They just don't give out $128,000 like they used to. Last Monday, the Wisconsin Student Public Interest Research Group found that out the hard way.
The Student Services Finance Committee voted 6-3 to deny funding to WISPIRG, a student organization that trains student activists through grassroots campaigns. SSFC ruled WISPIRG didn't meet Direct Service Requirements for eligibility, namely that university students didn't comprise at least 75 percent of the group's direct service beneficiaries.
Obviously, WISPIRG members are upset and plan to appeal the ruling. If it is unsuccessful, as most student organization appeals are, they won't get a penny from the General Student Service Funds in the 2012-13 fiscal year; a long way down from its current $128,378.59 budget.
When I talked with Rashi Mangalick, chair of the UW-Madison WISPIRG chapter, she said the program was no different today than it was a year ago. She felt the group was being punished for being too successful.
On the contrary, I felt like the group was being judged fairly. Viewpoint neutrality doesn't recognize organizations as popular, successful, liberal or otherwise. If an organization doesn't provide direct services in the appropriate fashion as outlined by SSFC requirements, then they shouldn't expect money from student segregated fees.
That's not to say that the SSFC requirements are without faults, but as it stands they are the basis for any funding decision.
In a letter to the editor at The Badger Herald, Scott Rubin compared WISPIRG to other groups like Wisconsin Student Lobby and PAVE and criticized SSFC for funding those groups and not WISPIRG. He also asks, ""if we are going to sacrifice a portion of our tuition towards funding student organizations, don't we wish for them to strive for excellence?""
First of all, PAVE holds workshops tailored to student needs. WSL trains various groups in lobbying techniques by request. Then there's WISPIRG, which runs national-scale campaigns that aren't directly requested by or tailored to the needs of UW-Madison students.
Besides, our segregated fees are calculated, not guaranteed. If WISPIRG isn't approved for funding, then our segregated fees won't be as high next year. The money isn't just thrown somewhere else.
Furthermore, WISPIRG doesn't fit the conventional build for funding. It's one of the only student organizations with contract status, meaning almost $58,000 from student tuition can fund salaries for non-UW students or affiliates to operate the organization. I don't mind paying for fellow students to provide services on campus. I am, however, skeptical at the thought of helping compensate random campaign organizers scattered across the state.
Even though I agreed with the ruling, one thing Mangalick mentioned was still bothering me. If WISPIRG is the same operation today as it was a year ago, when SSFC approved a nearly identical budget, why shouldn't it be entitled to at least the same amount of money, if not more?
SSFC Chair, Matt Manes had an answer. ""We cannot take into account history, size of group or popularity."" Precedent is nonexistent in terms of applying for funding. At the end of the day, a group should be judged in only its current condition and what it presents to the SSFC this year.
And guess what? He's spot on. Somewhere along the line, laws need to be appropriately enforced regardless of past practice. Unlike committee members from prior years, this year's SSFC members followed the rules and judged accordingly.
I realize it's unfair that WISPIRG was strung along for the past few years and received funding, but at the same time they should be judged on equal grounds with other organizations. WISPIRG should not be exempt from the rules because it's popular or because of poor judgment in the past.
That said, I still don't entirely agree with SSFC's 75 percent university student beneficiary clause. So I posed this hypothetical to Manes: ""If WISPIRG were to serve all 56,000 students and faculty at UW-Madison as effectively as possible, but also serve an additional 50,000 people in Milwaukee, would they be eligible for funding?""
Not according to the requirements, he told me. This reveals a flaw in the current funding system, and it's a problem that needs to be addressed before other groups lose funding.
WISPIRG deserved the right to be informed ahead of time that their funding was in jeopardy so appropriate changes could have been enacted. Is that SSFC's job? Not necessarily. And I'm not sure any amount of changes would have made a difference, or that they were even possible following the WISPIRG structure.
Don't get me wrong. I think WISPIRG campaigns do benefit students on this campus. I also think it will be able to function next year in some capacity regardless of SSFC's decision. Granting $128,000 is a lot of money, and it's important that it's allocated according to the rules of the present, not faults of the past.
Dan Tollefson is a senior majoring in English. Please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
