Below is a recap of this past Wednesday's Student Council meeting, including my commentary and voting record for each agenda item.
1) Student Council Appointment, Resolution 15-0403-01
A resolution proposed by Nominations Board Chair Mary Collins to appoint Grant Smith as a Student Council College of Engineering Representative. I voted in favor of this resolution.
2) Tenant Rating System, Resolution 15-0403-02
This is a resolution proposed by Chair Wiegand to create a tenant rating website service for UW students. District 8 Alder Eli Judge, as well as Scott Resnick and Dave Lapidus presented specifics about the resolution to the Council. The website would be similar to ratemyprofessor.com. The proposal states that this website would cost $8,000 to design and launch and that the funds would be taken from ASM's Event Grant fund. It would be governed by a Board of Directors that consists of 6 at-large seats and 5 ASM appointed seats and oversees the establishment and management of the website. Additionally, all funds to cover a student hourly position and advertising would be considered by the next session of ASM's Student Council.
Several amendments to this resolution were proposed during Student Council's debate. During the debate, it came out that launching the website would actually cost $9,000 instead of $8,000. One key amendment to the resolution changed the source of these funds from the Event Grant fund to the GSSF fund. To enact this change, the internal budget would be amended to include the website as a program, then would list its funding as $0. Then at the end of the 08-09 fiscal year, after GSSFs return their unused funds, the $9,000 would be moved to this new line item. The Council felt that this would be a better option as it would not be taking money from the Event Grant fund, which could still be used for students to put on events this semester.
Other amendments changed the Board of Directors to a Student Board of Directors, consisting of 4 (instead of 6) at-large seats and 3 (instead of 5) ASM-appointed seats. Beyond this, the language mandating that the next Student Council session pay for the miscellaneous expenses for the website was removed and instead language was added requiring the current Council to reconsider the internal ASM budget at its next meeting. At the next meeting, they would then move to add the necessary funding to pay for the student hourly, advertising, miscellaneous computer updates, and any associated costs for next year.
At the meeting, I expressed concern that the website would be creating a duplication of services with the work that the GSSF-funded Student Tenant Union (STU) is doing. Prior to the meeting, I was told by STU leadership that they were in favor of this resolution. I did stress at the Council meeting, however, that the Tenant Rating Website's Board of Directors work with the Student Tenant Union to collaborate on the website and cross-promote their work. After the debate closed and the resolution came to vote, I voted in favor of the final language.
3) Creation of an ASM Bylaw Review Committee, Resolution 15-0403-03
This resolution was my first Student Council proposal and my attempt to initiate reform within ASM in light of the recent constitutional defeat. The proposed committee would be made up of three General Student Services Fund (GSSF) leaders, two students at-large, and five Student Council members. The committee was proposed to specifically review the ASM Bylaws that govern the organization's General Principles (Section 1) and Student Council (Section 3), as well as any other area in the bylaws that the committee sees fit to review. After making recommendations on the bylaws, the committee would send recommendations to the Student Council for review. As it is proposed, the committee would be able to propose pressing recommendations to the current session of Student Council, then the final set of changes would be presented to the next session of the Student Council (following the spring elections). This allows the committee to recommend changes that will immediately improve the efficiency of ASM, while also submitting a set of recommendations that will address broader concerns within the organization.
Significant debate surrounded the proposal, particularly around the committee's intent, composition, and the role of GSSF organizations. Many members expressed concern that this attempt at reform did not go far enough or was the wrong direction, though I stressed that it was not meant to be the reform of ASM, but rather a step towards reform. Some Council members felt that the appointees should not be approved only by the Chair, Vice Chair, and Nominations Board Chair, but rather the entire Nominations Board with an extended application period. I acknowledged that I was in support of the full Nom. Board approving the appointees, but was concerned about extending the application deadline because it would make unfeasible for the committee to do any work this semester.
Additionally, the composition of the committee was heavily scrutinized, as Council members argued that the proposed composition was not representative of the entire campus. Other members were concerned about the three seats reserved solely for GSSF leaders because it gave these organizations too much power or wouldn't allow the committee to actually represent many students on campus. Though some legitimate concerns were expressed, much of the conversation was based in inaccurate information surrounding the role, structure, and work of GSSF organizations, as well as bias against these organizations and their leaders. As a student who has devoted my three years of campus involvement to GSSF organizations (PAVE, Campus Women's Center, Working Class Student Union) I was thoroughly disappointed, frustrated, and saddened by the sentiments expressed. I strongly encourage the leaders and members of GSSF organizations to come together and reassert their role as active students within ASM who represent significant number of students. I would love to work with any organization that would like to work towards this goal.
Amendments that were passed to remove the three seats for reserved for GSSF leaders and
increase the number of student at-large seats to five. When brought to the final vote, the resolution failed by 5-6. I did decide to vote in favor of the resolution, even though the GSSF leaders were cut from the final language. Though I did feel this undermined my intent to bring more student voices and leaders to the table, I felt that I could work with GSSFs to fill the student at-large seats with their leaders and members.
One honest and positive sentiment was expressed during this debate. Representative Johnny Tackett (Medicine) explained that he felt this committee would be another way for Student Council Representatives to shrug their responsibilities for outreaching to their constituents. I hope that since the Student Council voted down this option for reform they will now work with their constituents to develop new options for ASM reform. As a body that is charged with serving all UW-Madison students, it is crucial that the ASM Student Council recommit to be a body that is democratic, transparent, and representative.
4) MCSC Event Grant Proposal
After asking to be added to the evening's agenda, the Student Council voted in favor of including the MultiCultural Student Coalition's (MCSC) Event Grant proposal for "Hip Hop as a Movement Week '09" on their agenda. The MCSC requested $38,460 and were approved for $34,000 from the Finance Committee. The funds would go towards honoraria, travel, and lodging of performers. ASM's Student Council approved the Committee's recommendation to fund the event at $34,000. I voted in favor of this resolution.
5) Open Government and Public Participation Resolution 15-0403-04
Finance Chair Fung introduced this resolution to make Council meetings more accessible to representatives of Registered Student Organizations who are presenting to the Student Council regarding event or travel grants. Though many members agreed with the sentiments that Council needs to be more accessible, most felt it should not be necessarily for orgs. presenting about grants. As a result, Rep. Tackett proposed an amendment:
In addition to the Open Forum, any member of the ASM shall have the right to speak or make their views known on any item of business that is on the agenda for a Student Council meeting if he/she registers to speak on that item before the item comes up for action. All speakers are limited to three minutes per item, except for informational or public hearings, in which case the limit is five minutes. The Chair shall rule comments not germane to the agenda item out of order.Much discussion and debate surrounded the sentiments of both the resolution and the amendment. The amendment passed and I voted in favor of it. Inevitably, the Council voted down the final resolution (essentially Tackett's amendment). The consensus was that ASM member involvement should be reconsidered, but that both the resolution and amendment were rushed. I voted against the final resolution language in hopes that another resolution that was more well-researched would be proposed at a future meeting.
6) Nominations Board Appointment
A resolution added to the agenda and proposed by Nominations Board Chair Mary Collins to appoint Representative Christopher Tiernan as a Nominations Board member. I voted in favor of this resolution.
7) Student Activity Center Governing Board Appointment
A resolution added to the agenda and proposed by Nominations Board Chair Mary Collins to appoint Kristina Kull as a Student Activity Center Governing Board member. I voted in favor of this resolution.
8) College Student Council Fund, Resolution 15-0403-05
This agenda item was delayed to our 3/25/09 Student Council meeting.
In solidarity,
Chynna
Posts
