Since the start of that second working group, there have been discussions of formulating a set of guiding principles that would be used in negotiating New Badger Partnership legislative changes.  Essentially, these principles would be used as threat points during legislative communications; in other words, these are non-negotiable.  Some of the ones I’ve seen include protecting state statute 36.09 (which details shared governance), maintaining academic freedom and the ability to choose research projects, and costs to continue provided by the state.

So the question then becomes, what would be your guiding principles for the University?  What would be your threat point in maintaining the functions of the UW?

I met with a number of individuals today, Legislative Affiars Chair Sam Polstein among them, to revise the latest draft of the document, which is nearing its completion.  We cleared up a number of wording components and took some questions from ASM staff.  From here, we will be approving our draft at Student Council while simultaneously sending the draft to UW Human Relations to get the go ahead from there end.

This is one huge step in making ASM a much more effective advocacy body.

Chancellor Martin recently sent out an email to the campus, making a number of arguments for the plan.  Read it.  All of it.  But in case you don’t have time, here are a number of highlights.

Her thoughts on the state budget:

Given the projected structural deficit at the state level, the absence of one-time monies from the federal government and the new governor’s commitment to dealing with the deficit without raising taxes, I believe it is unrealistic to expect new funding for UW-Madison. It is much more likely that we will face significant cuts. Our task is to advocate for as much funding as possible for the university and for higher education more generally, both for the good of UW-Madison and for the good of the state of Wisconsin. I have been spending a good portion of my time making the compelling case for what a major research university contributes to the well-being of the region and the state, meeting with people across the state and using available media opportunities to make the public aware of how important higher education is to all of us.  It is also our responsibility as stewards of this beloved university to make realistic assumptions about the impact of the state’s deficit and to come up with possible approaches that would help us help ourselves.

On the plan as a whole:

The New Badger Partnership is not a detailed plan. Rather, it proposes a set of principles about how we could enhance our ability to serve our students and the world around us. It suggests changes in our relationship with the state and System. It argues for greater differentiation among different kinds of campuses, for greater flexibility in a number of administrative domains and for the opportunity to operate in ways that are appropriate for a university setting. It also affirms our intent to remain accountable to the citizens of the state.

And on tuition:

I believe that reasonable increases in undergraduate tuition at UW-Madison are necessary and warranted, as long as we continue to build our financial aid resources. Undergraduate tuition increases are warranted in three senses. First, the return on investment to graduates of universities such as UW-Madison continues to increase nationwide. As state funding goes down and students’ earning potential increases, public universities have re-balanced the responsibilities for financing higher education. Second, it makes sense to create opportunity for students of low and middle-income backgrounds by charging those who can afford it an amount closer to the actual cost of educating a student. Third, UW-Madison undergraduate tuition remains, with the University of Iowa, at the bottom of our public peer group, while our academic standing is at the top.

And lastly, on the timeline:

I will continue meeting with newly elected and continuing political leaders to make the case for state funding and for flexibility. In late February or March, when we know more about the new governor’s budget and his approach to higher education, we will hold more on-campus forums and work with governance groups on details.

If you are of the type that would rather watch than read, check out this video on Office Hours.

Further information can be found at the, admittedly propaganda-esque, Badger Partnership homepage.

Now take what you hear with a grain of salt, obviously; they are Chancellor Martin’s words and represent only one view.  But her remarks are the closest thing we have to a plan at this point.  So before you begin making judgments about the Badger Partnership, stop and get yourself acquainted with what it looks like in its current iteration.  Its easy to be distracted by words like autonomy and tuition, but this plan, whether you like it or not, will be instrumental in the future of this institution we love.   So pay attention and educate yourself.

We, the students of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, seek to make segregated fees both affordable and democratic. We call for a moratorium on increases in segregated fees until the following policies are instituted:

1. An end to undemocratic means of influencing student referenda on segregated fees, consisting of:
   (a) a ban on the use of University money from tuition, segregated fees, and government funding to advocate a position on segregated fee levels;
   (b) full and immediate disclosure of the sources and amounts of all privately-raised money the University spends on advocating a position on segregated fee levels; and
   (c) a prohibition against the University requiring any student employee to advocate a position on segregated fee levels as a part of her or his job duties.
2. A requirement that the amount of segregated fees may not rise faster than the percentage increase in the cost of living in Madison.
3. A requirement that administration-determined (“non-allocable”) segregated fees may not rise above its current level of 81.7% of total segregated fees expenditures.
4. An elimination of late fees, given that the existing penalties (including a hold on student registration, records, and other services) are sufficient to encourage on-time payment.

