LIVE BLOGGING! 4/8/09 Student Council Meeting

Associated Students of Madison

8 April 2009

Hearing Room, Student Activity Center

1. Roll Call (in favor)
   
2. Announcements
3. Swearing in of New Representatives
4. Open Forum (funny story about this coming)
   

Any member of the ASM shall have the right to speak at the Open Forum, subject to the time limits specified here. Members of the Asm who are not officers of the ASM shall take precedence over officers and appointees. Non-members of the ASM may be granted the opportunity to speak by a majority vote of the Student Council. Each speaker may speak once for up to three minutes. The Open Forum is limited to 45 minutes, unless the Student Council shall by two-thirds vote to extend it.

5. Removal or Impeachment of Representatives, Filling of Vacancies in the Student Council and Swearing In of New Representatives
6. Adoption of the Agenda
7. Reading and Approval of the Minutes
8. Special Orders
9. Old Business
10. New Business
1. ASM Internal Budget Reconsideration

Lots of discussion on this! We voted at the last meeting to reopen the Internal Budget for 09-10 for the purpose of including the expenditures for the new Tenant Rating Website costs, but now members are proposing adding money to the Operations Grant line item because several groups came to Open Forum and said that the fund ran out of money. Proposed by Rep. Tackett and seconded by Rep. Ewers to add $5,000 to line item.

Chair Fergus and Vice Chair Karns speaking against. Vice Chair Karns said we are already over the budget cap due to increase in salary for Student Print's advisor (more on this later). Chair Wiegand said that this is actually violating VPN because members are saying that certain groups should get funds because they do "good" work, but there were clarifications that this was not their intent. Chair Fergus reiterates that we are already at the budget cap and that we are inappropriately using committee's time by entertaining this motion.

Basically the issue at hand is that more groups have requested funding from the Operations Grant and have exhausted the fund for the first time in two years.

VOTE: Add $5,000 to Operations Grant. I voted against. Motion fails.

NEW MOTION: Add funds to lines 31 & 34 to pay salary for Student Print Advisor to partially compensate her new role as supervisor of SAC Floor Manager.

Concern expressed as to why we are adding money to this line item for the sake of "helping our relationship with Student Print." So why are we adding money to this versus directly serving students. Chair Vollrath speaks in favor because the Student Print Adviser is doing more work now than what is in her job description because she is dealing with tenant issues, etc. Chair Sheka agrees. VOTE: Adding 9% of StudentPrint Advisor salary and StudentPrint Advisor fringe benefits. I voted in favor. Motion passed.

NEW MOTION: Add the program Tenant Rating Website (lines 22-25) to the budget (Vollrath). This would fund the program that we just approved at our last meetings. VOTE: I voted in favor. Motion passed.

NEW MOTION: Vote to approve budget as amended. I voted in favor. Motion passes (14-0-6).

2)GSSF Budget Reconsideration
Chair Fergus has the floor. We are reconsidering this because Badger Catholic (GSSF org) came forward and asked to decrease budget by $70,000. Moving from event planning model, to service model. Benefits UW-Madison students. VOTE: I voted in favor of decrease. Motion passes (11-0-9)

3) Resolution 15-0408-01, ASM Position on the Madison Initiative
CONTROVERSIAL! (see previous post for language of this proposal).

Resolution calls for PARTIAL endorsement of resolution. Issues: International students will be charged the fee for others' financial aid, but they are not legally able to apply for aid. Out-of-state students could be argued to be paying fair amount based on tuition, but it depends on state you are from and what school you are looking at.

Wants to utilize expected family contribution (from FAFSA) versus the adjusted gross income for threshold of who qualifies for the grant aid to offset the increase.

Photographer buzzing around.

