I think it is time we conducted an analysis of Statute 36.09(5) of the Wisconsin State Constitution. Perhaps my desire to conduct such an analysis is because of my interest in the university, or the fact that I am taking Constitutional Law. Either way, I feel inspired to delve into the realm of legislative interpretation.
Is Statute 36.09(5) not ringing a bell? It is best known as the student section within the “Shared Governance” statute, Wisconsin Statute 36. A quick glance at the language of the legislation is enough to acquire a general idea as to the power it provides students here in
The statute states “students shall have primary responsibility for the formulation and review of policies concerning student life, services and interests.” Very few states have statutes that explicitly provide students with the power to determine policies that will influence campus life.
Statue 36.09(5) appears to be pretty straightforward. Students should control the review of policies and procedures because they have the perspective to see what really works on the campus level. Idealist policies can be tweaked to reflect the reality of the collegiate environment.
The statute continues to describe the means through which students can exercise their responsibilities and asserts that “the students of each institution or campus shall have the right to organize themselves in a manner they determine and to select their representatives to participate in institutional governance.” This clause does not explicitly state the manner through which students should become involved in institutional governance.
The UW System Board of Regents felt university-wide committees would best carry out this participation. UW System Board of Regents Policy, Section 30: Students, provides a general framework for shared governance committees<!–[if !supportAnnotations]–>[CL1]<!–[endif]–> . However, it does not provide specifics as to the composition of the committees: “It would be difficult for the Board of Regents to devise a specific structure or to mandate involvement at certain levels in certain issues that would be acceptable to students at each institution [within the UW System].” This is logical, as the composition and population of each UW campus varies tremendously.
The University of Wisconsin-Madison assigns student representatives to assess university policies and issues through the Associated Students of Madison Shared Governance Committee. With over 50 different committees and over 130 student appointees, the Shared Governance Committee has been charged with representing student interests. Through an application and interview process, these students are the voices selected to symbolize the student point of view.
It would appear safe to assume that students serving on university-wide committees cannot only voice their opinions but also vote. This is where the interpretation of the statute begins to get a little sticky.
Board of Regents policy states that, in order to have active participants, “There must be a meaningful opportunity for input so that student ideas are received and considered before decisions are made.” Are you concerned about this interpretation?
The policy does not state that individual students will participate in the decision-making process. By my interpretation, it states that student opinion will be taken into consideration when the final decision regarding the issue or policy is made. Although the Board of Regents’ policy does not prohibit students from voting on issues directly concerning them, it does not guarantee them a vote. By my understanding, “primary responsibility” would entail the right and duty to vote on current policies and procedures that will directly affect students.
Using the Board of Regents’ interpretation, it appears as though they are satisfied with students merely having seats at the proverbial decision-making table. I would challenge this interpretation of the statute. The statute was intended to guarantee students the power to make decisions that would directly influence their experiences at the university.
The current, very controversial student football ticket policy is an example. A responsibility of the University Athletic Board is to “approve prices and policies for tickets to division intercollegiate athletics events.” And yet, according to Logan Hulick, a student representative on the committee, the Athletic Board did not take an official vote on the changed ticket policy. Instead, there was an informal vote among a focus group comprised of students — and it never came before the board as a whole.
Was this a legitimate way to alter a policy that affected the lives of thousands of students on campus? Hardly.
Shared governance impacts almost everything on campus. Had the policy come before the Athletic Board for a vote, who knows if the policy would have been vastly different. It is time to speak up and stand for student interests, or something dear to the students of
Hannah Karns ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in political science and international studies. She is also vice-chair of ASM Student Council.
