A s s o c i a t e d S t u d e n t s o f M a d i s o n

Student Act iv i ty Center , Room 4301 , 333 Eas t Campus Mal l , Mad ison , WI 53715-1380 s www.asm.wisc .edu s Un ivers i ty o f Wiscons in - Mad ison

S tudent Act iv i ty Center , Room 4301 , 333 Eas t Campus Mal l , Mad ison , WI 53715-1380 s www.asm.wisc .edu s Un ivers i ty o f Wiscons in - Mad ison

phone : 608 .265 .4ASM s f ax : 608 .265 .5637 s a sm@studentorg .w isc .edu

The Associated Students of Madison is the official student government on the UW-Madison campus, representing over 40,000 students.

s Allie Gardner

Chair s

Andrew Bulovsky Vice-Chair

s Thomas Sannito

Secretary s

K ath ryn F i f i e ld Chief Justice

s S arah N e ib a r t

Student Services Finance Committee

s Kara Coates

Finance Committee s

Sade Johnson Academic Affairs

Committee s

Beth Huang Shared Governance

Committee s

New Press Of f i c e Direc tor Press Office

s Zachary DeQuattro Nominations Board

s Brianna Barth

Student Activity Center Governing Board

s Renata Danks

Student Elections Commission

s Hannah Somers Legislative Affairs

Committee s

Tangela Roberts Diversity Committee

s Tia Nowack

Rules Committee

 15  April  2012  

500  Lincoln  Dr,  161  Bascom  Hall  ~  Campus  Mail  ~  To:  Interim  Chancellor  David  Ward  From:  SSFC  Chair  Sarah  Neibart  RE:  Your  Decision  of  MCSC’s  Appeal      Dear  Interim  Chancellor  Ward,        Thank  you  for  providing  a  decision  on  the  issue  of  MCSC’s  eligibility  in  adequate  time.    I  believe  that  you  spent  a  lot  of  time  analyzing  the  pertinent  documents,  and  trying  to  understand  the  consequences  of  each  potential  decision.    However,  I  would  like  to  bring  to  light  some  flaws  in  how  you  came  to  your  decision,  and  the  problems  that  will  arise  if  you  allow  this  decision  to  go  to  ASM  Student  Council.    In  your  letter  to  MCSC,  SSFC,  SJ,  and  ASM  leadership  on  Friday  April  13th  you  make  clear  that  the  bylaw  of  2.02(2)(b)  states  that  “Viewpoint  neutral  fashion:  A  decision  is  made  in  a  viewpoint  neutral  fashion  where  the  decision  is  made:  1)  in  accordance  with  any  procedural  requirements  for  making  the  decision;  and  2)  without  considering  the  viewpoint  being  expressed  by  the  recipient  of  the  funds.”    However  you  also  point  out  that  the  “definition  of  viewpoint  neutrality  does  not  comport  with  the  definition  identified  in  Southworth  and  other  federal  court  cases”.    In  addition,  that  bylaw  is  specifically  referring  to  View  Point  Neutrality  Violations  happening  in  eligibility  and  budget  decisions.    You  and  the  Student  Judiciary  both  find  that  there  were  no  violations  of  View  Point  Neutrality  in  MCSC’s  Eligibility  Hearing  and  Decision  by  the  SSFC;  thus,  it  is  only  appropriate  to  re-­‐affirm  SSFC’s  decision  on  MCSC’s  eligibility,  and  not  mandate  it  to  Student  Council.        As  you  may  know  many  of  our  bylaws  have  not  been  updated  since  the  creation  of  the  original  ASM  Constitution,  moreover  many  of  these  bylaws  as  you  state  later  in  your  ‘findings  document’  do  not  align  with  the  Southworth  decision,  because  of  this  it  was  imperative  for  the  Student  Judiciary  to  exercise  its  authority  to  “as  is  outlined  in  the  Constitution,  Article  X,  Section  3,  the  Student  Judiciary  shall  have  authority  over  all  ASM  elections,  over  cases  and  controversies  arising  under  the  Constitution,  Bylaws,  rules,  and  laws  of  the  ,  and  over  all  Registered  Student  Organizations  (RSO's),  including  the  Associated  Students  of  Madison.  This  includes  the  power  to  find  ASM  and  RSO  Bylaws,  procedures,  policies  and  rules  unconstitutional  under  the  ASM  Constitution,  and  thus  to  strike  them  down.”    The  idea  that  the  violation  of  due  process  is  a  View  Point  Neutrality  Violation  is  unconstitutional  because  it  contrasts  with  federal  court  rulings.        I  would  have  assumed  that  you  would  have  come  to  that  conclusion  because  your  decision  to  still  uphold  that  incorrect  bylaw  and  grant  MCSC  an  eligibility  hearing  on  those  grounds  is  incredibly  inconsistent  of  what  you  find  later  in  your  ‘findings’.        MCSC  alleges  that  under  Article  IX,  Section  3  that  “SSFC  lacked  the  authority  to  remove  a  “student  service”  from  the  budget  and  therefore  could  not  remove  MCSC  from  the  student  

