H 32°, L 7° | Tomorrow: 
H 17°, L 4°There’s nothing more pitiful than being the laughingstock of the Associated Students of Madison. But three student groups this semester have found a way to pull it off.
Once again, a student group was denied funding by the Student Services Finance Committee. Once again, the group got all huffy and filed a complaint with the ASM Student Judiciary. And once again, the group is wrong, SSFC is right and people with no clue about General Student Services Fund criteria have wasted the time of an already time-wasting student government.
Wunk Sheek, a Native American heritage group that has received funding for many years, came to SJ with three complaints: one, the group was unfamiliar with SSFC criteria and therefore put at a distinct disadvantage; two, SSFC violated viewpoint neutrality by taking the group’s “history on campus” into account in its decision; and three, it made the same claim against Rep. Carl Fergus, saying the longtime committee representative used his extensive knowledge on the group’s past to sink Wunk Sheek’s efforts.
This attempt is nothing short of embarrassing for the group. Members admitted in the SJ hearing that they did not meet every criterion, and they were given plenty of time to consider the relatively new rules and consult SSFC with any questions or concerns.
Further, the “history on campus” claim is completely ridiculous to anybody who understands how SSFC works. Wunk Sheek foolishly tried to say this clause meant SSFC could not deny the group money based on its past actions, including any financial mismanagement.
In reality, the history language has to do with not allowing a group’s longtime standing on campus get in the way of the decision. Also, one of the main considerations SSFC makes is the way GSSF groups actually have used their funding.
Mr. Fergus is to be commended for having the two years of institutional knowledge and documentation to show Wunk Sheek’s past fiscal irresponsibility, and for using this information appropriately to keep the group from mismanaging more student money.
A note to GSSF groups of the future: Let the absurd circus that has been the funding and appeals process of Wunk Sheek, Campus Women’s Center and Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow serve as an example for how not to get segregated fees. Do your homework. Know what SSFC is looking for in its decisions. Understand direct service. Understand the “50 plus one” rule. Read Board of Regents v. Southworth and know the history of viewpoint neutrality, and know when it does and doesn’t apply.
Maybe then you’ll get funding. And maybe then, you won’t be the laughingstock of a laughingstock.
IP hash: 978aff8c
Nice article Board.
IP hash: 6d81ca11
I’m certainly not laughing at Wunk Sheek.
IP hash: 0d283094
you guys are idiots and know nothing about the ssfc process. do your fucking research
IP hash: 6ac7847b
Remember when the Campus Women’s Center won in front of the Student Judiciary?
Is winning part of the ‘absurd circus’ put on by the groups denied funding?
IP hash: 44b0afbc
Strange, according to the BH article, it doesn’t appear the campus women’s center really won anything other than another appeal hearing… which did nothing.
IP hash: 6ac7847b
Strange, all you can win in front of the Student Judiciary is a re-hearing.
IP hash: 11a63034
That isn’t necessarily true. SJ can rule it to council, they can open up that any SSFC member can move to reconsider, etc. Seeing as SJ dismissed the first count, and upheld the second, with the ruling stating that the members who voted with the prevailing side are allowed to move to reconsider, I would hardly call that a win.
Sure, if you want to consider an appeal hearing, which they were apparently unable to provide any bylaw the SSFC violated according to the articles, a win, then by all means do.
IP hash: 6f480731
ya’ll are a bunch of haters.
IP hash: ab5b18de
Agreed, laughing at student groups denied funding over vague rules is cruel.
IP hash: cdcdf796
The criteria is spelled out rather clearly.
IP hash: 6ac7847b
If it’s so clear, what are all the elements of a direct service that need to be proved before the ssfc?
IP hash: 85265cac
Pulled from the online GSSF manual (but it may be outdated, I don’t believe the online manual is for 2009-10 version): 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) https://mywebspace.wisc.edu/groups/ASM/SSFC/2008-2009%2015th%20Session/Financial%20Manual/2008-09%20Financial%20Manual/Financial%20Manual%20FINAL.pdf?ticket=t_oJfwPF3J
It seems that a recurring problem is people seeing “direct service” and think, “Oh, program XYZ is a service” while not checking that every item they’re claiming as a direct service follows unintuitive rules 1, 3, and 4.
In addition: -This information (and the rest of the eligibility criteria) are discussed in mandatory Authorized Signer training for at least the primary bookkeeper of every GSSF group -The SSFC Chair is available for questions (as are ASM Financial Specialists Joanna Gurstelle, Anju Chhetri, and, to a lesser extent, Rich Sterkowitz) -Individual SSFC reps can be lobbied to preemptively address some of the less transparent methods of completing an org’s goals -I understand there was even a strongly-recommended training session held late in the summer specifically covering eligibility applications to avoid CWC- and Wunk Sheek-style shitstorms*. * I left out CFACT because they’ve blatantly violated rules of their office in the Student Activity Center, first with evidence of alcohol consumption in their office and then by moving communal furniture into their office for staff meetings TWICE IN A ROW while already on probation for the beer cans. This behavior would give CFACT major problems even if the definition of a “direct service” meant half of what a layperson might expect it to.
IP hash: 6ac7847b
You got most of them but the service must also be educational, and you didn’t properly define ‘event’ (which also has a non-intuitive definition). Most services appear on first blush to be events or series of events, and thus most organizations would not meet that criteria.
The SSFC process is so byzantine, that the SSFC reps did not know how their own rules work with regards to the CWC appeal.
I’m not saying that CWC and Wunk Sheek should get a free pass, but I am saying that the the wording of the ASM Bylaws and SSFC standing rules regarding GSSF funding need to be rewritten in plain English with clarity in mind.
IP hash: 85265cac
If you set it up right, you can craft an application that forces SSFC to give you everything you want even as they fight you tooth and nail. I’ve done this personally. It wasn’t hard, just took time and effort that CWC didn’t put in. CFACT didn’t do their homework and didn’t follow SAC rules. I have no idea what happened with Wunk Sheek, tho.
IP hash: 00b3bcbe
Sounds like whoever wrote this article is an idiot! Words of wisdom for the future…Don’t stress your ignorance publicly, it’s not appealing!
IP hash: 00b3bcbe
Sounds like whoever wrote this article doesn’t know what their talking about! Words of wisdom for the future BH…Don’t stress your ignorance publicly, it’s not appealing!
IP hash: cfb2ca22
how about we just abolish this whole pile of bullshit and save ourselves $1000 a year?? not to mention all these student government types who strut with self-importance cause they think what they do actually matters. The only place an 8% turnout justifies a government is Zimbabwe or Somalia