H -°, L 6° | Tomorrow: 
H 18°, L 6°There’s a suspicious discrepancy between the messages that should be landing in my inbox and those that actually have been. State statute 36.09(5) states, “Students shall have the primary responsibility for the formulation and review of policies concerning student life, services, and interests.” University of Wisconsin students have chosen to give this responsibility to the Associated Students of Madison. Yet despite this, the bookstore has sent me four e-mails in the last two weeks; ASM hasn’t sent me any.
How is it that an organization called the Associated Students of Madison can claim to properly represent the views of students without actively inviting their input?
Despite their best efforts, the writers of the new ASM Constitution are missing the point. It wouldn’t matter if ASM worked inefficiently if its actions were actually visible. Who cares if the Student Council passes only one proposal per meeting if that proposal will really help students and its passing is shouted from the campus rooftops?
The new constitution does, admittedly, fix some problems within ASM, including inefficient internal communications and a lack of general accountability. These problems, however, should be addressed in smaller ways than those being done.
The real problem with ASM is its inability to communicate, not within itself, but with the students on campus. Why is it that I’ve gotten more e-mail from the bookstore than from my government?
ASM’s press office needs to be held more accountable. At the time of writing, the link to the most recent press release on ASM’s website leads, in fact, to a page stating “Error 404: Not Found.” The head of this office should be a well-paid employee of the government with relatively low job security. Anyone willing to be the mouthpiece of ASM should realize he or she is the most crucial link in ASM’s chain. It is his or her responsibility to ensure UW students know what their government is doing and have the knowledge necessary to influence its actions.
We need surveys to see what students want ASM to do. We need a daily newsletter sent to students telling them what their government is doing. We need to have a government that actually does good for the students of UW. The new constitution doesn’t do any of that.
If passed, the new constitution will face almost certain failure when it goes to referendum. Those who oppose the document, including representatives from General Student Services Funds groups and several members of the ASM government, have a far easier case to make than the constitution’s proponents. By making the most minor changes possible in their document, the constitution’s writers have ignored the overwhelming opinion that the president will be too strong and the position too much to handle for one person.
Let’s rehash the executive’s responsibilities for a moment.
“The President, with the Cabinet of Directors, must execute all duties assigned through legislation.” Clear meaning: The president must do whatever the senate tells him or her to do.
“The President, in consultation with the Cabinet of Directors, must prepare an annual budget for the Executive Branch to be forwarded to the Appropriations Committee.”
Clear meaning: The president has the primary responsibility of preparing the budget for his or her own branch of the government.
“The President, in consultation with the Cabinet of Directors, must see to the proper and appropriate execution of approved budgets, with the exception of the budgets of the Senate, Student Judiciary, Student Elections Commission, and Appropriations Committee.”
Clear meaning: The president is responsible for keeping watch over the executive branch, the various ASM committees excluding those mentioned, and the General Student Services Finance groups and RSOs who receive money through the ASM. To provide a bit of background — after I was elected to the Student Services Finance Committee, a binder was given to me that contained over 500 double-sided pages. These are just the GSSF groups’ budgets.
Finally, perhaps the most frightening sentence in the whole document: “The President shall sign or veto all bills or proposed bylaws within ten(10) days, pursuant to Article VIII.”
Veto power. Assigned to a student. To override a veto, the senate will need a two-thirds majority. In the rare event there isn’t a vacant seat on the senate, the president needs only the help of 12 others to veto whatever legislation he or she feels fit.
The authors of this constitution are ignoring the real problem by placing huge amounts of responsibility on the shoulders of a single student. The sleight of hand performed by this reform will only serve to create a similarly impotent government with a different power structure and a convenient scapegoat. This isn’t the reform UW needs.
Tyler Junger ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in political science.
IP hash: bfe79638
“We need a daily newsletter sent to students telling them what their government is doing.”
As long as it’s not in the form of an email. I already get enough junk mail.
IP hash: 65373933
To respond to Mr. Junger’s Constitutional Misinterpretations:
1) �The President, with the Cabinet of Directors, must execute all duties assigned through legislation.� Clear meaning: The president must do whatever the senate tells him or her to do.
2)�The President, in consultation with the Cabinet of Directors, must prepare an annual budget for the Executive Branch to be forwarded to the Appropriations Committee.� Clear meaning: The president has the primary responsibility of preparing the budget for his or her own branch of the government.
3)�The President, in consultation with the Cabinet of Directors, must see to the proper and appropriate execution of approved budgets, with the exception of the budgets of the Senate, Student Judiciary, Student Elections Commission, and Appropriations Committee.� (Junger’s “clear meaning” is too long for inclusion here)
4) �The President shall sign or veto all bills or proposed bylaws within ten(10) days, pursuant to Article VIII.� Veto power. Assigned to a student. To override a veto, the senate will need a two-thirds majority. In the rare event there isn�t a vacant seat on the senate, the president needs only the help of 12 others to veto whatever legislation he or she feels fit.
This Article Clear Meaning: In Actuality, Junger’s Analysis Does Not Hold
-SSFC Chair Kurt Gosselin
IP hash: d64d9911
Headline should read: ASM stories will alter Badger Herald’s quality but not its resolve.
IP hash: 45f81bd3
Only ASM would solve its problems by replacing one needlessly complicated structure with another.
IP hash: cb9b32e3
To Tyler:
It’s wonderful to see such dedication to the student body from a current member of ASM. We need more people like you, who want this type of transparency in ASM, representing us. I am honored to have voted for you, and wish you the best of luck in your fight to improve ASM!
To Kurt:
From your response and from your actions, it is quite clear that you feel strongly about this new constitution. Such commitment and enthusiasm is wonderful and brings great discussion to the table. That being said, there is no need for such obvious contempt and condescension in a response to an editorial trying to educate the student body personal. For someone who wants to go on to Law school and have a career in public service, grudges and anger can not be so clearly visible in your discussions. Your introductory phrase, “To respond to Mr. Junger’s Constitutional Misinterpretations” and your conclusion, “This Article Clear Meaning: In Actuality, Junger’s Analysis Does Not Hold” show a level of derision that does disservice to you, everything you’ve stood for, and our future profession. In my view, your clear sarcasm and and mockery of Tyler’s article show your true colors, and they don’t look good on you.
Tyler’s intent in this article, I believe, is to inform the student body about some MAJOR changes and try to clarify the complicated wording of several points. In his last point about the presidential veto power, he is stating his concern about the a fellow student having the power to reject legislation. Regardless of how many students it takes to override the veto, the idea of a STUDENT having that much power over a student body, of over FORTY THOUSAND people, just seems ridiculously irresponsible and under thought. It may be because I don’t know the history of the new constitution, so please help us understand the thought process behind the power given to the president.
IP hash: 9b5199f5
Headline should read: BH columnists don’t want ASM reform Subheading: Reform would force writers to find new skape goat for world’s problems
IP hash: 2e9da017
Headline should read: BH columnists lack courage to do anything other than trash ASM
And whoever commented saying that government structure is “needlessly complicated” must have no clue about governments of any sort.
IP hash: 709dea00
ASM and the press can have a continuous shouting match all they want, but ASM can prove themsleves to the the students without playing to the inconsistent needs and demands of the student press.
IP hash: 2af87df5
In Response to Anonymous #4
I don’t feel that Kurt holds any contempt toward me. We simply see different sides of an issue. Kurt is one of the writers of the constitution and, as such knows more about its structure than I do. With several revisions underway, certain provisions of the constitution have been changed and if there are other measures that I wasn’t aware of, Kurt has every right to point them out.
We need a discussion, not a shouting match.