The Associated Students of Madison, UW-Madison's student government, is a significant part of life on campus, overseeing millions of our dollars and discussing education policy with administration.
But no matter how well intentioned, the increasing politicization and increased spending of ASM should leave many of us Badgers skeptical.
The recent conference committee process allowed eight members to decide what Student Council should have decided. It resulted in additions like $8,000 to create four paid positions for the Shared Governance Committee. I don't buy the argument that dividing such expenses among the entire student body costs only pennies per individual. The argument that I'd rather spend my 50 cents on a Snickers is just as valid. $8,000 is a large chunk of money no matter how you spin it.
Many people joke about the ASM octopus, the terrifying chart of crisscrossing lines and countless committee names that represent red tape in its infancy.
Expanding the bureaucratic mess that is ASM must be done thoughtfully and with wide consent, not in an environment like a conference committee. It's quite ironic that an organization teeming with libertarians is all about spending money.
Surprisingly, no one campaigns on a platform about lower ""taxes"" (student segregated fees), or even a promise to not raise them.
ASM is designed to spend money. The system is predisposed to spend more, not less.
This is not to say ASM or SSFC doesn't spend responsibly. The problem is the lack of incentive to return student segregated fees back to students.
The millions in student segregated fees ASM has the power to allocate have always been contentiously fought over. Anyone who doesn't get money feels discriminated against (Campus Women's Center, Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow) and anyone who has money wants more (everyone who gets funding).
Particularly concerning is the increase in internal spending for ASM. As I write this, the new budget that probably passed Student Council late Wednesday night would cost $1,118,204.05. Yes, that's more money than many of us will ever make, collected stealthily piece by piece through our tuition in the form of student segregated fees.
Granted, this budget includes large chunks that do not stay within Student Council. $100,000 is reserved for travel grants for student organizations, $250,000 for event grants and $160,000 for operation grants. But much of the money left is for internal workings, including 10 full-time, paid staffers who are not students.
An hourly ""chief of staff"" also receives funding in the budget. The chief of staff would make more money than the vice chair to take on extra jobs the chair and vice chair want to do yet don't have the time for.
ASM leaders are not pushing such expenditures because they are lazy or want more money. In fact, hiring more students isn't a bad idea. I'm much more comfortable paying students to work in student government than I am paying 10 overqualified, full-time, real people (read: not students) to do work for us.
If ASM is adding student positions, there should be a swap. It fits the purpose of ASM—enhance student leadership and involvement in our own university while deciding where our own funds go. Not to mention students are cheaper to hire than college graduates. Maybe it's time to address the 10 full-time elephants in the room.
Without any reduction in non-student staff, the four new positions that will be created within Shared Governance seem like too large of a step, too quickly. Last year, Legislative Affairs was relatively inactive, devoid of a chair for much of the year. This year, Adam Johnson runs an active Legislative Affairs Committee and has two vice chairs who took on more responsibility without getting paid. The Shared Governance plan to add paid positions sounds like hiring for an unknown future based on a very temporary, term-limited present.
Perhaps the solution is not throwing more money but recruiting, even waiting for more, new students to join ASM. It happens every single year. Plenty of groups on campus have large, heavily dedicated memberships and leaders without paying them.
Other incentives exist, like academic credit through the ASM intern program. Not to mention, there's no problem with pursuing office within ASM to build a résumé. All of us attend this university to enhance our résumé. Diplomas tend to do that. So do mini-government titles.
I still recall fall 2008, as a wee little freshman, when I biked all the way down to the Health Science Learning Center to hear about ASM's proposed, later to fail, new constitution. As I sat in that nearly empty auditorium, listening to the presentation with some Little Caesars and a half dozen students, I remember an impressive new SSFC rep worrying the ASM incumbents were ""a bunch of poli sci nerds playing government."" Since then it's been easy to notice how the purposes of ASM, allocating student segregated fees and overseeing shared governance, have been overpoliticized. I doubt Tyler Junger feels the same way, seeing as he's now chair of ASM.
I'm sitting off on the sidelines as a muckraker, and my ASM friends are still sitting through those godless meetings. I just hope they don't forget how many students would balk at the amount of money flowing through ASM. Sometimes I wish I were still an elected representative in ASM. That way I could wear suits too and pay myself.
Jamie Stark is a sophomore majoring in journalism and political science. Please send responses to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
