Since last spring, conservatives have been winning major victories on campus. There have been several special triumphs to note.
One, we have one of the first conservative chairs in Eric Varney and the campus and conservatives have have benefited from having an objective mouthpiece and leader of the organization. Varney’s response to UW’s Party School Ranking:
“It just shows that we work hard, but we play hard also” Someone that is honest and not a tool for political correctness is someone I can definitely respect.”
Varney’s response to SSFC’s decision on SAFE:
“University of Wisconsin Transportation blatantly failed to follow the proper procedures, resulting in the end of a valuable and popular service in SAFE Cab. Shame on them.”
“Last year, SAFE Cab provided 13,100 rides to students in need, while SAFE Walk only had 1,075 uses. At budget costs of roughly $194,000 and $116,000 respectively, it is apparent that SAFE Cab is a more cost effective and widely used service than its counterpart. SAFE Walk is an important program as well, but it puzzles me why UW Transportation would tout one service so highly over the other, especially with contradictory statistics.”
Instead of making an apology to the students about SAFE, he criticized UW Transportation. This was a great political move and one that garners my respect. Having someone at the top who knows what government should be about (providing essential services) and not about social activism has been great. While Varney has not been extraordinarily active this semester, he has been a good spokesperson, a fair chairman, spoke out in favor of SSFC’s decision on SAFE, and most importantly filed the lawsuit against SLAC.
Second, the Robin Hood Slate won a number of races in a convincing fashion that should not go unnoticed. In the spring, Ryan Scannell whooped up on the competition in the Agricultural Race (600 to 90) and sent Eyal packing (this had other implications also). Brandon Sivet led the way in the L&S with the most votes for the school, Jackie Goessl represented in Education, Ross Olson picked up the spot for the SON, I picked up over 1700 votes in the SSFC race, and others won in convincing fashion in their respective schools. The fall freshman race was even more exciting. Even though the CR’s decided to endorse one of the two conservative candidates, both won dominating other representatives who claimed their racial diversity made them “the” candidate for council. This huge win along with upcoming political star David Lapidus coming close against Kellie Sanders (a loss by only 60 votes) has also solidified the CR and Robin Hood presence on campus---(Kellie you are awesome too).
FUSE is worried and should be terrified about the 2006 spring elections because their support is dwindling and the conservative election machine is strong. The students are and should be coming to grips that GSSF groups are wasteful and that many people on council and SSFC are simply insiders for these organizations. Here’s a recent quote in the Madison Observer from former Diversity Chairman Ryan Sarafolean:
The thing that makes me nervous is that ASM, in general, is moving in a more conservative approach as we have seen lately and that scares me a bit. When the Student Service Finance Committee denies organizations funding that do benefit students here on campus, it makes me nervous about ASM’s direction. We have done a great job for the most part in our past at keeping it a democratic body, but right now I think students in general are taking these opportunities for granted and many do not get involved. (December Issue)
The far left is scared. Programs that aren’t cost effective might start to be cut. Big diversity which is built on large student salaries, huge corporate budgets, and programs that are only social in nature are already starting to be manipulated and sliced into. Radical campaigns such as Transgender Neutral Bathrooms and Worker’s Rights may not have votes or funding in the future. Essentially, there is the strong possibility that socialist activism may not be supported by the students through their tuition in the future.
Third, Nominations Board has been active in selecting not only strong candidates for SSFC and Council but conservative candidates. The first important candidate they selected was Chrissy Harbin who has been a key addition (as have David and Kellie) to restoring fiscal sanity to SSFC. She has brought strong economic arguments and a reliable fiscal conservative position to the table. The second and last main candidate was Leah Moe. A fairly stealth candidate who is not a well-known College Republican, was chosen by Nominations amongst numerous candidates including well known leftist Andy Gordon. Please thank Mary Hegi for heading the effort in bringing more conservative leaders to ASM.