Much of this seems reactionary to the NatUp Campaign and Union South Referendum from a few years ago.  Points 1) are 4) certainly reasonable, but the other two points are really difficult to support.

First, a limit on the percent increase would be extremely detrimental to a number of segregated fee funded programs, most notably UHS, which suffers high inflation costs related to the typically high inflation behind health care.  Additionally, buildings are inherently expensive to maintain, especially buildings that are closing in on being century old, so this restriction would really prohibit the Union from making necessary repairs to  Memorial Union.

Moreover, the third point is unnecessarily restrictive.  It essentially ties the non-allocable components of seg fees (UHS, Union, Rec Sports) to allocable (ASM, student orgs, bus pass), locking the non-allocable portion of seg fees at 81.7%.  What this means is that if allocable seg fees go down–which is a very realistic possibility given that SSFC has been very tough on budgets over the past few years (last year the GSSF, for instance, went down by $100,000)–the non-allocables must go down.  I think you would be laughed out of the room if you told UHS to decrease their budget.

I’m not sure what will come out of this campaign, but I would like to work with the TAA on guiding their efforts to a more productive outcome, namely greater control over the non-allocables.  ASM and the SSFC have been trying for years to gain greater authority and understanding of the non-allocable budgets.  Cooperation between the TAA and ASM could lead to more success in this endeavor.

1. What did the student turnout look like for the state?  Was it enough to generate interest in the student demographic?

Voter turnout for this election was incredibly high, particularly for a non-Presidential election year.  Voter turnout in areas that generally have large student populations was very high and due to a number of close state legislature election results and the desire to hold onto newly gained majorities, or regain lost majorities in the state legislature, it’s safe to say that no candidate will be able to ignore the student demographic during the upcoming legislative session.

2. This is the first time in some 70 years that the Republicans have controlled the state legislature.  What effect do you think this will have on the next state biennial budget?

I should note that this is the first time that Republicans have won both houses of the legislature at the same time, they’re held both houses at the same time since then, but the turnover was not as dramatic.  More importantly having a new Republican Governor, a new Republican Speaker of the Assembly and a new Republican Majority leader in the Senate will have a dramatic impact on the next state budget writing process.  Any time there is an incoming governor, particularly from a political party that differs from the current Governor’s, there is a great deal of potential for the initial budget process to go slowly—due to the new Governor issuing new directives to the various state agencies, which you can already see with regard to the transit funds coming from the federal government to build high speed rail.  On the flip side with the legislature controlled by the same party as the new Governor the Joint Finance Committee (JFC) process will likely go much more smoothly.  There is some potential for disagreement between Republican Senators and Republican Representatives that sit on JFC, but this will depend greatly on the relationship built between the new co-chairs, Senator Darling and Representative Vos.  After the committee process is completed the voting process in both houses should be completed fairly quickly, due to the leadership in the Assembly and Senate being headed up by brothers, Jeff and Scott Fitzgerald, in addition to the strong majorities that the Republicans have in both houses, making amendments from the floor less likely.  Overall I think we will see a budget completed well before the next fiscal year begins on July 1, 2011.  I should note that the members of JFC have a significant part to play in determining which items get special treatment and which get slashed due to budget cuts, in addition to which special interests get heard and which do not by the committee.  This second part is primarily related to where public hearings are held and which groups are treated fairly versus those that are grilled by committee members.

