On Tuesday, the first part of this series looked at the amount of oversight of student groups that receive millions in university funds. However, the groups' spending patterns provoke questions concerning necessary spending as well as the funding approval criteria.
Salaries dominate budgets
For many of the student groups, positions are not solely volunteer-based. Of the groups that receive money from the General Student Services Fund, the main pool of funding for student groups, almost all have salaried positions.
Leadership positions are typically salaried for funded groups, but many groups also have part-time positions where a student can earn an above-average wage for working 12 to 15 weeks.
According to the budget approved for the Greater University Tutoring Service in the upcoming fiscal year, five ""student assistant"" positions pay $9.19 per hour over 34 weeks, with each person expected to work 12 hours per week.
When the salaries of every GUTS position are added up, it totals $102,819.50. Such amounts for student group salaries are the norm on campus.
The MultiCultural Student Coalition has one of the largest budgets for salaries, totaling $131,117.04 for the 2009-'10 fiscal year, according to documents approved by the Associated Students of Madison Student Council in February.
This means over half of the budget given to MCSC is spent on salaries, which is also true for the groups Adventure Leadership Programs, the Campus Women's Center, GUTS, PAVE, Badger Catholic, Sex Out Loud, WISPIRG, Wisconsin Student Lobby and the Working Class Student Union, among others.
WISPIRG does not give its student leaders a stipend, according to WISPIRG Treasurer Ashleigh Michael, though the group does have paid staff like many other groups.
Paid non-student staff at GSSF groups typically earn between $15,000 and $20,000 per year.
Some groups, like the Working Class Student Union, have budgets for next year that will pay group leaders for 46 weeks at 20 hours a week, with groups mandated to provide some services over the summer.
Funding not tied to group membership
One issue the Student Services Finance Committee, the Associated Students of Madison organization that allocates the groups' budgets, deals with is the difficult task of determining just how much funding a group deserves when its service to campus might be unclear.
Groups are required to give SSFC attendee lists and tell how many people are on their e-mail lists, according to former SSFC Chair Kurt Gosselin. However, no funding decisions can be based on how popular a group is on campus or how large the group is.
According to the 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision Southworth v. The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, a group's size, history on campus or the popularity of its ideas will not affect how much funding it receives.
""We can't make the amount of money based on the number of members in a group,"" Gosselin said. ""There probably are a number of groups that have budgets higher than they necessarily need to provide their service.""
When the budgets for groups are compared to the estimated amount of students affected, some disparities are apparent. According to the end of the year report submitted by Advenure Learning Programs, they worked with 3,259 students in their outdoor activities in 2008-'09. ALP is set to have a budget of $133,199 in the next fiscal year, near the median amount for GSSF groups.
Contrast this with the 7,118 students the Student Leadership Program said they served, according to their tracking forms from last year. Yet their budget for the upcoming fiscal year is set to be $73,016, roughly $60,000 less than ALP, even though SLP supposedly served almost twice as many students.
When the budgets of the two groups are compared for the upcoming year, ALP spends $87,545 on salaries while SLP spends $25,732 on salaries, though SLP spends almost twice as much on supplies.
The group Wunk Sheek said they contacted 3,160 students through programming events in the previous fiscal year and also said they estimated 1,000 students were served by their bi-weekly drum practice. Wunk Sheek's budget for the upcoming year is over $109,480, with $37,935 allocated for student salaries.
SSFC Chair Carl Fergus said it would be difficult to compare groups to one another as they might provide significantly different services. He said it was important to note that virtually all groups return funds at the end of the year, and that funds for GSSF groups were reduced in the most recent round of budgeting.
He said groups that do not use large amounts of their funds would have their budgets reduced in the following years. This could be seen as incentive to groups to spend their entire budget in order to not receive cuts.
""I would think there would be [an incentive], but, I mean, I know in practice they don't,"" said Fergus when asked if groups might spend as much as possible to avoid future cuts.
Review process sometimes unclear
Student groups that want to receive funding from SSFC must go through a lengthy review and eligibility process before even being put before the full ASM Student Council.
However, some groups have been critical of the way the process is handled and question whether it might be reformed.
Gerald Kapinos, president of the group Vets for Vets, said the process of SSFC reviewing a group's proposed budget can be ""highly subjective.""
""I don't know if [eligibility guidelines] were as strictly applied to other groups,"" he said.
Vets for Vets had its entire $43,334 budget cut for the upcoming year. Kapinos said the group is important on campus to help returning veterans deal with the problems of securing health benefits from the federal government or helping with issues of post-traumatic stress disorder.
For a group to receive funding, it must prove that it provides a direct service aimed at a majority of students on campus. A group must also show that students are the main focus of its activities, the university does not provide a similar service and the services provided are educational, according to ASM bylaws.
Fergus said Vets for Vets was denied in the eligibility phase of the process because their services, like counseling, were not aimed at a majority of university students, one of the criteria for a group to be eligible for funds.
James Hill, president of Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow, said because CFACT is typically seen as a conservative group, it faced tougher scrutiny from SSFC members—which would be illegal according to the Southworth decision.
CFACT was denied funding for the upcoming year, and Hill said that SSFC was wrong in the decision because CFACT provides the same services as the group Wisconsin Public Interest Research Group on campus.
Hill said CFACT was filing a lawsuit over the issue.
""I don't want to have anything to do with the lawsuit personally, but we got screwed,"" he said.
Fergus said both groups were treated fairly and in accordance with university guidelines.
""CFACT was given the same eligibility packet, the same deadlines and the same opportunity to present as other groups, and SSFC used the same criteria in judging CFACT's eligibility for GSSF funding,"" Fergus said in an e-mail.
SSFC denied five of the 12 groups that applied this year.
Other groups give a more comprehensive review of how the process works.
""Some necessary purchases are harder to make due to strict rules determined by SSFC,"" said Greta Hughes, Internal Affairs and Development Coordinator for the Student Leadership Program on campus, in an e-mail. ""However, I think SSFC generally does a good job at making sure student segregated fees are spent in a responsible manner.""
UW-Madison senior Bradley Schmock, Finance and Office Coordinator for the group Promoting Awareness, Victim Empowerment, said the eligibility and funding processes force a group to prove its benefit to campus.
Schmock said SSFC played an important role on campus despite the amount of paperwork given to groups.
""I think that SSFC is often overwhelmed with paperwork, and that there is some redundancy in all of the processes,"" he said, but added, ""I think the members of SSFC provide an extremely valuable, and often thankless, service to campus.""
Luke Lopas, co-president of the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences Student Council, said it would be valuable for SSFC members to attend more events held by student groups.
""Ultimately, both GSSF groups and SSFC members should be working to better serve students on campus,"" he said. ""It is unfortunate that the system often fosters a combative atmosphere between GSSF groups and the SSFC.""
Gosselin said that guidelines had been revised in the past year to make the process of reviewing each group more clear, but he admitted it can sometimes be tough to determine if a group should receive funding.
""Some of the groups it has been very straightforward and very easy to make decisions on, others it is more difficult,"" he said.
