The Daily Cardinal Editorial Board recently met with ASM members to discuss their upcoming internal budget, especially the request for $100,000 to fund a series of internal training sessions-we were not impressed.
Before delving into the details, its important to clarify how our student representatives request budget increases, what the program entails and what the cost to each student will be. ASM does not pull from a pre-established pool of money. Instead, it submits a budget request every year that must be approved by SSFC and university administration. This year ASM requested $1,362,575.20, an increase of $183,236.95 from last year's internal budget. Expect this number to rise, however, as the cost of the commencement speaker has not yet been determined and last year that number came to $75,000. The cost of the internal training session is estimated to have a minimum cost of $76,748, so ASM will request $100,000 for the program. This calculates to about $3 of every student's segregated fees for the training.
An immediate issue is that the nature of the training sessions, and thus the estimated cost, is hardly concrete. ASM has conceptualized a large and vague list of areas it hopes the training will cover, from "Political climate and structure of city and state governments" to the intricacies of the student budgetary process. The organization based its budget request on the possibility of transporting and providing accommodation for alumni from both the Midwest area and the distant coasts, yet it has no idea what the proportions of each will be. It has also calculated the cost of covering a missed day of work for each speaker based on a $45,000 salary-we question whether this is an accurate yardstick.
With the acknowledgment that ASM and The Daily Cardinal are different beasts, we can't help but note that we have a number of training sessions throughout the year that don't cost $100,000. We see no justification for flying alumni out, providing rooms in the Double Tree Hotel and covering the cost of missing work in order to conduct internal training. Even if an ASM alumnus living that far away were interested and still had an intricate knowledge of ASM processes, why not just hold a Skype conference call? In fact, why seek such far-away help at all? We would assume that many ASM alumni still live in the Wisconsin or the Midwest, perhaps even in Madison. We would also assume that alumni living in the state would have a better grasp of the problems facing the university and Wisconsin as a whole.
Further, ASM wants to pay an enormous amount of money for outside help yet ignores that it sits on top of an enormous wealth of knowledge. If it wants training and education on local and state politics, why not consult one of the world's best political science departments? Budgetary, accounting and efficiency training? We have a top-ranked business school a block away from the ASM offices. And while we acknowledge that ASM's duties are difficult and their responsibilities laudable, they need not fly in an alumnus from New York to read their own by laws. The $3 cost of the training initiative for every student is not an issue-most students won't complain about the cost of a latte. But 42,000 lattes might benefit the student body more than this program will. The idea that internal training for ASM will trickle down and result in better services in the long run is weak, and one that most students won't buy. And while the training sessions are open to other student organizations, the percentage of students that will take part, and thus directly benefit, is quite small.
The decision to request $100,000 for internal training instead of other programs that might directly benefit students also suggests a warped perception of priorities in a time of economic recession and enormous budget cuts to the UW System. It also feeds growing criticisms that ASM is too internally focused and inept in its duties-we can't help but ask why this training is necessary when past ASM sessions have functioned just fine.
We acknowledge that training is beneficial and could have a positive effect on the internal processes of student government. But the proposal-and its absurd cost-suggests that ASM simply hasn't thought this through. We encourage university officials, if not SSFC, to reject the program funding in its entirety. If our student government wants to improve how it functions, it should stop wasting time on itself and start contributing to the students it supposedly represents. It's time to go back to the drawing board.
Please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