I would be happy to provide you with an in depth analysis of each member, regarding where they stand on issues and how they tend to operate on the committee, but I would prefer to not have that included on your blog.  What you can post, however is a list of newly appointment members, where they are from, and which UW campuses are within their districts, which says a lot all by itself:

Co-Chair, Sen. Darling (River Hills, representing an area just north and west of Milwaukee) district near UW-Milwaukee and UW-Waukesha

Sen. Olsen (Ripon) Closest UW is UW-Oshkosh

Sen. Harsdorf (River Falls) UW-River Falls, UW-Stout

Sen. Grothman (West Bend) UW-Washington County

Sen. Leibham (Sheboygan) UW-Manitowoc, UW-Sheboygan

Sen. Hopper (Fond du Lac) UW-Fond du Lac, UW-Oshkosh

Co-Chair, Rep. Vos (Burlington) near UW-Parkside and UW-Milwaukee

3. Specifically, what effect will the Republican control have on the UW system budget?

The atmosphere will be dramatically different regarding how budget cuts are handled.  Unlike previous budget cuts that may have been labeled as temporary to bridge the gap between now and when state revenues recover to pre-recession levels, the goal now will be to shift to re-evaluation of programs and utilizing the cuts as opportunities to reform government bureaucracy and experiment with programs that might be more effective, both in cost and results.  You will frequently hear questions similar to, “what has the most positive impact on the state at the lowest cost to tax payers?”  The UW System budget will, in some instances, have to be reframed and reworked in order to meet these new goals of efficiency and positive economic impact.  Anticipating some of these requirements has caused UW-System and HEAB to highlight programs that are proven to increase student enrollment, retention and degree attainment, in addition to job/business creation around the state.  It is important to note that these programs will likely suffer fewer cuts than others, but in this fiscal crisis nothing is entirely safe.  Beyond these major topics there has been a great deal of talk about “flexibility” by both Chancellors and Governor-elect Walker.  Generally speaking the term flexibility falls into two categories: 1) Relaxing state regulations on the operations of the campuses that currently require greater bureaucracy and costs associated with compliance. 2) Independence of the campuses from the Board of Regents and current state statutes that prevent individual campuses from setting their own fees, such as tuition.  Generally this is a double-edged sword, on the one hand streamlining the UW to run more like business to reduce costs and better serve their customers (students), while at the same time allowing the campuses to dramatically increase

The Republican Party has historically been split on the tuition matter, some believing that tuition is a fee for a public service that should only go up after all other measures have been taken to reduce agency costs, the other side believing that the public university is not truly a public service and that students should pay for the education (and the benefits associated with it) that they receive.  Regardless of the Governor’s budget this debate with likely play out in the JFC.

It is safe to say that overall the UW System budget request will see a dramatic reduction both in the Governor’s version and the JFC version, with the most significant cuts likely coming in the “cost to continue” segment and other parts of the base budget, especially those associated with faculty/staff salaries and benefits.  Furloughs and even layoffs are a definite possibility.  This coupled with tuition increases will change the UW’s budget in a fashion not seen since the great depression, when faculty and administrative salaries were dramatically reduced and tuition was dramatically increased.

4. With much talk of the Badger Partnership occurring at UW-Madison, we are obviously curious about the new governor.  What effect will a Republican governor have on Chancellor Martin’s proposed initiative?

Governor Walker seems very keen on working hand in hand with the UW; however, his staff is well aware of the need to make dramatic cuts to state budgets and the UW has an enormous target painted on its back.  Chancellor Martin will likely capitalize as much as possible on this situation by bargaining for the type of private university flexibilities and freedoms from the state that she has been aiming to implement since she first was hired.  Governor Walker, as anyone in his position would, will likely jump at the chance to have a media savvy Chancellor advocate for UW GPR budget cuts in exchange for massive tuition increases.  Prior to the election the extremely vague Badger Partnership seemed to make a hard ask of the state to both free the UW from state agency constraints and tuition caps in addition to steady GPR support; however given the political reality we now exist in, it is far more likely that as the plan takes shape it will turn more into a bargain of tuition flexibility in exchange for less GPR support and state control.

5. From this point on, what will United Council’s approach be with regard to the state?

Over the past two years United Council has restructured and worked to build closer ties with UW-System, both major political parties and coalition partners capable of reaching out to the general public and making higher education a Wisconsin priority, in addition to being more accountable and transparent to student leaders around the state.  United Council’s goals and tactics will continue to be formulated and executed with these long term strategies in mind.  We firmly believe that if the general public was as well aware of public university funding in Wisconsin as they are of public K-12 funding, it would result is a much higher priority for the UW in a state budget and much more affordable tuition for citizens of Wisconsin.  To this end United Council will continue with our long term plans to become as effective as WEAC and WMC at influencing the general public and state policy.

