Associated Students of Madison has not always been the lackluster organization we know today. A mere nine years ago, ASM was a dynamic organization that effectively championed student interests. With ASM by their sides, students barricaded themselves in the chancellor’s office for four consecutive days. Their efforts forced the University of Wisconsin to adopt a standard of manufacturing for UW products that is sweatshop free.

This occurred under the current ASM structure, which is set up to facilitate strong student organizing. However, in a few weeks, UW students will be voting on the implementation of a new ASM Constitution, which will detrimentally change that structure. It is important to remember the past success of ASM, while analyzing the outcomes of this new constitution. In light of this, we can understand what route of action will be most beneficial to students.

The ability for students to organize as they did in 2000 is compromised under the new constitution. Most problematic is the concentration of power into an executive branch which will be charged with executing ASM’s grassroots campaigns. However, this new department of ASM will contain only two elected positions — a president and vice president. According to ?1(c) of Article 5, the rest of the executive branch, including a cabinet and executive staff, will “serve at the pleasure of the president” (?5(d)). Giggles aside, what this clause does is put the effectiveness of ASM into the hands of one individual.

Under the current ASM structure, the 33-member council votes on and participates in ASM’s campaigns through a variety of grassroots committees. This ensures that ASM can organize students in a manner that accurately reflects the desires of the student body. By contrast, the proposed presidential system leaves the power to run campaigns in the hands of one individual who may or may not choose to act on the direction of the senate. As anyone who has ever worked on a grassroots campaign knows, you cannot force someone to run an effective campaign they are not passionate about his/herself. Given the extremely diverse range of issues students care about, it is impossible to assume that whoever gets elected to this position will be able to work on every one with enthusiasm.

The problems with the executive branch do not end there. One of the most disturbing powers lavished upon the president is the veto power found in ?3(h). In particular, the president will have the ability to veto organizations’ proposed segregated fee budgets. This will further complicate an already arduous seg fee process, and make it even harder to ensure that seg fees are allocated in a viewpoint-neutral manner. In addition, the veto power will apply to legislation, further increasing the risk that a rogue president could thwart the majority will of students. For reference, to override a veto, the proposed system of checks and balances requires a 2/3 vote of the senate.

By reflecting on past ASM achievements and its current inadequacies, we know its structure has been effective and could easily be effective again. What we then hope for is change, but not a change of bureaucracy.

The people we have elected have failed us, not the system to which they were elected.

What ASM is currently lacking is the ability to organize and unite students. We do not need a larger, top-down structure to do this, rather people to spearhead student-desired movements to change this campus for the better. What we need are community organizers, not a president.

Kelly O’Neil and Jessi Indresano are members of Student Progressive Dane.