Questions for the Chancellor (but she is not here yet):

1. What is the justification for a 50/50 split between enhanced student services and curricular and co-curricular innovations (see “outcomes” slide in presentation on website)?
2. Specifically, what types of pedagogical innovations would possibly be implemented?
3. Why is adjusted gross income being used as the determinant for eligibility for the hold-harmless grants as opposed to estimated family contribution?
4. How will success of the Initiative be determined? What kind of input will students have in determining the success of the Initiative?
5. Will money generated be used to increase enrollment at UW-Madison?
6. What standard will be used to determine which classes will be offered?
7. What is the Chancellor doing to work with the state legislature in order to ensure that the percentage of state funding that the University receives is not cut?
8. What are the long-term perspectives for matching tuition dollars with privately-raised funds? Is the University planning on providing these dollars indefinitely?

Chair Wiegand's proposal calls for the establishment of a committee made up of students, faculty, and staff to oversees the proposal. Then there would be a sub-committee made up of all students that would advise on student services component to Initiative.

Now onto to DEBATE! Vice Chair Karns disagrees with the clause that would switch from adjusted gross income to the expected family contribution (from FAFSA).

Chair Sheka proposes a change to the clause about the establishment of a committee. This committee can't be established unless initiative passes formally. So this committee is not final, but it must be student majority and chaired by a student (state law). Student sub-committee would see proposals for student services (i.e. advising) and then bring them to the larger committee, then it would be worked into final proposal for spending the money. Not merely an advisory group--they would have a lot of power. Motion made to the motion (yeah, get that?) by Rep. Kaiser to clarify language saying this is pending passage of Initiative.

WE ARE GETTING TECHY! We are going to project the amendment and the amendment to the amendment on the fancy overhead! My segs are being put to use! Rep. Junger is using his laptop for this, so SO to Tyler!

CHANCELLOR MARTIN IS HERE!

Okay, so the technology stuff is not working, so we are just staring at each other....

VOTE: Amendment to the amendment--adding sentence that that ASM endorsement is contingent on said shared gov. committee. I abstained from voting.

Back to debate on original amendment. Chair Olikara is discussion adding a scholarship for out-of-state students and international students as part of the Shared Gov. committee. Moves to amend the amendment to say that "the Shared Gov. committee will be charged with overseeing the impact on out-of-state and international students."

Main Amendment: Be it finally resolved, if the Madison Initiative is approved by the UW-System Board of Regents, ASM shall create a student-majority shared governance committee comprised of students, faculty, and staff that is charged with overseeing the Initiative, reviewing requests, and evaluating the success of the Initiative. A smaller subcommittee made up of only the student representatives shall receive and approve proposals regarding improvements in student services. This subcommittee shall make recommendations to the larger committee. Although the Chancellor makes the final decision regarding the usage of differential tuition, students shall have a meaningful role in the Initiative's oversight through these means.

I moved to yield 2 minutes of my time to Sec. Junger. Here he goes! Good job, Sec. Junger! Essentially he explained that students directly voting how tuition dollars is spent is not in the best interest of students and not really legal.

VOTE: Amendment to the amendment. I voted in favor. The motion passes.

VOTE: Main amendment (see above). I voted in favor. The motion passes. I agree with Sec. Junger on this issue, but if it will get an ASM endorsement, then I am in support. ASM must support this Initiative to benefit campus.

MOTION: Rep. Kaiser to change "Be it further resolved, that although there are clear benefits in terms of financial aid for in-state students, we have concerns about the financial impact on out-of-state and international students" It would drop the specifics and only say that we have concerns about current and potential students. Amendment to the amendment: create two separate clauses, instead of replacing one. VOTE: I voted in favor. Main Amendment VOTE: I voted in favor.

Rep. Tackett is brilliant--is asking us to call to question and move back to questions to talk to the Chancellor.

QUESTION AND ANSWER AGAIN!
Bemis: Questions about numbers of faculty being proposed. Why can't we do this for less? Why $1,000 per student. He only sees justification for a few classes (I am not sure why his justification matters).
Chancellor: Trying not to pre-determine where funds will go because other students think all our decisions have been made. L&S has lost 66 faculty in last 7 years, entire campus has lost 75. The number is as many as we can afford to balance with financial aid. Several students don't get into Spanish, econ students who can't get courses except through TAs, bio-med students can't get in, etc. She could come up with the need of several hundred faculty. She is happy to make more information available, but they have not finalized decisions.