Fourth, mentioned above several times in the article, SSFC has been tougher and brought the budget total to I believe 12% less than last year. Obviously voting “no” to CFACT was a major step and denying specific organizations eligibility (Legal Information Center, Polygon) helped bring the total down but SSFC was also tough on many of the other budgets. Specifically, the committee was harsh towards UWRCF, Student Leadership, JCC, SAFE, and others. Big diversity was essentially preserved for the most part but APAC took some heavy blows and MCSC was brought down significantly also. These particular groups and others like SOL, LBGTCC, Mecha, are still overfunded because insiders stifled real reform this year. We can always hope for next year. The group was brought further to the right during the second half of committee though because of the significant additions of Sanders, Lapidus, and Harbin. The spring is bright and the non-allocables might be actually be fun.
The future is bright for conservatives and particularly the Robin Hood Slate. The name will most likely change but the principles will not. Hopefully, conservatives students will continue to rise up and strong candidates will appear. If not, I’m going to recruit them. With a lead already present (2 to 0), conservatives will look towards winning the spring elections with the expectancy of putting in place real reform in 2006-2007.
11 Comments:
Too much credit is given to conservatives in this blog. I would say the broad range of moderates (from those on the middle-left to those on the middle-right) have been signicantly more effective in all realms of campus politics this past year (including one of the most controversial representatives of this last year, Kellie Sanders). The new core of elected conservatives have been generally uninformed, blatantly ideologically biased, and overwhelmingly ineffective in suggesting ideas that have been approved upon by a majority in both the ASM Student Council and the SSFC. Look no further than the discussions and decisions that have been approved by Council and the SSFC this year, like the MCSC budget, the SAFE budget, etc.
By
Anonymous, at 3:53 PM
Does anyone else have little respect for anonymous comments?
Mark W. Murphy
By
Mark M, at 4:44 PM
It's hard to have much respect for anonymous quote but I think they should be taken seriously. I do have a couple guesses who made this post. Anyways, in response to some of the allegations, there is quite a bit of validity to several of the things posted and I want to respond to them.
First, I'd like you to define "moderates" but I'm guessing it is people that ran independently. If you want to call certain people who ran via Orgasm and Robin Hood moderates I'd probably second this opinion also. But let's use the first definition, which would independents such as Frey, Kiernoziak, Saar, Kuether, Stone, and probably some others. Yes, I would say that the "moderates" do control both SSFC, Council, and Finance. These "moderates" are insiders and in my view still "pork driven". They do show fiscal restraint against very poor funding requests but rubber stamp others. These "moderates" though do vote for some cuts but also in my opinion do not have clear fiscal philosophies. The best example is Zach Frey (I am guessing wrote this anonymous message) who is an excellent speaker but who in my view really consistency financially and simply makes a strong argument for whatever position he supports on an amendment. And yes, in order to have cuts passed on SSFC or amendments passed on council, moderates like Saar, Frey, Kiernoziak, Rashid, Rath, or others have had to sign on. So yes, according to the numbers "moderates" have had the power. But this is usually not the case because in the past fiscal liberals have been in charge and have SEG Fee Santas. So ASM has been moving right and hopefully will continue to.
Addressing the new core of elected conservatives:
I will admit some of these allegations are true but let me explain.
First, many of us are not "uninformed" but rather just new to ASM politics and don't know much about all the institutions. There are people that know much more about this campus and the activities than me or other conservatives--people that obviously know a lot: Frey, Saar, Schlicht, Tibedu, Knox, etc. But that doesn't mean we are uninformed. A lot of the institutions/groups of this university are used only by small segments of people and many are overfunded. Yes, we may not know the campus as well as many moderates/liberals do but that doesn't mean we can't make informed decisions or place out good ideas.
Second, "blatantly ideologically based". I only make rational decisions as do other conservatives such as Lapidus, Scannell, and others. To call us ideological is quite wrong because what we are is principled. We don't bend because a group's ideology that we like is at the table. I've been completely VPN and for anybody to acuse me of anything else would be bullshit. Moderates do however and they are lobbied to do what some groups want. They don't treat every group fairly.
--"Overwhelmingly ineffective"--I will admit I have not been the most effective member of SSFC. There are a couple reasons. First, I overworked myself this semester and have not always been fully awake intellectually at meetings. I've made some poor arguments, stupid comments, etc. and I'll admit I haven't always been fully there for particular budgets. Second, I'm not in the inner circle of SSFC. I should not have to go through a bunch of people to make a cut. These people should listen to the arguments at the table and think about it themselves. Why should I have to talk to specific people before I make a cut? It's bogus. It's all an insider's game for many moderates and who they're friend with/not. Fuck that!!!