So with that being said our budget campaign this biennium will involve a great deal of outreach to the public, which includes general student bodies, and negotiation with other critical organizations to ensure the most student friendly budget possible in this current fiscal situation.  Since our messaging has been developed with long term goals in mind very little to nothing will be changed with regard to our budget priorities; however, our realistic expectations for this budget cycle will obviously be dramatically altered.  The overall goal for this budget cycle is to avoid making enemies, make as many allies as possible, build lasting relationships at the capitol and create a mindset among elected officials and their staff that the budget should look a certain way once the funding again becomes available.  A few major rules continue to apply in lobbying for our budget 1) Ask for what you want, not what you think you can get. 2) Don’t burn bridges over not getting something that someone was never able to give you. 3) Building your base and convincing your base to lobby for you on the ideas you are working for is just as important in the long run as short term legislative victories.

This last rule directly applies to making as many students aware of the budget battle and our long term goals as possible and then getting them to feel so invested in the issue that they continue to believe that public higher education should be accessible, affordable, and of the highest quality long after they graduate.

I have already met with our Executive Director to present her with my draft plan for the full budget campaign and I will be meeting with our field team and our outside partner organizations in the upcoming week. Generally the two primary means of forwarding our goals will be 1) Building our student and public base through direct contact with students, press events, and other tactics. 2) Direct lobbying by students and legislators’ constituents to highlight the importance of funding UW System to the greatest extent possible during this next biennium.

Additional specifics about our campaign and how to get involved will be presented to student organizations and students governments in the near future, and will be available on our website to the general public.

Finally, I will be creating a core group of students to head up our lobbying efforts and organize campus specific activities surrounding the budget campaign.  This group, called Lobby Corps, will be formally set up in the coming weeks, at which time you will be hearing more about it.

“We have a challenge ahead of us in the budget, but when I look at higher education and the UW System, and the creativity you’ve shown, well, I’m going to be calling on that creativity again….I need your help in improving and maintaining college graduations…not through new money but through what we have.”

It was apparent that Walker was trying to remain as vague as possible; the Board of Regents isn’t really the spot for specifics anyway.  But you have to be concerned with the UW System’s outlook in the near future.  Their request to the state is not unreasonable–getting costs to continue and requesting more to increase graduation rates (as a reinvestment in the state’s jobs)–but in an economy like this and with the state deficit continuing to grow, it seems like the request may not be completely fulfilled.

It is worth noting, however, that much of the UW System, and Madison in particular, has been proactive in countering these budget shortfalls.  In my conversations with UW Madison administrators (Chancellor Martin, Vice Chancellor Bazzell, among them), the approach has been realistic.  Ultimately, the Badger Partnership may become a big issue as we move forward into a budget cycle of uncertainty.  Chancellor Martin’s promise for the program includes saving the University money by granting freedom from binding state contracts and granting the University more autonomy from the Board of Regents to address our own unique campus needs.  Whether or not that is actually the case is yet to be seen.

[Updated] For more coverage on the Board of Regents meeting, see:

Wis. governor-elect asks UW for help on economy — JSOnline.com

On Campus: Walker tells UW Regents, “It isn’t just always about more money” — WI State Journal

Wis. governor-elect asks UW for help on economy — Madison.com

More from the Badger Herald article:

Manes said the current system of operation, including event and travel grants and the General Student Services Funds were put together piecemeal at different times.

“They have all been done in complete isolation from the other one. We have never dealt with the broader issue of what does the best system look like,” Manes said.

As part of his broader reform plan Manes said he wants to create a Campus Services Fund, which would not be constrained by viewpoint neutrality, and would allow ASM to provide funding for critical services on campus.

The Daily Cardinal also covered it:

In his plan, Manes touted the success of prior restructuring, but said there was a need to “fill in the holes,” describing the current system as having been put together “piecemeal.”

“[The current system] never dealt with the broader issue of ‘What does the best possible system look like?’” Manes said. “I think we need to ask this question.”

Manes said his main goals were to meet a greater student need with broader depth, and to stay true to the entire campus constituency.