Tackett: Moves for Brittany to ask our 8 proposed questions without interruption.

ASM Questions:
1) What is the justification for a 50/50 split between enhanced student services and curricular and co-curricular innovations (see “outcomes” slide in presentation on website)?
Chancellor: Not a good justification, but--difference between these services is blurry. Mistake to draw line there and say it is 50/50. It sounds like a semantic problem. Not an absolute division between her understanding of difference versus other individuals' understanding, but there is a blurred line. "What I want to do is provide what we need."

2) Specifically, what types of pedagogical innovations would possibly be implemented?
Divide into two different categories. 1) Technology assisted learning--we've had great success with technological innovations already. Spread across other disciplines. New technology developing, but we don't have enough staff to translate our needs into the services. Fund delivery methods. 2) Set of curricular changes in content and pedagogy. Students consider FIGS successful, other options like FIG light that other schools have. We need to bring students into contact with tenure and tenure-track faculty. More field and internship opportunities. Provide on a conditional basis funding to departments and programs that are willing to change curriculum to catch up to science and technology.

3) Why is adjusted gross income being used as the determinant for eligibility for the hold-harmless grants as opposed to estimated family contribution?
Chosen on the basis for clarity in effort to be as clear as possible. Not evident to her that it is the best choice. Question for Financial Aid staff.

4) How will success of the Initiative be determined? What kind of input will students have in determining the success of the Initiative?
No resistance to the group of everything. Not only a group, but even the website up showing the expenditures. Open to students being involved in decision making. What concrete benefits to students. How many more students can get through what they need? Study students of different pedagogical methods, etc. but need revenue to get staff and faculty to make info available.

5) Will money generated be used to increase enrollment at UW-Madison?
Would consider increasing enrollment, but none of this funds from this supplement would be used for this. Governor wants increase because of demand.

6) What standard will be used to determine which classes will be offered?
Bottlenecks that exist in key areas. Deans and departments will need to provide data on an on-going basis. Standard really is where student need is. Make funding for departments contingent on departments/programs funding tenure-track faculty, seeing plans to build diverse pools for possible candidates before they are authorized to search, do many things to make sure that hiring faculty really benefits campus in a way that is holistic. Its potential for hiring really great faculty should also play a role.

7) What is the Chancellor doing to work with the state legislature in order to ensure that the percentage of state funding that the University receives is not cut?
She added up hours at Capitol--70-80 hours meeting with legislatures on both sides of the aisle. Doesn't count her reception for legislatures at her home. We have to continue to apply pressure to the state. We have to be out there aggressively and persuading citizens of our state and other states of the importance of higher education. Show them what public will receive as a result of funding higher education.

8) What are the long-term perspectives for matching tuition dollars with privately-raised funds? Is the University planning on providing these dollars indefinitely?
Yes, we need to combine endowment funding with annual giving--no strong program here yet--a lot of potential to build this campaign that will be on-going as endowment payments are. Best possible outcome of all of this is that we more students of more financial need here. Will this always go 50% to financial need? Yes, hope that more lower income students will enrolled so need is there.

Chancellor: I needed to know if our Big Ten peers use tuition dollars for need-based aid. Not new, almost all our peers do this. Discount rate--what percent of tuition does any university use to pay need-based aid. Now have the data. Our peers use a lot of tuition dollars to cover need-based aid, some peers even up to $60 million a year, we only want $10 million. We need to use it or we lose some quality.

Sheka: Describe what Chancellor sees oversight committee being. What extent recommendations will have on her final decision.
Chancellor: Most cases I will do what committee wants. It is my job to use my judgment and view of the whole to do the right thing. Will always refine recommendations that I get. Anticipated an oversight committee that will be made up of faculty, staff, and students. The thing is, you all don't know me yet. I have a long history of working with groups at Cornell collaboratively. I would work with any committee in good faith and take a different route only if I felt it was really compelling or committee wasn't really representing views of campus.

Chancellor: Out-of-state income had ever gone above median of our peers? It has in the past gone above median of our peers, neither applications nor enrollment went down during this period. This Initiative will keep us still below the median of our peers.

