The brainchild of cross-college collaboration and institutional insight, the College Student Council Fund (CSCF) would allow for the common needs of students within a single college to be met. The CSCF would, through segregated fees, provide funding for the creation and operation of College Student Councils (CSCs) within each college. In addition, the proposal will allow for funding of a separate council for graduate students across the university. CSCs would receive funding proportional to the registrar's list of enrolled students for a college with the maximum funding for a CSC being $10 per enrolled student. In the case of students with a cross-college double major, they will be counted as a member of their home"" college, which is generally the college in which the first major was declared. This ensures that students will only be counted once and prevent more money from being spent than that which is collected.
Currently funded under segregated fees, organizations under the purview of the General Student Services Fund (GSSF) provide needed services to the University in its entirety. Likewise, the CSCF would provide needed services that are specific to a single college. Service programming would be unique to each college and fall under the following five categories: Academic and Applied Knowledge, Outreach, Leadership, Networking and Diversity.
Additionally, the creation of the CSCF would increase two items which ASM struggles to achieve: 1) higher voter turnout and 2) effectual student representation and communication with a representative's constituency. An increase in both could lead to increased legitimacy and accountability, two factors which ASM is also trying to achieve under the proposed constitution.
Normal voter turnout at ASM elections averages about 7 percent of the student population. Under the CSCF legislation, CSCs would be required to achieve a voter turnout of at least 10 percent from their specific colleges. If this requirement is not met, the CSC will be subject to reduced funding or complete revocation of funding.
Enhanced ASM communication will occur via direct contact of ASM representatives with the College Student Council and ASM. This would provide a forum for individual students to present concerns and foster discussion at the college level. These concerns would ultimately be presented by the college representative and discussed among ASM.
Combined with the proposed structure found in the ASM constitution, this funding branch would provide a federal-state model of government where direct representation would come from within the council. Yet, the CSCF is a proposal completely independent of the proposed ASM constitution.
Discussion on the legislation began before Winter Break at the final ASM meeting of the semester on Dec. 10. The legislation will be discussed further at the Feb. 18 ASM meeting where an initial vote on the proposal could happen.
I urge you to contact your ASM representative before the next meeting to inform him/her of your wish to increase ASM legitimacy, enhance ASM communication and create services to satisfy the unique needs of you and your college.
The original legislation was officially authored by: Michelle Brenner (CALS SC), Jeff Inhofer (Polygon), Dan Jonovic (Polygon), Zorian Lasowsky (Former SSFC Member), Luke Lopas (CALS SC), TJ Madsen (Polygon), Ainsley McMaster (CALS SC), Sean McMaster (CALS SC), Liz Seitz (CALS SC), Patrick Snouffer (Polygon), Maria Stubbings (CALS SC), Sarah Vander Wegen (Polygon) and Tanya Zimmerman (CALS SC).
Input for improvements regarding the legislation was provided by: Paul Bemis (ASM Rep.), Kurt Gosselin (SSFC Chair), Kevin Helmkamp (Associate Dean of Students) and Jeff Wright (ASM Rep.).
Sean McMaster is a junior majoring in biochemistry and mathematics. Please send responses to opinion@dailycardinal.com