I think both of these quotes did a very good job of encompassing Chair Manes’ goals and plans.  In truth, his point of the current system being put together piecemeal is well taken.  Every year, we may try to re-analyze the system, but certain exterior forces (political or otherwise) often prohibit a complete review of the system as a whole.  I ran into this last year when certain members of my committee were resistant to overall big-picture approaches.

There will be commentary on this, I guarantee it.  In fact, I’m just waiting for the opinions to start coming out in anonymous comments on both sites.  They will likely accuse ASM of being incredibly liberal and creating this so we can espouse our views upon the campus or, conversely, trying to thwart the majority/minority opinion on the campus because we are merely the “campus elite” that is completely out of touch with the average student.  I think these are both valid points (although not necessarily accurate), and the way we protect ourselves from these abuses in the future is to build in protections in the system.  This means that as we further design the Campus Services Fund, it has built-in provisions for:

1. Adhering to a need from non-elected representatives (perhaps a petition, a forum, or any other way of enacting the democratic process); and
2. Resisting pressures on ASM from exterior, politically motivated forces.  This goes both ways, and, in fact, it is not uncommon to see other large student governments around the country have oppositional parties that are run as proxies of the College Republicans or College Democrats.  The core of these services must be non-expressive and completely in line with the academic and extracurricular desires of a neutral campus body.

Make no mistake, I’m not saying the CSF should be “viewpoint neutral,” so to speak.  I’m merely advocating for a neutral approach to services, where values are based on the campus community’s desires as students of the University, not some ulterior political motivations.

Ultimately, the idea of everything in moderation holds true here.  Three years down the line, the CSF should still be regarded as a balancing act of core services without being a “gravy train” (to quote the Badger Herald’s accusations of the SSFC three years ago) of funding whatever we want.  This is the kind of stability everyone should value in a funding stream.

6:37 - Chair Manes has discussed the basic principles of going to school here.  A common belief in the Wisconsin Idea.    He also is discussing the goals of SSFC:

1. Constantly strive to meet a greater need with a broader depth.  (This means more than going to school here; it means leaving it better than we found it.)

2. Staying true to our entire constituency (this is done through money via segregated fees or through other means.)

6:40 - This then begs the question: what do we currently have.  ASM provides funding through the GSSF, through travel and event grants, and through a number of smaller streams available (operations, creative works, etc.)

So what does the best possible system look like?  Its a balancing act, creating the perfect amount of available resources while remaining responsible.

6:43 - Chair Manes is now going into the history of segregated fees going back to the late 1990s.  He is discussing Southworth (and going a bit into forum analysis.)

I’m impressed by his knowledge of public fora analysis.  Okay, I’m being self-serving; between Former SSFC Chair Kurt Gosselin and myself, we have trained Chair Manes in the ways of fora analysis and how they pertain to segregated fees.

6:48 – Chair Manes just made the case that segregated fees need to be monitored carefully, making “SSFC the stewards of the fund.”  He did this by demonstrating that from 2000-2007, seg fees were constantly under fire for being overblown (from both the campus papers and the campus administration.)

From there, he is arguing that that we also need flexibility and autonomy.  While SSFC figured out how to appropriately apply viewpoint neutrality, it also became increasingly handcuffed by the organizations at hand.  We were not providing some important services while we were forced to fund others that were not so valuable.

This then leads to the conclusion that ultimately, SSFC is about a balancing act.  As we start promising to fund things that we deem important, we also run the risk of raising segregated fees to the average student.  (This is oddly close to my closing remarks that I gave during my last meeting as  SSFC Chair.  Chair Manes has learned well.)

6:59 – This then leads Chair Manes to propose two new funding streams: the Campus Services Fund and the College Student Council Fund.  The first, the CSF, is about ASM providing the the important services that the student body asks us for.  The CSF would not have VPN apply to it–Chair Manes wants to make this particularly clear.  He has made sure that in no way does the decision of Southworth apply to the mechanisms of the CSF.

I will elaborate more on why VPN does not apply in later posts.