--If you want to go back to SAFE, I was the one who brought forward the evidence of SAFEwalk being an ineffective program. I was the one who made the calculations and stated its wastefulness. I was truly the most effective member in discussion on this budget--the moderates tagged on to the evidence I brough up.
--MCSC--Chrissy's cut to MCSC's salaries did not go through because the moderates blocked it. It could be because of MCSC friendships with moderates and hardcore lobbying. Other programs should have been cut but we could only string 3-4 votes because the moderates treat MCSC differently (let them have social events, programs that aren't central to their mission).
--Kellie Sanders--Yes, she may be controversial because the groups/FUSE voted for her on to SSFC, she is being unfairly sued by CFACT. But let me give to everybody straight--she should not be controversial. The people who are controversial are the ones who think it is okay for MCSC to have a 30 person staff, think its okay to fund social events, think its okay to fund events outside certain group missions. She's been an excellent member of SSFC and for anyone else to say otherwise would be a disgrace.
By
Tim, at 7:41 PM
Huh, I wrote my post during Kellie's post but I want to respond to hers also. Kellie is moderate but that is construed as being conservative on SSFC. Really, the people who are conservative (Me, Dave, possibly Chrissy) are the only real people to the right fiscally while most others are very liberal in their SEG fee giving. What's controversial Kellie I would say is that you are not a porker like many of the other people who have been in GSSF groups before.
That's what makes you controversial...you are not corrupt like so many others in our student government...imagine having principles..imagine not selling your soul to big diversity, SEG fees, the groups....Whoa. Yes, there are actually principled people in our student government.
By
Tim, at 7:49 PM
Not having a blog, I can't post under anything but anonymous.
As someone who was pretty involved with ASM during the past year and now has taken a few steps back, I think I've got a different perspective than what I once did. And, as I'm not really planning on returning to the organization any time soon, my words will probably go mostly ignored. Oh well.
In your post, you classified me as a "leftist," which is absolutely fine. I generally do fall on that side of the spectrum politically, and I'm proud of that. I do think you do a disservice to the topic by making broad ranging generalizations about those on the other side of the spectrum than you, Tim, but that's certainly a prerogative to which you're entitled.
I do agree with you, and some of the other conservative members of SC, on some funding issues. It is getting out of hand, and while I won't get into any specifics, I will say that you and your fellow members of Robin Hood would have been surprised by some of the cuts that this "leftist" would have supported.
As one of a few people who really got behind the orgasm concept from the beginning, I definetly agree with the first post regarding the signficant effect of some of the new moderates on council. People like Faris Rashid, Dylan Rath, and Mary Hegi bring well thought, articulate views to the debate. Both sides have people who detract from this. Both sides have people who are, quite frankly, morons that deserve no part in the debate. Let's be honest, we all very well know that some people are pushed onto council and SSFC to protect their organization's budget, and there are also people there specifically to zero fund those budgets, as well. Both are equally useless.
Part of the reason Orgasm formed was to address some of the problems that we felt FUSE epitomized. Deep down, I recognized the potential for catastrophy for the left in the spring election. It's a risk I was willing to take, and even though it didn't go as well as I had hoped, I'm still glad we took that chance. The general weakness of some of the special interests in ASM this year results specifically from the campaign we put together. Part of the success you claim this year stems directly from some of the more moderate and reasonable representation some of the orgasm members brought to the table. I think you ought to acknowledge this fact, because even if you disagree with them because they're still more left than you are, I think it's unarguable that they're better than some of the more radical alternatives.
I'm completely honest when I say that no one deserves a rubber stamped budget. The students at this campus aren't served well when seg fee spending is wasteful, and as one of the students living paycheck to paycheck, I know this very well... which gets back to my distaste for you generalizations of all left-leaning council members as big spenders. Have I supported some spending? Yes. Some programs are necessary. Advocating deep cuts to valuable programs that will only save students fifty cents is irresponsible. There's a balance that must be struck. Unfortunately, and I say this with all due respect, you still haven't found that balance, like most other people sitting at that table.
