During the last several days, I have read with increasing dismay a series of escalating attacks on the elected representatives of ASM and on the overall utility of the student government as a direct consequence of my decision to restore eligibility for student segregated fee funding to MEChA, a registered student organization.
In lesser measure, I have been disappointed by the comments of some ASM representatives suggesting that my decision was arbitrary or ill-considered because I declined to meet with them prior to its issuance, or that by disagreeing with the initial student council decision to deny funding eligibility to MEChA, I somehow undermined ASM's authority and made a mockery of the principle--and practice--of shared governance on this campus. I am writing now because these comments show every promise of evolving into a circus sideshow that ignores the simple facts.
The administration of this university has enjoyed positive and constructive relations with ASM leadership for years. Our experience has been that, even on points of significant philosophical disagreement, the student leadership has been thoughtful, forceful and open to dialogue. The incumbent leadership is no different in this regard, and suggestions to the contrary are badly misinformed.
Regarding the MEChA decision and the practice of shared governance, I ask you to remember a few important details about my role as a component of an agreed-to process instituted by ASM in the aftermath of the Southworth decision. If a registered student organization is denied eligibility for funding, as was MEChA, there is a prescribed appeal process that takes it from the SSFC to the Student Judiciary and, if necessary, to the Student Council. If, at the end of this process, the student organization remains unsatisfied with the status of its eligibility for funding, it can appeal the student government's decision to my office. At that point, I must resolve on a final basis the question of eligibility. In order to preserve the integrity of the process that exists, I am not at liberty to meet with ASM representatives to discuss the case, or to meet with the appealing organization to better understand its viewpoint. I must confine my review strictly to the record generated in the prior proceedings, and, solely on the basis of the information contained in that record, determine whether eligibility should be restored.
In this case, and for the first time, I concluded that MEChA was eligible for funding. Here is why: Throughout the student government eligibility hearings conducted on MEChA's application for funding, representatives of the university administration repeatedly made clear that none of MEChA's activities violated GAP 15, a UW System rule that addresses student recruitment and retention. Despite the clarity with which this fact was communicated, in the final eligibility hearing conducted before the Student Council, a majority of the council voted to deny funding on the basis of a perceived violation of GAP 15.
While I have no reason to discredit the earnestness with which these votes were submitted, I do have the institutional responsibility to correct a factual error that results in a denial of eligibility to an otherwise deserving student organization. I acted on that responsibility. The rest, as they say, is pure politics.
Here is why simply letting it go as \politics"" is unacceptable to me. On Feb. 13, the Student Council passed a motion indicating that it would refuse to hear MEChA's legitimate funding request, the next appropriate step in the established governmental process following my decision to restore MEChA's eligibility to receive funding. Instead, the Student Council suggested that I should decide the question of how much funding MEChA should receive. This action does nothing but trivialize the exercise of due process, and subordinates legitimate disagreement to the conduct of insubstantial politics. I hope and expect that we can do better.
