially when that
bureaucracy operates on public cash.

Perhaps the most egregious example
of this campaign of misinformation (intentional or otherwise) occurred last
week, when the Editorial Board slammed the SSFC for voting to pay its members a
weekly stipend. A couple of things they didn't mention: the stipend was
designed to improve the quality of student government by decreasing turnover
(an unpaid 15 hours every week is a lot by anyone's estimation) and it won't
take effect until next year, when most current SSFC members will have retired.

Mr. Porton's view of the campus
media, perhaps surprisingly, is not a pessimistic one. He hopes for a more
productive relationship in the future, one based on mutual understanding and
real, genuine dialogue. This is unlikely to occur, however, if student
journalists continue to hide behind the claim of fiscal laziness in their
criticism, especially when their real desire is to see an abolition of the
entire segregated fee system. This prevents constructive engagement and the
dissemination of unfiltered information about our student government.

Good fiscal conservatives would
best serve their cause by looking in the direction of the chancellor's office.
The vast majority of segregated fee money — 78 percent to be exact — is
controlled by the chancellor and the university administration. This money,
called non-allocable fees, allows SSFC only an advisory role. Non-allocable
fees, or "the real 'gravy train,'" as Mr. Porton put it, are never subject to
the same type of scrutiny by the campus press, even though they lend themselves
to considerably less student oversight and involve a lot more money. Moreover,
it is the non-allocable fees that have increased on this year's tuition bill,
rising $126.

SSFC is the only tool students
have to control their own finances, and its jurisdiction is not particularly
large. Rather than aimlessly attacking student government whenever the chance
arises, it might be more fruitful to show support on occasion, especially when
confronted with a monolithic corporate university. The chancellor's veto of
off-campus rent, and the arbitrary restrictions included in the new system
policy document, should have outraged all those concerned with student
empowerment. This battle, not the first of its kind and certainly not the last,
demonstrates the need for vigorous student representation.

"The system isn't perfect, but
we're always trying to make it better," said Mr. Porton.

I think we can all agree on this,
though I wish everyone's criticisms were made with the ideal of a lively,
progressive student democracy in mind.

Kyle Szarzynski ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in
Spanish and history.