What disappoints me most about what's going on in ASM right now has nothing to do with the seg fee debate. It's important, but ultimately, it's not the most salient issue ASM could work on. As I told Eric and Nom Board when I applied to once again sit on Council, the thing ASM fails miserably is working on things that students really care about. (Side note: I have a great deal of respect for Eric and Mary. I very well knew I wasn't going to get reseated on Council based on political reasons alone. I sat on Nom, and I understood very well that when push comes to shove, political bias rules the day. I think that's unfortunate, but I had no expectations that he would put qualifications and experience over politics. That said, I do think he's working very hard and doing a fairly good job).
Seg Fees and org funding and event grants are irrelevant to most students here. They want to get around campus quickly. They want to be able to go out and have a good time without interference from Bascom, City Hall, or the Governor's office. ASM's biggest victory in the past year is still the Mifflin Block Party, and that's something I helped fight for. Regardless to "who's in power," those are things *everyone* can, and should, get behind. Textbooks is another great example. Stephanie Biese is doing great work on Textbooks, and SC and SSFC members of all political stripes should give her full support as she fights a battle that could pay great dividends down the road. Other things students really care about are more student seats in our own stadiums, more classes, and yes, lower tuition. Lowering Seg Fees isn't really an effective way to of achieving this. Yes, there's the principle to the matter, and that argument does have some merit, but we all know that even a zero fund for every GSSF group saves students around 50 bucks. That's a drop in the bucket. I'm not saying it's nothing, either, but I think everyone's time would be better spent if everyone agreed on taking a lean, but supple, approach to seg fees. Use the extra time to actually fight for lower tuition instead of just talking about how much it's needed, how cutting 1,000 dollars from an organization's budget will do it, and how the other side is against it. That applies to everyone, and it's something I would have done differently in hindsight.
Regarding Kellie, though my experience with her is limited, I've always found her to be intelligent, thorough, and thoughtful.
That's all I've got, I guess. Just a few random thoughts for a Saturday night of Homework.
-Andy
By
Anonymous, at 12:39 AM
Thanks for commenting Andy and I agree with most everything you said. In fact, I wanted to work with you on pushing ASM to release a statement against the UW Administration to fight their move to call parents of college student adults who get sent to detox. I talked about it at the council meeting at the end of October but I think your term was close to done anyways. It's awesome to have someone comment that's not a direct insider nor a friend/conservative. I don't know very many Orgasm folks (and there aren't too many left) so thank you for bringing a non-FUSE liberal perspective. Thanks for the post and I want to address some of the comments.
I really have no problem with a lot of the liberals in ASM. The only people I really do have a problem with are mostly FUSE members for both serving the groups (particularly groups that are clearly wasteful like MCSC--if you don't think they are wasteful--I have talked to members of their organization who have told me in confidence). I also think VPN is a sham and it is abused but very hard to prove in court.
Sorry, for my labeling and I just know that you consider yourself "very liberal"--calling you a leftist was probably out of line. I know that there are many different types of liberals as there are many different types of conservatives and to generalize is a disservice (ie business conservative vs religious conservative, social liberal versus economic liberal, civic libertarian vs economic libertarian, many others). I did not mean to generalize and I am sorry.
On the fiscal issue, I did not mean to categorize all the liberals as "porkers" or anything like that. I know that outsiders such as yourself don't have strong ties to the groups even though you may be more fiscally liberal than say a classical economist like myself. I just know that many people on SSFC are "insiders" and like to favor certain groups over others.
Please post more on these "radical alternatives". What "radical ideas" would you be opposed to? I'm not for no SEG fees per se or to abolish ASM. I think the organization does have a purpose and that the GSSF/other RSO's do enhance the educational flavor campus. But I do have reservations with the current SEG fee system and am definitely welcoming any ideas for reform.
"The thing ASM fails miserably is working on things that students really care about."---Agreed. I do think there could be much better campaigns in the works and ASM could be ran far better in terms of serving the students.
