The Campus Women’s Center made its fifth appeal to Associated Students of Madison during a hearing held by the Student Judiciary Feb. 9 between CWC and Student Services Finance Committee.

The case regarded the definition of “viewpoint neutrality” and the extent to which it applies in cases like CWC’s.

ASM Secretary Kurt Gosselin, who represented SSFC in the appeal hearing, likened the case to the story of Ali Baba, where all he had to do was utter the phrase “open sesame” to reach the treasure.

Gosselin said “viewpoint neutrality” is the magic word to get an appeal hearing from Student Judiciary. and the claim of a viewpoint neutrality violation does not warrant a case.

“This is not a trial of fact as it is of judicial interpretation,” Gosselin said. CWC alleged the appeal hearing before SSFC was neither fair nor viewpoint neutral.

One basis of its appeal and the bone of contention throughout the meeting was comments made by SSFC Secretary Matthew Manes.

In the complaint from the CWC, Manes allegedly said he would “fight” any attempts from CWC for eligibility, from SSFC or Student Council.

“It felt like we were working with people who were not going to change their mind,” said Tina Trevi�o-Murphy, program coordinator for CWC.

Cale Plamann, a University of Wisconsin law student assisting CWC in the appeal, said he felt some of the proceedings throughout CWC’s multiple hearings and appeals were of a retaliatory nature.

Plamann claimed that because he was making Manes “work” by filing multiple appeals and because of the extended nature of the case, Manes had grown to dislike Plamann.

“This looks very much like retaliation against the [CWC]. They treated this as a burden rather than a democratic process,” Plamann said.

It is very hard to prove viewpoint neutrality unless the party in question openly claims it does not like the group, Plamann said. He referenced Manes’s comment to “fight” CWC eligibility.

SSFC Chair Brandon Williams said Manes’ comment was in regard to the tenacity he wanted the SSFC bylaws and procedures to be followed and was not in regard to a dislike for the policies and services of CWC.

Williams said Manes feared if the CWC appeal went to Student Council, it would not strictly adhere to the SSFC bylaws because the members of Student Council are not trained in viewpoint neutrality.

Murphy said this could be remedied by training the members if CWC were to reach Student Council.

In an e-mail read aloud to the court by Manes, he outlined why he felt CWC should not receive eligibility. He said that no procedural violations had occurred in SSFC and that giving CWC another chance at appeal for eligibility when there were no perceived violations in SSFC procedure would itself be a violation in viewpoint neutrality.

The decision will be made before the next Student Judiciary meeting next Tuesday.