H -°, L 7° | Tomorrow: 
H 17°, L 4°
The University of Wisconsin is no stranger to legal battles over segregated fees, but lately there’s been a dry spell. After the Roman Catholic Foundation of UW-Madison sued UW into the ground and eventually won their funds, UW seemed to be coasting along on a litigation-free academic year for 2008-09.
Then came that liberal bias.
At least that’s what Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow would have us believe. After being denied funding eligibility by Student Services Finance Committee and appeals by Student Judiciary and Chancellor Biddy Martin, they appealed to a louder, if not necessarily higher, power in the person of Sen. Glenn Grothman, R-West Bend. They sent a letter to Ms. Martin demanding a reversal of this decision, which was also denied. And so they did the only thing a student group with no funding can do: Hire a lawyer.
The lawsuit against UW alleges two things. First, CFACT was denied due process because their application was rejected on the basis of missing paperwork. (They claim other student groups were allowed to re-file.) Second, they accuse SSFC, specifically Rep. Kyle Szarzynski, of violating viewpoint neutrality in the denial of their eligibility.
As CFACT sees it, they’re a conservative version of WISPIRG. So if WISPIRG gets money and they don’t, it must be a liberal conspiracy, right?
Not even close.
First, let’s give them the benefit of the doubt: CFACT’s lost paperwork may have just been a clerical error. ASM had criteria regarding when to accept late documents and they believed it didn’t fit the criteria.
Well, except for Mr. Szarzynski, who gave them the benefit of the doubt. In documents obtained by The Badger Herald, in the eligibility application under the section “Has the eligibility application been completed?” Mr. Szarzynski wrote: “Lack of denial by chair gives benefit of doubt to the group.”
So why would a well-known, fervent liberal actually give a procedural pass to a group he is trying to deliberately screw over?
In short, because he’s not trying to.
During the eligibility hearings, at no point is Mr. Szarzynski heard on recordings making remarks about the group’s conservative viewpoints in reference to their eligibility for funding. Mr. Szarzynski makes remarks comparing the two during WISPIRG’s eligibility hearing, which occurred after the CFACT decision. On a recording, Mr. Szarzynski is heard noting the reason why WISPIRG receives funding and CFACT doesn’t is WISPIRG practices definite activism and advocacy, teaching members how to lobby government and giving them tools to effectively address issues in a substantive way. CFACT, on the other hand, he says, amounts to a “series of events.”
And in reality, it’s hard to argue with him. Looking at WISPIRG’s and CFACT’s eligibility applications is like looking at night and day. WISPIRG outlines their direct services in four specific points and gives details of campaigns they created, what was involved, how it came out and how it benefited students. Further, they allow students to submit ideas for campaigns or issues and incorporate them into their campaigns.
CFACT, on the other hand, references several vaguely-named campaigns such as “energy,” says they allow people to submit ideas but will only give them resources if they’re a member or if CFACT votes to take up the campaign, provided it fits their philosophy or goals. On top of that, they have a great deal of events and lectures during the year that has usually comprised nearly a third of their funding.
The big difference is when SSFC discussed both these groups, they spent most of WISPIRG’s session figuring out what direct service was considered primary to the group’s mission. Discussion on CFACT revolved around what their direct service was and whether it amounted any significance.
In the end, Mr. Szarzynski may differ from Rep. Carl Fergus and Rep. Joseph French, but they all agreed: Most of CFACT’s service was in the form of events — be they Library Mall events or Ted Nugent lectures. Even CFACT admitted their student-run “campaigns” only comprise 10 to 20 percent of CFACT’s time. And according to SSFC eligibility requirement, 51 percent of the direct service must be something other than events or leadership opportunities — that’s just not enough.
Did Mr. Szarzynski rip CFACT’s ideology? Sure, but it was in a blog. There’s no evidence it had any bearing on his decision. At the end of the day, CFACT wasn’t approved for eligibility because there wasn’t enough there to justify funding. The group was welcomed to come back next year and figure out a more cohesive and open way to offer resources to students, but they objectively failed in this round.
So, CFACT, please don’t waste our time with this lawsuit. Either build your group into something deserving of segregated fees, or charge membership fees to fund your “Gaylord Nelson is a commie” pamphlets.
IP hash: 78e51172
A series of events means you’re not worthy of funding?
What are you saying about a ‘series of events’? That doesn’t make sense.
CFACT practices definite activism and advocacy, teaching members how to lobby government and giving them tools to effectively address issues in a substantive way through a series of events.