Chair Manes then proposes five possible services that ASM could provide:

1. Tutoring
2. Legal Information
3. Sexual Assualt
4. Leadership Training
5. Political Involvement

7:04 – Chair Manes will discuss the intracacies of the CSF on Thursday.  He then makes the case that the College Student Council Fund (CSCF) is another mechanism by which we can ensure that the campus needs are being met.  It will allow the individual schools and colleges to allocate money within themselves for their constituents (I liken this to the concept of ASM as the Federal Government while the individual schools are like the states.)

7:08 -  From there, we will need to have a dialogue about the current systems, such as the GSSF and grants.  This conversation will begin on November 29th, after GSSF budgets are finished.  He then lays out the timeline that SSFC will follow for the rest of the year, leading up to the Chancellor report in March.

7:12 – He is now taking questions:

Why shouldn’t the CSF be VPN?

Because currently ASM does not have a way to make a value judgement on what services will be provided.

What happens when Scott Southworth the Second comes around and sues because ASM is providing something they don’t like?

Once ASM provides it, it is considered government speech.  Therefore, ASM will be providing for its constituents through this mechanism which is allowed.

What happens to the GSSF?

For now, it continues to exist.  But that is apart of the broader discussion: if students want it, it will continue to exist.

What happens to the minority voices who may not be able to be heard?

They will still be listened to.  They can petition for services.  Additionally, representatives are charged to listen to their constituents.

What happens to current groups?

The CSF is not about groups; its about the services.  It is about what the campus needs, not what a group needs.  Thus, we have to be careful when talking about the CSF in terms of specific groups.  All groups will still have access the current funds, unless we have conversations later on to change those processes.

What will be the impact of these funds on seg fees?

I anticipate they will be negligible.  I don’t anticipate them going over $500,000.

What do other Universities do?

I get to answer this one!

We are pretty unique in the country.  Other Big Ten schools don’t have much control over their student fees.  Other UW schools typically give out grant-like allocations (roughly $5000 maximum.)

And we’re done.

There were a few other questions brought up that I missed.  For the most part, it was incredibly beneficial.  A lot of the questions were very intelligent and to the point.  Chair Manes answered the questions extremely well, and I think people left with a broader perspective of the way funding works at the University.  I think attendance was roughly 40-45.  I’ll have more commentary on this in the coming days.

The return to ECV will be about (who else?) the Student Services Finance Committee.  SSFC Chairman Matt Manes will be unveiling the SSFC strategic plan today, which will detail a number of thoughts on the way the current funding streams in ASM are shaped.  Chair Manes has done a wonderful job garnering feedback for this proposal, as he has sent out a campus wide email, solicited Badger Herald news coverage and Wisconsin State Journal coverage, and sent a letter to the editor as an open invitation to the campus.   The LTE reads:

To All Interested Parties,

The Student Services Finance Committee (SSFC) is the all-student body charged with overseeing the allocation of nearly $40 million in your segregated fees. Of this, approximately $2 million is made available to Registered Student Organizations (RSOs) in the form of Operations and Event and Travel Grants, as well as General Student Services Fund (GSSF) funding. Over the past few years, numerous concerns regarding how this money is allocated have been raised by the students of this campus, and we have heard your voice. To this end, we are now looking at a comprehensive overhaul of the system to reflect these wishes and concerns.

At 6:30 p.m. tonight, Oct. 11, in the Hearing Room on the 4th floor of the Student Activities Center and continuing on Thursday, Oct. 14, the SSFC will be hearing and answering questions as we present the SSFC Strategic Plan, which will serve to guide the reorganization of the policies and practices concerning the funding of RSOs on this campus. We invite you to join us in this discussion, as the feedback we hope to receive will be used to construct the new systems we put in place and is necessary to ensure these proposals accurately reflect the general student interest.

Sincerely,

Matthew Manes

Chair, Student Services Finance Committee

What is important to note here is that Chair Manes is proposing a comprehensive review of the funding streams.  While we have made great strides in improving the process over the years since the  application of Viewpoint Neutrality in segregated fees, I think many people are not satisfied with the current system.  It is my hope that this dialog will spur a large amount of intensive thought on the system, not just what they consider to be the best for themselves or their particular group or interest.

I will be attending the meeting tonight, and I will hopefully have the opportunity to live blog the presentation and feedback tonight so that those in attendance have an opportunity to hear (or, at least, read) this incredibly important work on campus.

-BJW