Search and Screen: Why the big deal?

So, as you might have noticed from this blog or (probably more accurately) Mr. Spirn, the search and screen committee was a little heated and contentious.

Now, when we're talking about a search for the next Chancellor, it's obvious that tons of people are going to vie for these two spots and the debate over representation is an important one to have. However, what I saw that night represented both the dedication of ASM to really accurately represent students and their failure to make significant progress.

They started interviewing people at around 5:15, starting with Alex Gallagher of SSFC. After beginning with a little more lengthy presentation, Jeff Wright and the rest of them agreed that they should limit the questioning to two questions and another general question about the time commitment.

After the twelve candidates went through and made their case, ASM members left after the two hour interviews went back to the fifth floor of Memorial Union and debated the candidates. They ended up seeing four candidates as strongest — Alex Gallagher, Suchita Shah, Kaja Rebane and Erik Paulson.

Now, Kaja made a great presentation of her involvement at the graduate level, as she's the co-president of TAA and would certainly be their advocate at the table. Given how strongly she felt about Mr. Wiley's problems with the Legislature, she was obviously going to be very critical of anyone who stepped foot into that room claiming to be Chancellor material.

Then there was Suchita. Who many of us in the blogosphere and at the paper know. Campus Queen? Well, if that's what you label her, maybe it's deserved. While she certainly has the resume, credentials and ideals to back it up, Suchita admitted herself that the presentation and interview she gave was a little weak. However, that was probably just nerves. She impressed much of ASM and that's to be understood — she's a neuroscience major that runs with College Dems, did SOAR, did research on the Charter Plant, the list goes on and on. Perhaps the list is almost sickening to some on campus who would ask, "Yeah, but does she understand the concern of students?"

And when it came down to it, that was the second biggest question: Who's going to represent students best?
The biggest question, however, was of what would be a greater fault — two graduate students representing campus or two ASMers?

I personally felt that two graduate students would be a huge mistake and Jeff Wright and others seemed to agree.

Here's what really angered me about the ASM argument. They were worried that the student body would see this as unrepresentative of campus. Excuse me? So, ASM is arguing that they don't represent students? Great way to boost your legitimacy. As I said there and will say again, if you don't believe ASM is viewed as doing just that, then maybe you shouldn't be part of ASM. Let's not forget, ASM is technically the entire student body. The people who serve on committee are just those who showed more active involvement and engagement (most times) in campus. Even the resume boosters have to know something to get on those committees.

That being said, we all know ASM has major flaws that need to be fixed. But you can't say that they (some of them) aren't trying.

Yet, above all, the most bizarre part of this discussion isn't that it went on for 2 hours or that it came down to two tie votes. Or that some people thought the TAA agenda was something to be supported without opposition. Although given how visible pissed off she was, that certainly did serve as a big dent in her application.

It was that the tone of the discussion wasn't really a debate, even during its most heated portion. It was people making opposite points without criticizing the those opinion. Someone mentions the ASMers problem, then someone mentions the Graduate student experience and how they have a more broad approach then we anticipate. Then someone else mentions the same first point. And someone else broaches the second point again. Very little discussion of the actual qualities involved in searching for the next chancellor occurred, most focused on what the student body is going to best represented by.

Basically, it was like if the debaters had headphones on so as to not hear the other side. There were certainly concerns, but I'm not sure people we're really making their points very well.

Now, let me just say, for the people who stayed, that was dedication. To spend two hours deciding over five people can get tedious when you've already spent an additional 2 hours and 15 minutes listening to candidates.

However, when people start defending candidates simply because, "They have a passion" but discount other candidates because, "He talked too much about private fundraising," that's bullshit. Yes, we're a public university, but that comes from how well the chancellor communicates the true position of the university to Rep. Nass and the constant skeptics. Private fundraising requires just as much, if not more work. And it is far less guaranteed.

But I digress. Suchita was finally voted in along with Erik and they adjourned. Jeff looked visibly shaken, but he really held it together well considering the strange isolated debates going on among the crowd.

Apparently they're both going to be holding listening sessions with different schools, so once that starts to happen, I'll go cover that. However, for now, I'm concerned with ASMs role. I only wish I could have been more involved, from an earlier stage, steer it a little.

Wishful thinking.

And the reps for Search and Screen are...

Erik Paulson, a graduate student in computer sciences dept., former academic staff and undergrad.