Bemis: another questions about engineers...
Chancellor: Engineering students take 45% of their hours in L&S.... UW-Madison should get the pricing right so that it is still affordable (creating financial aid), but we add faculty that benefits everybody. It is about the quality of UW-Madison. She disagrees with Bemis' assertion that engineering students would be "doubling-up" on tuition increase. This proposal is designed to go the heart of where we are educated, which is L&S. We have to be very careful and strategic because the greater benefit to the greatest number of students if fixing some problems in L&S.

Chair Collins observed that Chancellor Martin looks great in her black and red jacket this evening. I agree.

Chair Fergus: What feedback are you getting in total about services you are funding?
Chancellor: Problematic academic advising is in pre-major years, how seriously career advising is need. Another thing is programs students would like to see--peer mentoring programs, etc. How will we want to think about adding staff, traditional advising, in addition to doing other things students think would be more effective.

Tackett: Financial Aid be specifically earmarked to undergrads?
Chancellor: Yes.
Tackett: "Hold harmless" would it be as currently proposed or estimated family contribution, idea of percent difference? Specifically percent currently would be "held harmless"?
Chancellor: She has data, but can't give specifics off the top of her head. She would be happy to send it to us. Would know difference in data soon--Financial Aid office is working on it.

Ewers: All students are subsidized to some extent because we don't cover the cost of educating ourselves. You won't be increasing enrollment through the funds that are generated, increased enrollment will only happen if students "pay for themselves."
Chancellor: No, separate two funding sources. Funding from this initiative will take care of problems we have for current students. To increase enrollment targets, we would have to use tuition to pay for the costs required to educate them. This would be net the financial aid of these students would pay for what we need in additional resources.

Olikara: Preserving and increasing value of UW degree. Envisions that as impacting decision-making of high school seniors and faculty to come here. For students two major factors are costs and perception. Potential scholarship to offset cost, as well as getting exceptional students here.
Chancellor: Merit-based aid that exists in colleges. Could we use this to encourage merit students? I don't know if Madison wants to go that route. Do we need more merit-based aid? Yes. (clarified versus seeking several, but increasing it somewhat)

Tobelman: There are a lot of students that are apprehensive of lack of specifics. As these revenues role in and are applied, how will you deal with student sentiment that it isn't being applied where they want. Accountability.
Chancellor: We need to put in place some of the things we know that works, using data.
Tobelman: Would you be able to communicate to people that if a program is failing that funding can be pulled?
Chancellor: I agree with you and I think there are more things at the University that need sunset clauses. Regarding specifics, I could lay out with you the ways I would spend the entire amount of money and maybe I should then the committee could decide if that is right. Its not that we don't have specifics in mind, but we want input if this is the right way to go, but also we don't want to fix everything and pretend that there aren't unintended consequences. There are unintended consequences to all policy initiatives.

BACK TO DEBATE!
Chair Sheka: Series of amendments...yeah.
Though confusing and choppy, here is what I have for you on the series of amendments:
"Be it further resolved, ASM's endorsement of the Madison Initiative is contingent upon a written agreement between the Chancellor and ASM to create a student majority oversight board for the Initiative, as described in the following clause.

Be it resolved, the shared governance committee shall review all continuing funding on a yearly basis, to evaluate the improvements to a program and recommend a cessation of funding if measurable improvements are not seen.

remove "the"

Be it finally resolved, if the Madison Initiative is approved by the UW-System Board of Regents, ASM shall create a student-majority shared governance committee comprised of students, faculty, and staff that is charged with overseeing the Initiative, reviewing requests, and evaluating the success of the Initiative.

-The shared governance committee shall also be charged with CHANGE TO (reviewing) the impact of the Initiative on out-of-state and international students.

A smaller subcommittee REMOVE ((the) student representatives) shall receive and approve proposals regarding improvements in student services; the only voting members of this subcommittee shall be students. This subcommittee shall make recommendations to the larger committee. Although the Chancellor makes the final decision regarding the usage of differential tuition, students shall have a meaningful role in the Initiative's oversight through these means."

