For the second time in as many weeks, the Student Services Finance Committee voted down a proposal from member Brad Vogel to reduce salaries for student leadership positions Monday.

Eight SSFC members voted against Vogel’s proposal, and one abstained. The only vote to pass the proposal was cast by Vogel himself.

Whereas Vogel’s failed proposal from a week ago attempted to cap student salaries at $1,000, his new proposal attempted to limit student organizations to spending only 25 percent of their allotted budget on the wages.

Vogel said he crafted his new proposal to ensure segregated student fees allotted to salaries for student leadership positions are “actually in place to augment that student’s desire to help out the overall student service, [and] not to be the sole objective for that student working.”

Some representatives from both outside student organizations and from within SSFC criticized Vogel’s word choice as both unprofessional and a slap in the face when he wrote “student segregated fees are best used for the overall benefit of a student service organization’s overall purpose, not a few members’ pocketbooks.”

Vogel did not back off his choice of words, and claimed many students who do not participate in SSFC-funded organizations share his views.

“Some have alluded to [the language in the proposal] as being a slap in the face or of a negative connotation,” Vogel said. “Basically what this reflects is the sentiment of my constituents that I have talked to.”

Vogel said he created the proposal in an attempt to represent the interests of students who “are just astounded” when they hear some of the salaries students are making.

“To them, it’s a slap in the face that people are getting this much money for doing something that they should just want to do or something that they should be doing for altruistic reasons, not just to get money,” Vogel said.

Responding to allegations from some student organization leaders that he does not care about University of Wisconsin students, Vogel returned the question to the organization leaders.

“Do you care about the students who are not in the [GSSF]-funded organizations, who are not able to participate in [these] organizations, because they have other things to do, like class?” Vogel asked.

A number of SSFC members joined student organization leaders in criticizing Vogel’s proposal before formally voting against it, including member Barbara Kiernoziak, secretary Rachelle Stone and Vice Chair Kevin Otten.

“The merit of this is sound,” Stone said of the proposal. “I just think this is the wrong way to go; I think it has to be a collaborative effort.”

Otten however was more critical, reciting a list of twelve faults he found with the proposal.

“I think this is a horrible idea for many reasons,” Otten said.

According to Otten, no discussion had occurred identifying student salaries as a problem that needed to be served, questioning what even prompted Vogel’s proposal.

Otten also questioned the “arbitrary” 25 percent limit on salaries Vogel suggested, citing the Greater University Tutorial Services as an organization that would be hurt by Vogel’s proposal, as Otten said GUTS currently allots 80 percent of their budget to student salaries.