Suchita Shah, of College Democrats, The Herald and pretty much anything else you could think of.

I'll elaborate on this a little later, but it was a hard fought battle and it exposes a lot of the strengths and flaws of Shared Gov. That'll come later.

Hey Erik...About that ASM Book Sale...

I think I have another reason why that book sale didn't work out too well. I checked my inbox about 4 minutes ago and saw this:

Do textbook prices have you down…?
Low on Money…?

Well then bring your textbooks to the ASM/CALS Textbook Swap so that you can receive more money for your books than you would at a bookstore, and buy your used textbooks for less.

ASM/CALS Textbook Swap

When: Monday January 21st
Where: Great Hall Memorial Union
10am-12pm: Drop off books to be sold
1pm-5pm: Buy used textbooks

Yeah, that JUST came into the mailbox. I mean, I understand that mass emails might get a little clogged, but the day after? That's embarrassing. Come on ASM, get it together.

RCF: Welcome back my friends, to the show that never ends.

So, after another court ruling seems to have put UW in its place with regard to UW's rejection of the Roman Catholic Foundation, the bloggers either seem to be breathing a hesitant sigh of relief. But there's still a lot of questions.

First, let's address some questions.

As Opsal said:

What's illegal, he said, is the university's practice of singling out types of religious speech for different treatment. The U.S. Supreme Court has said mandatory student fees must be awarded without regard to the viewpoint of the group.

Does this include all viewpoints? What if I started a group Students for Killing Puppies. If I applied for seg fees, wouldn't they have to give them to me? Basically, if you can't look at what the group does, WHAT BASIS DO YOU AWARD FEES ON!? Someone, I'm looking at you Smathers, please answer this for me.

First off, I disagree with Shabaz insisting that UW has a policy that singles out one religious group but supports others. JCC is not a religious organization — Jewish Cultural Collective. Come on. If they're talking about the funding given to MSA, its still different. They're an RSO, but more classified as an interest group than a service group. They get travel grants, not money for religious services. Now, if they started asking for money for religious ceremonies or objects, you might see the same reaction. But since they're not, we can't treat it as such.

As to Erik's question: Well, first off, that's an obvious extreme example. I'm not sure that would work. Let's try instead... Students for White Supremacy. That group, if it provided a demonstrated service to students (say, providing counseling and discussion for white students and their racist views) and was one of the only of its service on campus, it could conceivably receive funding. of course, it would most likely be rejected because of personal decisions. But if VPN was carried out correctly and they met the eligibility requirements, it is possible it would eventually go to budget deliberations. Still, I don't see how that would ever get to a stage like that. Yet, less extreme examples might be able to reach these stages.

Basically, Erik, to meet funding eligibility requirements you have to demonstrate:
-A service that is not replicated by any other group on campus (which is why they funded one Tenant resource and not the other)
-Have to provide some sort of proof that they provide a service to students of an education nature, including events, leadership capabilities and an additional significant component.

I only wish I could have interviewed Alex Gallagher a day later than we did.

Thankfully, there was one thing he said that while enlightening at the time, but raises new questions in my mind. In the middle of our interview, I asked him what criteria distinguished a group from segregated fee eligibility or denial. While there was always this vague talk of "an additional significant component," he offered a much better explanation. JCC, RCF, POLYGON and others were denied funding because they represent an interest group rather than a service group.

JCC? Sure, they provide events, leadership opportunities and a newsletter. Still, more an interest group than a service.
POLYGON? Sure they decide on some Engineering School decisions, provide leadership opportunities and networking events for engineering students. But their service to the entire student body? I challenge you to find it.

Ahh, but RCF is tricky. Someone commented on my piece in the Herald last semester that none of this matters because RCF still was denied eligibility. Yet, they were denied on the basis of not having that additional significant component. Now, RCF has always maintained that the service they provide to campus is multifaceted — programs (the occasional musical), events (take your pick), leadership opportunities (RCF Board or otherwise) but then religious services, religious discussion and pastoral care (Tim Kruse remarked last year about a few students who consistently came to talk through their emotional problems with the staff on hand.)

If the service aspect requires an additional significant component, one could argue that the lawsuit by UW has stripped RCF of the ability to provide that component. If RCF-UW was simply a gathering of Catholics, that'd be one thing. But if part of their mission is to actively recruit and provide a religious or spiritual service to campus and that has been immediately discounted by UW policy, it forces them into that interest group corner.