I agree with you on most everything you said in the last paragraph. I want Bascom out of the personal lives of students as you do too. I do think the Mifflin Block Party was ASM's biggest success also. Textbooks is also important but I've heard from certain people that ASM's campaign probably will not work. I want it to work and we need to put our support behind Stephanie and the campaign. I don't know what the impact of ASM lobbying for lower tuition really is pragmatically. If you can give me evidence that it is helping or effective, then I may sign on. Nobody really runs on "0" funding groups and nobody probably ever will. I only "0" fund groups when the budget sucks (CFACT), they should not be eligible/students paying twice (TRC), or we left them with way too much money (DEP, MCSC). The Robin Hood Slate people are not on to "0" budgets but rather to end funding the ridiculous request (huge salaries, uneducational handouts, large travel line items, social events, etc). I mean I would like to talk to somebody that is actually objective and fairly liberal about some of the things GSSF groups ask for. I do disagree with you that SEG fees should not be lowered. In allocable we do pay around $120 which is much higher than your $50 estimate. I think any money we can return to students 10-20-50-80 is important. In the non-allocable, there also is a lot of waste/excess that could be cut. I'm bascally in the belief that we need to streamline government and make sure that our resources are being used most efficiently. I do come from a totally different fiscal background than many ASMers do though (many of which are poly sci majors) and therefore will not really even understand my rationale for cuts and the reason why I want to decrease government spending.
I'd actually like to talk to someone from Orgasm who is objective and outside SSFC so we can have an intelligent debate on where ASM should be going in the future. Thanks.
**I really only dislike FUSE and other insiders.
**Not all moderates are insiders..a mistake from a previous post I wrote.
By
Tim, at 2:05 AM
Wow - I'm respectable. Thanks. I guess those years on Legislative Affairs, Shared Gov., SJ, and SEC paid off.
I don't mind if my militantly fiscally responsible views were held as extreme - someone had to stake out a position on student fees that was far enough to the right so the debate and "moderate" members of SSFC could migrate toward a more realistic center on the political spectrum - a point that was more conservative/fiscally responsible overall.
By
Brad V, at 9:46 PM
Okay...I can at least adress a few of Zach's comments.
In my previous comments I meant to say that Zach Frey is the most inconsistent member of SSFC (sorry about my typo). Zach, you claim to have a fiscal philosophy "to fund student orgs at the best level to serve the students". I can't really disect this statement because it isn't really saying anything. It basically says that you fund what you feel is money being spent well. This says nothing about budget salaries, programs that don't serve group missions, noneducational handouts, etc. You don't have a fiscal philosophy and you've been fiscally conservative on some budgets (ie TRC, Agric. Council, SAFE) but very liberal on others (MCSC, SOL, others that I can't directly remember). You basically make arguments that fit your agenda (good arguments often at that) but you have no coherent or consistent voting record. You are the most inconsistent member on SSFC and I bet if we (SSFC members) were going to vote on this..you would win at least 75% of the vote. You cannot nor should not claim to be a fiscal conservative, your voting and speaking has been liberal.
The fact is that almost all the money we fund is "pork". The money is going to fund special programs, conferences, events, that do not necessarily need to be provided by the public sector. It's true that public transportation expenditures (SAFE) and childcare tuition vouchers should not be classified as pork. --Group offices so an RSO can have a place on campus, movie nights, activist student salaries, concerts, etc... It's pork. These aren't normal public goods. Groups can easily charge people for programs, they can charge membership fees, they can fundraise, they can apply for grants. I'm not saying that we shouldn't deliver some pork to groups. I'm saying SSFC is giving out too much pork and that a lot of the request on the basis of what they are asking for should not be granted.
Here's one main point I want to make. You and a lot of other people on SSFC like "big government". You think that the main role of government is to "help people" and be a positive force in the community. I think government is best when it is small and providing strong public goods, not transfer payments and pork. But I have a different world view from what government is about than most political science majors (including probably yourself). I am a classical economist who believes when we raise taxes and are not efficient, the whole economy loses with lower consumer spending and investment. You and others on SSFC don't understand that students are hurting financially and that whatever we can give them back ($5, $10, $50, or $100) is important. I know what you're going to say...oh well the money just goes back to the reserve board and back into the pot... Much of what SSFC funds (especially salaries, social events, etc) could be cut but a lot of members like big government and high group funding.
