Opinion ID: 779470
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: University standards limiting discretion.

Text: 57 The University's Financial and Administrative Policies provide that [e]xpenditures of [student activity fees] must conform with constitutional requirements, including the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Board of Regents v. Southworth .... The University also amended the Financial and Administrative Polices, adding the following provision: 58 [E]ach student government in consultation with the chancellor, must develop policies and procedures that, at a minimum: 59 (1) Describe any written criteria, in addition to those elsewhere established by law, for the allocation of [student activity fees]; 60 (2) Require the creation of a detailed record, which may be a tape recording of all student fee funding allocation deliberations; 61 (3) Require that student organizations denied funding be provided, upon request, with a written statement of reasons for the denial; 62 (4) Provide a mechanism for avoiding conflicts of interest by students participating in the process for allocation of student fee funding, which mechanism may include requiring that participants disclose lobbying contacts; and 63 (5) Establish an appeal process within student government for the review of student fee funding decisions, where it is alleged that the decision was based on a student organization's extracurricular speech or expressive activities, resulting in a violation of the requirement that allocable student fees be distributed in a viewpoint-neutral manner. 64 The University also added a new provision to the Financial and Administrative Policies allowing for appeals of funding decisions to the Chancellor: 65 Institutions must provide for an appeal to the Chancellor of a student fee funding decision where it is alleged that the decision was based on a student organization's extracurricular speech or expressive activities, resulting in a violation of the requirement that allocable student fees be allocated in a viewpoint-neutral manner, and where the appealing party has exhausted the process for review of student fee funding decisions established by the student government for such cases. The Chancellor's decision shall be final, unless the matter is brought to the Board of Regents in accordance with Regent Policy Documents 86-4 and 88-6. 66 Additionally, the University adopted a formal policy detailing the procedures for appealing a funding decision to the Chancellor: 67 (1) A registered student organization (RSO) or person aggrieved 6 by a student fee funding decision made by the student government acting pursuant to s. 36.09(5), Wis. Stats., may appeal the decision to the chancellor or his or her designee where: 68 (a) The appeal alleges that the decision was based on an RSO's extracurricular speech or expressive activities, resulting in a violation of the requirement that student fee funding be allocated in a viewpoint-neutral manner; and 69 (b) The appealing party has exhausted the process for review of student fee funding decisions established by student government for such cases. 70 (2) Appeals under this policy must be in writing, and state with specificity the basis for the claim that the funding decision was based upon the RSO's speech or expressive activities and resulted in violation of the requirement that student fees be allocated in a viewpoint-neutral manner. 71 (3) The chancellor shall review the matter, on the record created in accordance with the student governance review process, and shall issue a written decision within 20 days of receipt of the appeal. 72 (4) The chancellor's decision shall be final, except that, in the event that an irreconcilable difference of judgment develops concerning the allocation of the segregated fee funds, the matter may be brought to the Board of Regents in accordance with Regent Policy Documents 86-4 and 88-6. 73 In addition to these University policies, the ASM has in place Bylaws governing the process of allocating student activity fees. 7 Some of the procedures and policies differ depending on whether the RSO's funding is from the GSSF or from the SGAF. 8 We begin by discussing the Bylaw provisions applicable to both funding methods, and then summarize the Bylaw provisions governing an RSO's application to the SSFC for funding from the GSSF, followed by a synopsis of the provisions applicable to SGAF grants. 74 We begin then with Article Ten of the ASM Bylaws, entitled Viewpoint Neutrality Compliance. This provision states that the ASM must make all financial decisions in a viewpoint-neutral fashion. The Bylaws also require that all ASM Officers, before entering upon their respective duties, take an oath to support and uphold the Bylaws, which would obviously include the requirement of viewpoint neutrality. But the ASM has gone even farther, requiring every appointee to the ASM Finance Committee and SSFC to take the following oath: 75 I solemnly swear or affirm to support the Constitution and Bylaws of the ASM, to make decisions concerning the funding of Student Organizations in a viewpoint-neutral fashion as required by law, and the ASM Constitution and Bylaws and to faithfully discharge the duties as a member of the SSFC to the best of my ability. 76 The Bylaws further provide that they shall be interpreted to ensure all Viewpoint Neutral Financial decisions are made in a viewpoint-neutral fashion. The Bylaws then state that any action in violation of viewpoint neutrality is null and void and that any ASM officer that violates the principle of viewpoint neutrality is subject to firing, impeachment or removal from all offices and positions held in the ASM. 77 The Bylaws also adopt some general procedural requirements applicable to both GSSF grants and SGAF grants. Specifically, the Bylaws require that [a]ny meeting where a Financial decision occurred must be audio taped. No official financial business may occur at any meeting that was not taped. Additionally, [a]ll members of an ASM body making a Viewpoint Neutral Financial Decision must use a standardized evaluation form. The ASM must also make available on its website all funding applications and committee decisions, and the ASM must make all other records available within five school days of a written