The question is, since the judge has ordered and injunction to UW's prohibitive policy, will RCF file some sort of SJ case demanding a review of their budget for eligibility?

We shall see. And we'll certainly have video coverage of this once everything gets edited and the interviews are completed. Expect the first one by the end of the week.

And such a long hiatus, a return!

But I'm back. It's been a hectic last two weeks putting together the Reg Issue of the Badger Herald, but it's out, and it's accompanying second edition, full of Badger's victory over Washington State, will be out on Tuesday. We go back to work on that same day, putting out our first regular issue on Wednesday.

However, some things to talk about before then, seeing I've been practically invisible since the Herald started...

-MU Bash is tonight, and it's about an hour before they start. I'll probably post a little round up of their performance, along with what the feeling was of MU Bash in general. I'm looking at the line-up now of activities now, but it seems quite sparse. Perhaps that will change once the Freshmen pack the hallways, but it does seem like there is a lot less to do here than in previous years...

-On a separate note, we had Trombone Shorty, a New Orleans based funk/jazz artist at the terrace last
night, and it was far better than expected. WUD sort of booked it on a whim, and there was talk of trying to get Band of Horses here instead, as they were available, but I doubt they would have energized the crowd more than Troy "Trombone Shorty" Andrews did. Although there were a few times I gave my usual musical snob snort -- such as when he played Lenny Kravitz tunes, "Runnin" and his cover of the Guess Who's "American Woman" -- I must admit, the crowd was on par with our Hip-Hop menagerie earlier in the summer. In the end, the crowd was feeling funky and they got down. In a show of how well he knew the crowd, he even inserted a little "Jump Around" to satisfy the sea of red that came over to enjoy a brisk summer night.

He was supposed to play two sets, one hour each. Instead, he played for about 2 and a half hours straight. "I don't think we've ever played a crowd this big, or with this much energy. It just makes me wanna keep going!" And they did. I actually heard the masses in front of the stage yell "encore" at the top of their lungs, the second they started to step off the stage. Now, THAT is impressive.

-Just saw ASM at a table where they gave me a little light-hearted jabbing over the Ed Board opinion on segregated fees. It looks like this will be an interesting year for campus politics, but I'm optimistic. Hopefully we'll be able to work together instead of against each other. After all, we're both, as Art Brut would say, "just talking to the kids," right? Maybe I should stop using kids though. I've been told I use that term a lot. That arrogant Smathers!

- So, another point of contention is this weekend's two competing festivals - SoCo festival with the Flaming Lips (21 and up, only) and WSUM's inaugural Snake on the Lake Fest with the 1900's and the Pony's. I'm torn, but having seen the Lips at Lollapalooza and taking part in their orgasmic visual spectacle, I think I'll catch WSUM's festival, especially since I probably owe a radio station that's given me the opportunity to do a show with all British music. Which leads me to....

-New Radio Show! Although we couldn't continue Muckrakers because of scheduling conflicts, I will have a new show this semester. With my friend musical encyclopedia, John Vanek, we'll be spinning through a different genre of music every week, Thursday's at 3pm at WSUM 91.7 fm. We're starting out with a salute to old Western music, then going through a spin of the origins of Rock N' Roll (circa 1953) the week after that. From there...British Invasion, 60's Psychedelia and forward. If you have any genre suggestions, send me an email at jsmathers@wisc.edu and I'll get on it.

Other than that, we have a busy week ahead of us at the Herald, but would enjoy it if the community voice could contribute with letters to the editor, guest editorials, etc. If you've got a desire to sound off on a local issue, speak on behalf of a community org, or just have a beef with us, send it along. We'll print it.

Send pieces, inquiries, etc to either jsmathers@badgerherald.com or agranias@badgerherald.com and we'll get on the case.

And I promise, I'll try and update much more often.

SSFC and Chancellor Wiley: reunited and it feels so good

With all the music flowing from the Terrace and High Noon, I nearly forgot to mention an important point of news that happened on Friday.

