You are on page 1of 3

S t u d e n t A c t i v i t y C e n t e r , R o o m 4 3 0 1 , 3 3 3 E a s t C a m p u s M a l l , M a d i s o n , W I 5 3 7 1 5 - 1 3 8 0 s S t u d e n t A c t i v i t y C e n t e r , R o o m 4 3 0 1 , 3 3 3 E a s t C a m p u s M a l l , M a d i s o n , W I 5 3 7 1 5 - 1 3 8 0 s w w w . a s m . w i s c . e d u s U n i v e r s i t y o f W i s c o n s i n - M a d i s o n w w w . a s m . w i s c . e d u s U n i v e r s i t y o f W i s c o n s i n - M a d i s o n p h o n e : 6 0 8 . 2 6 5 . 4 A S M s f a x : 6 0 8 . 2 6 5 . 5 6 3 7 s a s m @ s t u d e n t o r g . w i s c .

e d u

A s s o c i a t e d

S t u d e n t s

o f

M a d i s o n

s Allie Gardner Chair s Andrew Bulovsky Vice-Chair s Thomas Sannito Secretary s Kathryn Fifield Chief Justice s Sarah Neibart Student Services Finance Committee s Kara Coates Finance Committee s Sade Johnson Academic Affairs Committee s Beth Huang Shared Governance Committee s New Press Office Director Press Office s Zachary DeQuattro Nominations Board s Brianna Barth Student Activity Center Governing Board s Renata Danks Student Elections Commission s Hannah Somers Legislative Affairs Committee s Tangela Roberts Diversity Committee s Tia Nowack Rules Committee

15 April 2012 500 Lincoln Dr, 161 Bascom Hall ~ Campus Mail ~ To: Interim Chancellor David Ward From: SSFC Chair Sarah Neibart RE: Your Decision of MCSCs Appeal Dear Interim Chancellor Ward, Thank you for providing a decision on the issue of MCSCs eligibility in adequate time. I believe that you spent a lot of time analyzing the pertinent documents, and trying to understand the consequences of each potential decision. However, I would like to bring to light some flaws in how you came to your decision, and the problems that will arise if you allow this decision to go to ASM Student Council. In your letter to MCSC, SSFC, SJ, and ASM leadership on Friday April 13th you make clear that the bylaw of 2.02(2)(b) states that Viewpoint neutral fashion: A decision is made in a viewpoint neutral fashion where the decision is made: 1) in accordance with any procedural requirements for making the decision; and 2) without considering the viewpoint being expressed by the recipient of the funds. However you also point out that the definition of viewpoint neutrality does not comport with the definition identified in Southworth and other federal court cases. In addition, that bylaw is specifically referring to View Point Neutrality Violations happening in eligibility and budget decisions. You and the Student Judiciary both find that there were no violations of View Point Neutrality in MCSCs Eligibility Hearing and Decision by the SSFC; thus, it is only appropriate to re-affirm SSFCs decision on MCSCs eligibility, and not mandate it to Student Council. As you may know many of our bylaws have not been updated since the creation of the original ASM Constitution, moreover many of these bylaws as you state later in your findings document do not align with the Southworth decision, because of this it was imperative for the Student Judiciary to exercise its authority to as is outlined in the Constitution, Article X, Section 3, the Student Judiciary shall have authority over all ASM elections, over cases and controversies arising under the Constitution, Bylaws, rules, and laws of the , and over all Registered Student Organizations (RSO's), including the Associated Students of Madison. This includes the power to find ASM and RSO Bylaws, procedures, policies and rules unconstitutional under the ASM Constitution, and thus to strike them down. The idea that the violation of due process is a View Point Neutrality Violation is unconstitutional because it contrasts with federal court rulings. I would have assumed that you would have come to that conclusion because your decision to still uphold that incorrect bylaw and grant MCSC an eligibility hearing on those grounds is incredibly inconsistent of what you find later in your findings. MCSC alleges that under Article IX, Section 3 that SSFC lacked the authority to remove a student service from the budget and therefore could not remove MCSC from the student

The Associated Students of Madison is the official student government on the UW-Madison campus, representing over 40,000 students.

fee allocation. You decided that because this is not in line with UW financial policy F50 and the Federal Court Case Southworth vs. Board of Regents to reject and not uphold this line in the constitution. The Constitution supersedes ASM bylaws thus deciding to reject a point of the Constitution but still upholding an incorrect bylaw is inconsistent and brings many issues up to question. At this point, it seems that your interpretation of these bylaws, which is Student Judiciarys role under the campus Shared Governance process, is overstepping your bounds and trying to find a conclusion that you see as satisfactory. I am not aware of your intentions for coming to this conclusion but it seems as though you are worried with the outcome rather than the process. With your judgment you are undermining the student fee process, and putting a decision, which has been highly contentious into a politicized body that does not have the training of View Point Neutrality, decorum for Eligibility Hearings, and Budgeting practices etc. If Student Council were to hold this hearing this would create increased liabilities for the University and ensure that MCSC would be treated differently than any other group. In addition too the above stated issues, you neglected to even recognize the bylaw of 5.07(1)- Procedural Violations, which outlines Special Complaints. (a)- A procedural complaint is based on a procedural or similar violation that does not address viewpoint neutral concerns, and shall follow these rules: (b) - If a procedural complaint is filed with the Student Judiciary that has not yet been addressed by the Committee, the Student Judiciary may remand the complaint to a committee to hear it in the first instance. In implementing the waiver the Student Judiciary, found SSFC had a due process violation, which is categorized as a Procedural Violation and should have been remanded back to SSFC. Since the waiver was never actually used there was no decision to remand back to SSFC, but if MCSC had submitted the waiver on time the Student Judiciary would have remanded that decision back to SSFC. Also, the Student Judiciary in the 2011 ASM SJ 17 decision states as such the core the question of this case is whether SSFC violated due process rights (of MCSC in particular and GSSF groups in general) by creating and implementing the waiver in the way that it did. For this question, the Panel finds in the affirmative. Thus, with your rational, ALL groups deserve a new eligibility hearing and new budget hearing. If you want MCSC to have a new hearing with this reasoning, you also should mandate every group to be re-heard by Student Council. If this is not adhered to - with your rational- you are violating View Point Neutrality and Due Process for every group. I am, also, incredibly disappointed that you have mandated students to change certain bylaws within there own student government. ASM is the governance that students at UW Madison have chosen, and the representatives in ASM shall make decision without being mandated by the Chancellor of the institution, administration, faculty, and staff. Your directions to restore certain bylaws in ASM are a violation of Shared Governance, and an insult to all students.

With the above stated reasons, I urge you to relinquish your decision to refer MCSCs eligibility decision to Student Council, and to re-affirm SSFCs decision to deny MCSC eligibility. Sincerely, Sarah Neibart, Chair, Student Services Finance Committee Cc: Darrell Bazzell Lori Berquam Kevin Helmkamp Donna Halleran Nancy Lynch

You might also like