CFACT clearly provides advocacy tools for students and the environment, not the Hollywood version, of course, but they teach their members through a series of events how to be advocates and good stewards of the environment while helping them to defend the values that made this country great and enriched its citizens.
I’m not a member of CFACT, but this editorial would be my exhibit B (exhibit B would be blog post from the person who rejected CFACT’s application reprocess) for the Court to display the hostility on campus that CFACT suffers because its environmental point-of-view isn’t the same as Leonardo DiCaprio.
I hope CFACT requests a jury trial.
IP hash: f151ec33
I don’t understand the logic of this article? Why is political advocacy to be considered a “direct service” but educational events are not?
“On a recording, Mr. Szarzynski is heard noting the reason why WISPIRG receives funding and CFACT doesn�t is WISPIRG practices definite activism and advocacy, teaching members how to lobby government and giving them tools to effectively address issues in a substantive way.”
Is this what is required for a student group to get funding? I hope not. What if the group is about education rather than activism, advocacy and lobbying government?
A “series of events” is as much a direct service to students as any other.
IP hash: 095683c8
“Why is political advocacy to be considered a �direct service� but educational events are not?”
Educational programming certainly is. But the eligibility requirements demand that at least 51 percent of the direct service to student consist of something other than leadership opportunities and events.
Why? Well, because if 75 percent of your “direct service” consists of people coming and listening to people talk, it doesn’t rise to the level of service to this community that requires funds. Can you imagine what would happen if we gave 150,000 to every group that could get speakers to come to campus?
Point it: you can engage in “educational events” but you have to also engage the student body directly, and events and leadership opportunities are more indirect benefits.
IP hash: a551e61f
The first two commenters don’t quite understanding the intricacies of the process of getting funded by ASM. There are two different groups that you can go to in order to request funding, SSFC and the Finance Committee.
SSFC funds groups that provide a direct, education service to students. This service must be accessible to every student and tailorable to requests. A series of events such as brining speakers to campus doesn’t qualify as tailorable to the requests of different students.
The ASM Finance Committee is much different than SSFC. They fund events. Any group on campus that has an event they think is worth funding can apply for a Finance Committee grant, even if they are not a GSSF group funded by SSFC. If a group merely wants to put on a series of events, the proper place to apply for funding would be with the Finance Committee, not SSFC.
IP hash: 83b6c53e
Kyle is an unashamed, unapologetic advocate for terrorists� �right� to kill American soldiers. http://badgerherald.com/oped/2007/09/25/iraqiinsurgentshav.php
Why is this self-confessed co-conspirator in RNC Welcoming Committee domestic terrorism still walking around at large? http://badgerherald.com/oped/2008/09/09/policeatrnc_saboto.php
Much less representing the UW student body at large?
IP hash: 78e51172
It comes down to what is an event.
What’s the difference between an event and a seminar?
CFACT “events” accomplish the same goals of advocacy seminars put on by other organizations that receive funding. In fact, you could even call those seminars “events”. CFACT events teach the community about being stewards of the earth and how to be advocates for the cause of saving the earth, although it’s not the version the Left prefers (see the editorial written by the person who denied funds to CFACT). These events are clearly part of advocacy campaigns to teach the community and give them tools to advocate for their cause. They weren’t fraternity parties.
I’m not a member of CFACT, but I think denying CFACT the same rights as the Left in this situation is a severe injustice to the community. And the excuse to deny them funds is poor.
IP hash: 9dc45a99
ASM Bylaw 2.032(3)(c)2C- Direct Service Direct Service shall mean any program offered by the group which possess all of the following characteristics: 1)The program must be available upon request by recipients 2)The program can be tailored subject to the needs of the recipients within the mission of the group 3)The program must be accessible to the recipients regardless of recipient’s participation and/or membership in the group 4)The program must be available to recipients continually throughout the course of the fiscal year 5)The program is not an individual event, series of events, publication, or a leadership development opportunity for group member(s)
Pay close attention to number 5. If the program is an event or series of events, it CAN NOT be a direct service. CFACT presented their campaigns as a series of events, and therefore made them ineligible to be considered as direct services, and therefore CFACT did not meet the GSSF criteria.
IP hash: 7859357f
WISPIRG should not have received funding either, but they were able to con SSFC. Both WISPIRG and CFACT do not meet the criteria, but WISPIRG was better at fooling the committee
IP hash: 1b794e8d
As others have said, it’s not considered a direct service under ASM bylaws. Maybe the bylaws need to be reworked then but CFACT was NOT given differential treatment because of their views. They simply did not fit into the narrow criteria that has been established for years.