Opinion ID: 2997098
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Allocable Fees—Pre-Litigation

Text: At the outset of this litigation, a party interested in receiving a portion of the allocable fees could do so through three means. First, a “Registered Student Organization” (an 3 “RSO”) could receive a portion of these fees through an application to a committee of the ASM, the Student Services Finance Committee (the “SSFC”). The SSFC is responsible for the allocation of that portion of the fees held in the General Student Services Fund (the “GSSF”). Second, an RSO could apply for a grant drawn from the Student Government Activity Fund (the “SGAF”) to support three separate categories of activities: operations, events, and travel. The SGAF is 3 To qualify as an RSO a group must be a formalized not-forprofit group, composed mainly, but not necessarily exclusively, of students, and controlled and directed by students. 4 No. 03-2314 administered through another committee of the ASM, the Finance Committee. Finally, an RSO could seek funding 4 through a student referendum. At the time this litigation was initiated, the SSFC had ten guidelines for making GSSF funding decisions:
important, ongoing service to significant numbers of [University] students. These services should contribute significantly to student health, safety, well-being, participation, opportunity or education.
3. When serving both students and non-students, the SSFC will generally only consider funding portions of programs serving students. 4. The SSFC will generally consider funding only those portions of programs directed by students. 5. Services receiving fees are expected to abide by all SSFC, campus, state and federal wage policies. 6. GSSF funding is not intended to replace any reductions in funding previously exclusively funded through tuition or “GPR” moneys. 4 For ease of reference, the following is a recap of the abbreviations utilized in discussing the funding system: ASM—Associated Students of Madison RSO—Registered Student Organization SGAF—Student Government Activity Fund GSSF—General Student Service Fund SSFC—Student Services Finance Committee No. 03-2314 5 7. Capital expenditures are provided for equipment that will substantially enhance the service offered to students only when other funding avenues have been exhausted. 8. All expenditures and revenues by student groups must be documented and made available. 9. Where possible, there must be a record system for measuring the number of students served. 10. Services that receive more than 30% of their budget from student fees and have an advisory board shall have a SSFC-appointed liaison. Fry v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Wisconsin System, 132 F. Supp. 2d. 744, 746-47 (W.D. Wis. 2000). An RSO that sought to appeal the funding decision of the SSFC could appeal to the ASM Council and subsequently to the Chancellor of the University. The guidelines for SGAF grants depended on the type of grant. For grants to cover operations and events, the guidelines stated that the awards could not be used for “(1) fundraisers, (2) food and beverages, (3) gifts, donations or contributions, (4) financial aid, (5) legal services, (6) expenses incurred prior to ASM approval, (7) wages, (8) non-university printing services, (9) event funding, (10) telephone charges, and (11) conference/travel costs.” Fry, 132 F. Supp. 2d at 747. The guidelines for travel grants appear to have been limited to a requirement that the travel would be central to the purpose of the RSO. Like SSFC decisions, SGAF decisions could be appealed from the ASM finance committee to the full ASM Council. Under Wisconsin law, the decisions of the ASM Finance Committee, the SSFC, and the ASM Council were sent to the Chancellor and the Board of Regents for their approval. The 6 No. 03-2314 Board did not approve or disapprove individual funding decisions but, instead, voted on the budget of the ASM, “which contained a line item or line items representing an aggregate amount of [student] fee expenditures.” Id.