Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow argued in an Associated Students of Madison Student Judiciary hearing Monday that Student Services Finance Committee representatives showed inconsistencies in their decision to deny CFACT funding eligibility this fall.
CFACT is a campus organization that advocates for free-market policies with limited regulation. Many SSFC members cited confusion over CFACT’s direct services in their decision.
An organization must undergo eligibility hearings every two years and prove it spends a majority of its time providing “direct services,” or “requestable,” “educational” and “tailorable” services.
In a hearing Monday, CFACT member Patrick Sullivan said SSFC members did not count CFACT advocacy training as a direct service, but SSFC members did count advocacy trainings as direct services for “similar” organizations, such as WISPIRG, which did receive eligibility.
Sullivan argued the inconsistencies in the rulings violated viewpoint neutrality.
The ASM bylaws state all funding decisions must be made in a viewpoint neutral manner, meaning student representatives may not take the mission of the group under consideration for funding into account.
However, SSFC Chair Ellie Bruecker said it is the burden of every organization to demonstrate how its direct services meet the committee’s requirements and CFACT failed to do so.
“The title ‘advocacy training’ does not automatically constitute a direct service,” Bruecker said.
According to Bruecker, SSFC members have the ability to construct their own definition of what constitutes an “educational,” “tailorable” and “requestable” service as long as the definition remains consistent throughout all eligibility hearings.
The Student Judiciary will deliberate and make a decision on the case within ten school days.