First, some background. Last year, Chancellor Wiley provided ASM a one-year exemption that allowed groups located off-campus to be funded by segregated fees. In December, Wiley ended that practice and forced ASM to reevaluate the budgets of a few student groups:
Promoting Awareness and Victim Empowerment (PAVE)
Jewish Cultural Center
Sex Out Loud
Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT)
Wisconsin Public Interest Research Group (WisPIRG)
and UW Roman Catholic Foundation

Instead of reviewing the budgets, ASM decided the ruling was an unfair measure as no state law exists prohibiting the use of Segregated fees for Off-campus rent. Eventually, words went back and forth and we have arrived without resolution, at the Board of Regents, who have the final say.


Although there are certain criteria as to whether the Seg Fee use is legitimate, it is only one criteria for appeal this meeting was concerned with:

c) Does the student-proposed budget item require the university to violate any statute, administrative code, policy, or contract?

A Nov. 8th 2006 legal opinion written by UW legal council Patricia Brady concluded that segregated fee use to fund off-campus rent.

SSFC (now headed by former SRC leaders Katrina Flores and Alex Gallagher) argues that there is no statute in state law restricting the off-campus seg. fee use. Furthermore, they're saying the state statute 36.09(5) (aka Shared Governance) was broken because the legal opinion was written without consultation with ASM.

For once, this isn't about money. If the rent issue passes, then students will have to pay an extra $1.20 per semester.

Katrina Flores and Gallagher first attacked Pat Brady's legal opinion by citing each point and disputing that a law was broken. Certainly, many of Brady's points don't seem to show any damning evidence against the increase, if they are presented in the memo the way SSFC characterizes it. Here's a copy of the SSFC presentation, if you care to peruse.

Here's an excerpt:

Brady assumes campus student activities (Ironically, on a campus whose mission is to expand the boundaries of the campus to the boundaries of the state and beyond) should be literally taken as “on-campus.” This would entail that student groups who hold events off-campus, say a BBQ at a local park, would not be within the campus boundaries and thus they would not be able to choose this location.

...and since ASM hands out travel grants to student groups, I doubt this would ever be an issue.

So, with no stipulations specifically restricting rent from being funded, what is the problem?

Well, Elton Crim came to make the presentation for UW-Madison. Basically, the presentation boiled down to "Chancellor Wiley has the authority to be the final word on this decision." Sorry, that doesn't work in an appeal. Remember ASM's decision is subject to the decision of the Chancellor and the Board of Regents. Since the Board of Regents already laid out their stipulation for appeals, you might want to argue to that point.

That's exactly what Chancellor Wiley tried to do himself, when prompted by the board.
Here is a direct quote of his remarks regarding "potential implications:

Let me say, first, that I can agree with pretty much everything said. I agree completely with the importance and impact on students. I'm especially concerned about the status, the fragility and durability of the whole seg fee system if we're not very very careful. There are many issues, current, right now, that could potentially endanger the entire system and eliminate seg fees, allocable seg fees, at least, totally and I think that would be catastrophic. In trying to be very very careful with the way we administrate seg fees, I asked Patricia for a decision. That's why she wrote it, I asked, are we on shaky ground here...As long as their opinion followed all the procedural policies and was legal, I would pass along and support to the board of regents their recommendations and I've done that faithfully. This happens to be one case in which I was told by legal council it would be illegal. That's really my whole decision right there...This is a very vulnerable position. There are some organizations off-campus, that have buildings, that are going to be there whether they get rent from us or not. And this provides the groups to subsidize their budgets, for the maintenance of their organization. among other things. there are other possible scenarios, you can imagine, that would come up and will come up if the payment of off-campus rent is deemed to be legal or desirable.

Sort of ambiguous. What would make that a problem, exactly? Besides, isn't the point of GSSF fees to maintain these student organizations, anyway? I think the real problem that Wiley cites is funding rent for UWRCF when they're currently housed in St. Paul's (or, I suppose, Hillel). If that's the case, what's the problem? UWRCF has been forced to separate itself from St. Paul's, so the conflict shouldn't exist anymore. Later on, Wiley mentions "One" org that brought up contract status and made them question this decision...could it be...UWRCF?

Wiley later said his decision was to correct a mistake by a former Chancellor. When pressed for information, he cited Donna Schalala.

The meetings ended with the board asking Chancellor Wiley and SSFC to talk in the meantime to try and work out a compromise on the issue.

There are a lot of ends and outs here, and I don't want to post my full opinion on the issue until I obtain a copy of Pat Brady's memo, tomorrow. However, I have a lot of homework piling up and a birthday tomorrow.

I promise, I'll be back to clarify.