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.

36.09(5) - Shared Governance or Throwing the dogs a bone?

As you might have read on in the Cap Times or Something Verbose, the Board of Regents voted in favor of Chancellor Wiley on the off-campus rent issue. Basically it means that...
Sex Out Loud!, CFACT and PAVE are relegated to the basement of Memorial Union. The Union is going to pay to renovate their space, as offices are in an old flooded space in the basement. However, according to Alex Gallagher, they have no money for maintenance as that line item was included in Off-Campus Rent. So if they want to keep their basic space running, they'll either need to dip into the reserve board (money left over at the end of each year) or cut other expenditures. Does that mean SOL! will have to hold off on the strap-ons? How will the children know how to properly peg each other?

Wispirg is still shacked up with MCSC and the Jewish Cultural Collective is enjoying a cosy living arrangement with Hillel.

But what about the Roman Catholic Foundation? Yes, they're hanging out with St. Paul's for now, but part of their settlement with the UW stipulates that they have to cut ties with St. Paul's. Does that mean UW has to find space for them as well or do we just wait for another set of lawsuits? Gallagher declined to comment on the UWRCF situation stating, "that's too political, I'm not going to get into that...All I can say is those groups have been able to obtain housing for free." Sounds like I'll have to have another chat with Tim Kruse.

It sets up questions about the future of segregated fees, but the bigger issue on the side of ASM is how this hampers Shared Governance. Alex Gallagher said that having Chancellor Wiley mandate a decision from on high violates shared governance, because he didn't directly consult with ASM.

Board of Regents saw it differently. For them, two years was plenty of time to "consult" with students on the matter and ultimately, Wiley has ultimate authority. Well, I'd definitely agree with the regents about the time element, but "Shared Governance" needs some clarification. Let's take a look at it, shall we?

The students of each institution or campus subject to the responsibilities and powers of the board, the president, the chancellor, and the faculty shall be active participants in the immediate governance of and policy development for such institutions.

Ok, right off the bat, it sets out who's in charge. The president, chancellor, board and faculty come first. Now, this is where the ambiguity starts - "active participants in the immediate governance." I feel the students are reading the last part first and the first part last. Yes, immediate governance is taking place, but you're only kids at the table. You get to speak, but not govern. Active participation is such a weak term for something that's supposed to let ASM have their hand in every student decision and activity. As far as I know, "active participation" could be just as deceiving as when Bill O'Reilly tells his guests "As always, I'll give you the last word."

If this were all there is to it, we'd probably not be having this argument. It's the following part that causes heads to be scratched till bloody and raw:

As such, students shall have the primary responsibilityfor the formulation and review of policies concerning student life, services, and interests. Students in consultation with the chancellor and subject to the final confirmation of the board shall have the responsibility for the disposition of those student fees which constitute substantial support for campus student activities.

Ahh, so this is where SSFC gets the idea from. It goes to them first and they discuss it with Wiley, but the board of regents has the final say. It's not just saying they get to sit at the table, it says they're digging into the food, as well.

However, here's where the caveat comes in. Notice the one word missing from this section: power. The "powers and responsibilities" are in the hands of the administration, whereas the students only have "responsibilities." In this sense, 36.09(5) doesn't guarantee governance, it guarantees a burden. The administration hands over some of their work to the students, but when they muck it up, mom and dad take back control and chastise them.

The only way ASM and SSFC recovers from this decision is if the state statute is revised to specifically lay out the duties and powers of student governance in regards to student fees, policies and activities. Lots of luck on that one.

Until then, we're nothing more than glorified lobbyists. Yet, it's still important to embrace that role. If you think complaining about segregated fees isn't an issue, consider this: tuition will rise by 5.5%, about $330, for the year. Segregated Fees are rising by around 33%, 125 dollars a semester.

One is inevitable and essential. The other is a frills package we don't need. and we CAN stop it. I sincerely believe that.

Edit - Quick correction -- the Chancellor's Office is funding the renovation of the Union, not the Union itself. Thanks Suchita.

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.