If any still doubt the ability of the Associated Students of Madison to act effectively, the recent changes made to ASM's bylaws and operating procedures should put those doubts to rest. Facing a requirement to make changes to its segregated-fee system to correspond with a ruling by U.S. District Court Judge John Shabaz, ASM has proposed a set of changes that will streamline and solidify the segregated-fee process.
Although there are small kinks still left in the system, most of the proposals, such as monitoring Student Services Finance Committee meetings and writing operating standards into the SSFC and Student Council bylaws, will provide an efficient and easy-to-follow process that will protect student organizations from unfair treatment.
Although critics will rightly argue that ASM's adjustments to its system will not change Shabaz's interpretation of viewpoint neutrality, both ASM Student Council members and University of Wisconsin System lawyers would probably admit that the only way ASM could comply with Shabaz's ruling would be to eliminate elected positions on SSFC. Thankfully, ASM members have decided that student political independence and self-governance are issues worth fighting for. An appeal will be made to Shabaz's ruling and hopefully, the U.S. legal system will show support for the essential principles of academic freedom and student democracy.
Perhaps the most important and far-reaching change to ASM's segregated-fee process is the introduction of a more comprehensive appeals process if a student group feels unfairly treated by an SSFC ruling. Although there has always been an appeals process in place, the proposed change would extend the process to include another appeal to Student Council and finally to the chancellor's office and the UW System Board of Regents. It would allow for an extensive review of any SSFC ruling to see if its decision matches the standards and bylaws in place and it would not rely on a final decision by a Student Judiciary that has been accused in the past of political partiality.
Last year's SSFC made controversial decisions that drastically altered funding levels without following the standards in place and, due to the impotence of last year's Student Judiciary, there was no review of those decisions. A reformed appeals process will guarantee that SSFC is accountable to its standards and bylaws.
Unfortunately, there is one aspect missing from an otherwise comprehensive proposal. The appeals process that includes an additional review by Student Council and university administration is only available for decisions concerning eligibility and does not include reviews of funding changes made to student groups' budgets. Until SSFC can be held responsible for every single decision it makes there will always be allegations of political manipulation. Student Judiciary does not have the necessary independence from the political process to make a final decision on segregated-fee distribution.
ASM is a relatively young student government, with only six years under its belt. The proposed changes would begin the transition from a young and inexperienced institution to a more powerful and responsive tool for UW-Madison students. As the year goes on, ASM should make more changes outside of the confines of Shabaz's ruling that will remake student government into a more perfect representation of what students on campus need. If these first proposals are any indication of what the future will hold, ASM should become a much better institution as the year progresses.