I will give you my fiscal philosophy later. I have more to comment on especially the category of the "6 moderates".
By
Tim, at 10:37 PM
"I wouldn't expect much more from someone who made the claim that every dollar of seg fees we save in SSFC counts, because that money, and I quote, "could be going to pay our professors' salaries." Now as much as Eau Claire may take a different veiw on things, here in Madison, that's just not how it works Timmy. Seg Fees are student allocated to student services. Tuition and tax dollars are used to pay professors."
I think Timmy's point is valid; every seg. fee dollar allocated by the student government is a dollar that, if it had been left in the hands of individual students, could have been used instead to pay for tuition, and therefore professor salaries.
Oddly enough, every dollar left in the hands of individual students could also still go to groups in the end - voluntarily. If a student felt an allocable group was doing something worthwhile, they could give that group money. That's a real marketplace of ideas - one where individuals excercise choice and speak through their dollars.
Most of the groups funded by Student SERVICES Finance Committee are not services. They are frivolous or political groups. And those organizations that actually do provide a service to students should be funded by the university. If they're actually vital to student health, safety, academic success, etc., they would have to be.
By
Brad V, at 3:00 PM
“I know that these organizations NEED the funds they asked for, and are VERY fiscally responsible in their usage of segregated fees.”
Are you insane? What they hell are you talking about? These organizations do NOT need these funds. These organizations should not even exist. 75,000 dollars for teaching better sex techniques…they need every cent? How did they get by with “only” 50,000 dollars last year? You are calling these orgs fiscally responsible? What service do they provide? What necessary student service do they provide? That is what segregated fees were INTENDED to be used for. Since then, they have become the pay-checks for hundreds of greedy students that want more. How much does the Chair get paid for these Orgs…is that necessary? You have become another liberal spender. What is the difference between MECHa and CALS you ask? It is simple, CALS has an academic purpose, MECHa does not. MECHa is a racist organization with roots in the Mexican separatist movements of the 80s and 90s.
“After seeing normal Timmy come back for MEChA, several people at the table realized that there's a distinct possibility that the WHITEST organization we've seen all year caused some momentary change in Tim Schulz.”
First, BadgerZac, I can tell you that Tim is not a racist. You have fallen into the common liberal argument: If someone cuts money to any group of minorities, they are racists. What is the purpose of MEChA Zach? Oh wait, you are going to call me a racist for bringing this up. You and the other multi-cults have nothing to stand on, so instead you attack others. DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR, how many students benefit from MEChA or MCSC compared to Polygon and CALS? DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR? Go to the next MEChA meeting (yes I have gone to one) and see how many people are there! They do have some nice office space though, check it out, it is right next to the 10 percent society.
BadgerZac, you are one of the biggest disappointments on SSFC. You are biased, you violate view point neutrality constantly (your comments prove that fact – being positive towards an organization IS a violation of VIEW POINT NUETRALITY), and you lash out at others for sticking to their principles. BTW, how did Tim vote for the “WHITEIST” UWRC Foundation?
Tim is too nice of a guy to be dragged through the mud by the likes of you.
By
Rob, at 3:06 PM
Let me quick address the comment I made regarding professor salaries. The comment was 75% ignorance and 25% truth. It was an ignorant comment as first BadgerZach pointed out and then Brad V seconded. And I am sorry, I am a rookie and have made a few mistakes down the line (I'm willing to admit them). Yes, SEG fees do only pay for student services. The real point I was trying to make was that the opportunity costs of using SEG fee money are great. For instance, why not increase tuition $100 to keep good professors/keep classes and then equally cut SEG fees by $100 and get rid of a lot of the fat within student organizations, UHS, Rec Sports, etc. The point is there is always an alternative in the allocation of resources. It makes sense at least theoretically and is something to consider. We as a society must be wise in not only government spending but also personal spending. I'll talk about it in a future posting but we must be wise stewards of our money, especially because most people in this world do not have enough resources. I'm not calling for more aid to Africa or anything like that...I'll explain it in another post. Just wanted to defend the statement I made even though it doesn't make sense within the given system, I believe it still has merit. Do not shun me due to my ignorance must please correct/teach me.
By
Tim, at 5:50 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home