Chair Fergus seconded the motion, but he moves to strike the language that says ASM's support is contingent on a written agreement. Instead added language that would make it so ASM would work with Chancellor to create committee, no demand for majority of committee.

Now we are being encouraged to vote this amendment to the amendment down, then propose a new amendment. VOTE: I voted against. Motion fails (intentionally).

Sheka new amendment to the amendment--striking stuff, changing stuff, not worth writing here right now.

I just spoke and said that I feel we are wasting our time discussing the very specific details of this committee. We are losing the essence of what we are suppose to be discussing, which is the whole Initiative and our concerns that need to be addressed. I brought up the fact that we will be revisiting this issue in two weeks and reconsidering a full endorsement.

VOTE ON AMENDMENT: I voted in favor. Motion passed.

MAIN DEBATE: Rep. Wright not a fan of a partial endorsement is an oxymoron. We have received answers to our questions. We should either table this to next meeting or vote on full endorsement.

Tackett: #1 We need to talk to our constituents and then vote at next meeting. #2 Interested in how $80,000 was determined in current proposal or how estimated family contribution. #3 I hate to bring this up, but "hold harmless line," if we moved from $80,000. This debate could get us to a point where only a small portion of campus is paying this increase, so what does that do to campus climate.

Wiegand: Understand that partial endorsment is oxymoronic, but we are our student government and people want to know what we think. We need to indicate how we feel about the initiative, we are the way to get student feedback. I want to know our concerns. It would be a change to the campus climate, but I think it would positive change.

Fergus: We need to keep sight in what we are doing today. You have had weeks to talk to your constituents and the people you are serving.

Haas: Brought up that it is absolutely essential that our unversity shows it is committed to economic diversity. ALL students will benefit from this proposal through increased student services and tenure track faculty, etc. I will share more info on this in an upcoming post.

Wright: Supportive of Initiative because it benefits the whole campus, we need this to maintain the quality of our education. This is not a new things, tuition is often used to fund need-based financial aid. Comfortable with full endorsement or partial endorsement.

Minor: Agrees that we should make full endorsement or not endorsing at this point. Feels that we should be endorsing. Agrees with Fergus that we have had ample time to get beginnings of constituencies thoughts. Talked about School of Education.

Bemis: Wants to go on record that he understands everyone, including engineering is getting benefits. Upper level class funding doesn't benefit engineers. Sorry I am not listening anymore to the engineering argument...

Tiernan: As Chair of Academic Affairs Committee, worked with many people working on accessibility. Out of all the students and administrators he has meet with, this is one of the best ways to improve the quality and accessibility of our education.

Kaisers: Represents rural students from Wisconsin and transfer students. Went to community college, first gen. student out of concern on sticker shock value. Our peer group is not the Big Ten, but is other state schools. Can't support because it could discourage low-income students.

Ewers: Phrase tonight not equal-giving, but equal-sacrifice. Percentage you can afford--$20,000 a year versus $20,000 a year.

Olikara: Main concerns: what happens once initiative is passed and concerns from specialized schools.

Sheka: Another amendment idea, Tiernan assists. Amendment passes...blah blah.

BACK TO MAIN DEBATE:
Wiegand: Shouldn't do full endorsement, still have questions. We lose leverage and create disconnect with student body. We have opportunity for two weeks to look through questions and find areas of concern.

Tobelman: Grad students support because they reap benefits without paying. He will abstain from vote so undergrad voices heard. Need student oversight, but endorse vote of yes so we can hash out details later. Lots of discussion on differential burden, this means discussing costs, but fundamentally this initiative is about value not just what we are spending. How much more valuable your education will be.

Fergus: Motion to strike "partial" from first "Be it resolved" clause. Lots of conversations against it, you know the deal. I voted against amendment. Motion fails.

CALL TO QUESTION!
VOTE ON ENTIRE RESOLUTION! I voted for the motion. The motion passes (12-1-5).

10 MINUTE RECESS!

4) SACGB Bylaws
And we're back...
We just approved the SACGB by-law changes by acclamation, now onto SSFC by-law changes. Carl is going over all the changes for us. VOTE ON SSFC BY-LAWS: I voted in favor of the motion. The motion passes.