fee  allocation.”    You  decided  that  because  this  is  not  in  line  with  UW  financial  policy  F50  and  the  Federal  Court  Case  Southworth  vs.  Board  of  Regents  to  reject  and  not  uphold  this  line  in  the  constitution.    The  Constitution  supersedes  ASM  bylaws  thus  deciding  to  reject  a  point  of  the  Constitution  but  still  upholding  an  incorrect  bylaw  is  inconsistent  and  brings  many  issues  up  to  question.      At  this  point,  it  seems  that  your  interpretation  of  these  bylaws,  which  is  Student  Judiciary’s  role  under  the  campus  Shared  Governance  process,  is  overstepping  your  bounds  and  trying  to  find  a  conclusion  that  you  see  as  satisfactory.    I  am  not  aware  of  your  intentions  for  coming  to  this  conclusion  but  it  seems  as  though  you  are  worried  with  the  outcome  rather  than  the  process.    With  your  judgment  you  are  undermining  the  student  fee  process,  and  putting  a  decision,  which  has  been  highly  contentious  into  a  politicized  body  that  does  not  have  the  training  of  View  Point  Neutrality,  decorum  for  Eligibility  Hearings,  and  Budgeting  practices  etc.      If  Student  Council  were  to  hold  this  hearing  this  would  create  increased  liabilities  for  the  University  and  ensure  that  MCSC  would  be  treated  differently  than  any  other  group.        In  addition  too  the  above  stated  issues,  you  neglected  to  even  recognize  the  bylaw  of  5.07(1)-­‐  Procedural  Violations,  which  outlines  Special  Complaints.    (a)-­‐  A  procedural  complaint  is  based  on  a  procedural  or  similar  violation  that  does  not  address  viewpoint  neutral  concerns,  and  shall  follow  these  rules:  (b)  -­‐  If  a  procedural  complaint  is  filed  with  the  Student  Judiciary  that  has  not  yet  been  addressed  by  the  Committee,  the  Student  Judiciary  may  remand  the  complaint  to  a  committee  to  hear  it  in  the  first  instance.    In  implementing  the  waiver  the  Student  Judiciary,  found  SSFC  had  a  due  process  violation,  which  is  categorized  as  a  Procedural  Violation  and  should  have  been  remanded  back  to  SSFC.    Since  the  waiver  was  never  actually  used  there  was  no  decision  to  remand  back  to  SSFC,  but  if  MCSC  had  submitted  the  waiver  on  time  the  Student  Judiciary  would  have  remanded  that  decision  back  to  SSFC.        Also,  the  Student  Judiciary  in  the  2011  ASM  SJ  17  decision  states  “as  such  the  core  the  question  of  this  case  is  whether  SSFC  violated  due  process  rights  (of  MCSC  in  particular  and  GSSF  groups  in  general)  by  creating  and  implementing  the  waiver  in  the  way  that  it  did.    For  this  question,  the  Panel  finds  in  the  affirmative”.      Thus,  with  your  rational,  ALL  groups  deserve  a  new  eligibility  hearing  and  new  budget  hearing.    If  you  want  MCSC  to  have  a  new  hearing  with  this  reasoning,  you  also  should  mandate  every  group  to  be  re-­‐heard  by  Student  Council.    If  this  is  not  adhered  to  -­‐  with  your  rational-­‐  you  are  violating  View  Point  Neutrality  and  Due  Process  for  every  group.      I  am,  also,  incredibly  disappointed  that  you  have  mandated  students  to  change  certain  bylaws  within  there  own  student  government.    ASM  is  the  governance  that  students  at  UW  Madison  have  chosen,  and  the  representatives  in  ASM  shall  make  decision  without  being  mandated  by  the  Chancellor  of  the  institution,  administration,  faculty,  and  staff.    Your  directions  to  restore  certain  bylaws  in  ASM  are  a  violation  of  Shared  Governance,  and  an  insult  to  all  students.          

With  the  above  stated  reasons,  I  urge  you  to  relinquish  your  decision  to  refer  MCSC’s  eligibility  decision  to  Student  Council,  and  to  re-­‐affirm  SSFC’s  decision  to  deny  MCSC  eligibility.          Sincerely,      Sarah  Neibart,  Chair,  Student  Services  Finance  Committee      Cc:  Darrell  Bazzell  Lori  Berquam    Kevin  Helmkamp  Donna  Halleran    Nancy  Lynch