After months of closed-door meetings set to recommend changes to the Clark Document, which governs use of the student incidental fee, the nine-member group of student leaders and University administrators in charge of the mission released its recommendations last week, at the same time handing them over to University President Dave Frohnmayer. And on Friday afternoon, about two dozen concerned students and staff members sat across from a half-dozen members of the Clark Document working group to discuss the proposed changes — and to ask why outside input was not heard when considering changes to the ASUO’s primary document.
The working group recommended bringing an end to the referendum system, which allows student groups to garner incidental fee money by going through ballot measures, and it also said the ASUO should be permitted to move programs from one major budget committee to another. For any of these changes to take place, Frohnmayer must first approve.
By far the most contested point during Friday’s discussion revolved around the University’s ballot measure system, and the changes it may face under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Southworth vs. the University of Wisconsin. The case ruled that student incidental fee funds must be distributed to groups on a viewpoint neutral basis, which means a group’s opinions cannot be considered when deciding whether to give them funding. In regards to the ballot measure system, the Southworth case expressed concern, but did not rule, that it violates the concept of viewpoint neutrality.
After consulting Melinda Grier, the University’s legal counsel, the working group concluded that ballot measures should not be used to secure groups’ funding, but they can be used in an advisory capacity to show what students on campus want.
“The recommendation made by the committee is the harshest recommendation you can make to the referendum system,” former ASUO Legislative Organizer Melissa Unger said. “It pretty much says ‘get rid of it.’”
Unger added she wished the group would have taken into consideration other legal interpretations.
But ASUO Student Senate President Peter Watts, a member of the group, said it consulted not only Grier, but various law school professors and other attorneys in the community — and their interpretations were all the same.
“We have not been able to find someone to stand up and say, ‘your referendum system is OK,’” Watts said.
He added that when the Supreme Court rules, that rule is final.
“When the Supreme Court says jump,” Watts said, “I say ‘how high?’”
Unger said the state’s attorney general should be asked for opinion to help clear up the confusion, a suggestion seconded by Watts.
But the second largest protest heard at the meeting was against the way changes to the document were pursued — behind closed doors.
Watts said the committee decided to hold closed meetings because it wanted to be able to talk freely, and that if several outside people or the media were allowed in, participants would either “grandstand” or not be as willing to speak as they would be in more private settings.
“It’s not their choice,” said Unger, who has filed with University officials a public records request for information about the meetings. “What they decided in that room is going to affect multiple groups on campus.”
Associate Vice President of Student Affairs Anne Leavitt agreed, saying those concerned may still offer input to Frohnmayer in the form of letters or e-mail messages.
But Debra Martin, program coordinator for the Student Activities Resource Office, said because she is now a single voice — and not a part of a working group — she cannot have as much impact on the recommendations as the group will have.
“I would hope that if working groups are convened in the future, they are a bit more open,” Martin said. “Give it a try.”
Unger was also concerned about student representation in the working group, which comprised three student senators, former ASUO President Jay Breslow and one EMU board member. She said it is unlikely many of them will return to the group next year, and that it should have been next year’s leadership in on the action.
“It’s our Clark Document. It’s our fee,” she said. “So it should be something [ASUO President Nilda Brooklyn] is heading up.”
But Watts said when the meetings first began winter term, they did not know who was going to be in a leadership position come next fall.
“I wish I could pull out a crystal ball and predict the outcome of the elections,” Watts said. “But I can’t.”
Leavitt emphasized that changing the Clark Document is an ongoing process — and that there is still an opportunity for all those concerned to offer their input.
“We can’t write the end of the story,” Leavitt said.