5) SSFC Bylaw Changes
Now onto the Operations Grant decision. Over 99 groups applied for funding, 41 appealed their decision.

On an unrelated note, I got breadsticks and a pop during the break and I now feel great!

6) Operations Grants
Now onto debate of the Operations Grant decision... but we apparently entertaining make line item changes for a group? Legally we can do it, but I don't like this precedent of side-stepping Finance Committee. AMENDMENT: Require that public record reflects budget alterations and budget changes. I voted against this motion. Motion failed.

QUORUM CALL! I am present. And quorum is present!

Back on main motion for Operations Grant. Call to question. VOTE to approve Operations Grant: I vote in favor of the motion. The motion passes.

7) Domestic Partnership Benefits Townhall Co-Sponsorship
Now onto Domestic Partner Benefits Townhall resolution to co-host event. VOTE: The resolution is approved by acclamation.

8) Now onto Tenant Rating Board Appointments. This would be appointing Rebecca Newman, Bryon Eagon, and Kurt Gosselin. I asked how they were selected--they expressed interest to the creators of the website. VOTE: I voted in favor of the amendment (to remove Erik Paulson at his request) and in favor of the appointments. Both passed.

9) Reconsidering agenda to add at 10.9 to consider External Affairs by-laws that apparently went missing. This passed, now we are adopting the amended agenda.

10) Now onto By-law Amendments for External Affairs Committee (what we just voted on). Passed by acclamation.

XI. Reports of Special Committees and Campaigns

2. Bus Pass Advisory Board

Contentious issues in funding.

2. Constitutional Committee

Final meeting was last Tuesday. Discussed the past nine months, took copious minutes--one recommendation was to create an advisory committee to the constitutional committee. Working on getting a hard copy of the blog to send to archives. All the info will be compiled--archives in Steenbach (sp?) Library. Jeff is talking to GSSF organizations to see how to move forward. Those notes will be forwarded on.

Bantor between Rep. Minor and Rep. Wright about power of allowing folks getting money to be sitting on committee that advises org that gives money. Referenced my previous committee proposal.

11. Reports of Standing Committees and Boards

1. Academic Affairs Committee-- Day of Action of UW schools in Madison lobbying legislatures, 60-80 students calling legislatures.
   
2. Diversity Committee--Collaborating with MCSC and other orgs on April 20 (7-9 PM) event. Will be series of performances, then Steven will be keynote speaker for event. At Historical Society. MSC mission review process, Steven will have more info. Contact him if interested in voicing opinion about MSC.
   
3. Finance Committee-- Heard Operations Grants the past couple weeks. At least two people interested in chairing committee next year.
   
4. Foundation Hiring Committee
5. Legislative Affairs Committee
6. Nominations Board-- Search & Screen for new ASM Assistant Director and Campus Organizer, as well as Organizing Advisor. ASM FOun
   
7. Shared Governance Committee-- Chancellor approved PA position for one more year, then look into it and get back to us with more info on a multi-year commitment. She said she would do a 3-year commitment with an evaluation period after that (just found out as the Chancellor was leaving our meeting).
   
8. StudentPrint Board
9. External Affairs Committee
10. Student Activity Center Governing Board--See memo about limited Easter weekend hours. Also set additional holiday hours. On August 14, the SAC will possibly be open to address homeless night.
    

12. General Reports

1. Chair--Milwaukee SC members can arrange to go to BOR meeting.
   

B. Vice-Chair

Homeless Night is taking off to secure free parking lots, can probably use SAC. Things coming together.

All campus forum is next Wednesday--GO, BRING PEOPLE!

2. Student Judiciary
3. Student Services Finance Committee--GSSF groups are hiring! APPLY! Also, several large GSSF events coming up. Additionally, ASM folks will be presenting the segregated fee budgets to the Chancellor tomorrow. Seg Fees are going to go up 14%, 11% caused by Wisconsin Building Project.

13. Reports of Liaisons

14. Viewpoint Neutrality Appeals
15. Roll Calls