request for such material. This gives students access to 78 all documents given to or created by an ASM body making a financial decision [i]ncluding, but not limited to (1) any audio recordings of hearings or meetings required to be made, (2) any applications and attachments to the applications, (3) all evaluation forms used by the ASM body, and (4) any final written decision of the ASM body. 79 In addition to these procedural requirements, Article Six of the Bylaws establishes an appeals process applicable to both SSFC and ASM Finance Committee decisions. These Bylaw provisions authorize the Student Judiciary to ensure that all financial decisions are made in a viewpoint-neutral manner by providing that [a]ny decision of a committee may be appealed, as of right to the Student Judiciary by filing a complaint subject to the provisions of this Article. The Bylaws further state that [t]he affected RSO must file an appeal to a Committee decision within five (5) school days of the notice of the adverse decision. Any other ASM member must file an appeal to a Committee decision within 5 school days of the publication of the decision. 80 The Bylaws further provide for a Standard of Review for the Student Judiciary, stating that the Student Judiciary shall determine de novo (i.e., without any deference to the Committee's decision) all Committee decisions.... However, under the Bylaws, the Student Judiciary will defer to the Committee's funding decision if in awarding a grant, the SSFC or ASM Finance Committee compared the applying RSO to other similar RSOs. 81 The Bylaws also include several procedural safeguards regulating the appeals process. For instance, the Bylaws provide that all proceedings where witnesses and evidence are presented shall be audio recorded in the same manner as the Committee's hearings were ... [and that] the Panel shall set a hearing within 5 schools days after the filing of the complaint. The Bylaws require that the Justices publish a written decision on the case within 5 school days of the complaint hearing. Following a decision by the Student Judiciary, [a]ny party adversely affected by the decision may file an appeal to the decision of the panel within 5 school days of the publishing of the panel's decision. 82 While the above provisions apply to grants allocated by both the SSFC and the ASM Finance Committee, other Bylaw provisions establish rules for the differing grants. For example, Part Three, Article Five of the Bylaws sets forth provisions governing GSSF grants issued by the SSFC. Under these guidelines, to obtain funding from the GSSF, an RSO must first apply for eligibility, and after being declared eligible the RSO must apply for funding. To be considered eligible, the student group must be an RSO 9 ; it must have been awarded two years of ASM operation grants; it must have written governing documents; it must completely and accurately fill out the eligibility application and adequately answer the questions of the Committee; it must provide a specific and identifiable educational benefit and service to the students of the University; it must have a clear purpose and mission statement; and it must have a clear plan and goals. The RSO must also state [t]he objectives the organization intends to achieve which must be evaluated affirmatively, negatively, or numerically. Additionally, the RSO must provide an estimate of the logistical support necessary to achieve its objectives, including an accurate estimate of the cost of such logistical support. Moreover, the RSO must demonstrate that a substantially equivalent service is not being provided elsewhere for the students at the University. Additionally, a representative of the RSO must attend the eligibility hearing. Finally, the RSO cannot violate its own governing documents, the ASM Bylaws and Constitution, UW System Policy, or State and Federal law, and it must not have knowingly, willfully, or intentionally violated the ASM Financial Policies within the last two years. 83 After an RSO applies for eligibility, the SSFC then holds a public hearing to determine whether the organization is eligible to receive funds from the allocable portion of the student activity fees. Notice of the hearing is posted outside the ASM office and in both student unions. All decisions by SSFC concerning an RSO's eligibility for funds must be in writing and published within 10 school days of the organization's hearing. Section 3 of the Bylaws also provides that [a]ny person or RSO may appeal an eligibility or monetary decision on the basis that the decision was not made [in a] viewpoint-neutral manner. An appeal from the eligibility decision is filed with the Student Judiciary, which delivers its decision to the Student Council. The Student Council will then make a final decision on the eligibility of the organization, and that determination may be appealed to the Chancellor of the University. 84 If an RSO is deemed eligible for funding by the SSFC, it must still actually apply for funding: Any eligible RSO applying for GSSF funding must submit the General Student Service Fund monetary application by September 30th of the fiscal year prior to the RSO's request for funding. The Bylaws provide that all RSOs deemed eligible receive a guaranteed minimum amount of funding, but they also authorize the GSSF to award an RSO additional funding if: 85 [a]n eligible RSO has demonstrated the ability to effectively expense the funds that the group was awarded in the manner proposed; [a]n eligible RSO has demonstrated that it has accomplished the objectives that it had set out to accomplish in the past; [a]n eligible RSO has demonstrated that the request for funds is reasonable within the objectives it has set; [a]n eligible RSO has demonstrated a need for the request for funding to achieve its objectives; [a]n eligible RSO has demonstrated that it has submitted accurate requests for funding in the past; and [a]n eligible RSO has established that its eligibility criteria have not substantially changed. 86 The SSFC then holds a public hearing to determine the additional amount, if any, to award the RSO. The Bylaws further require the SSFC to finish the GSSF Budget by October 31, and the appeals process... by November 15. 87 The ASM Bylaws also allow for appeals from the SSFC funding decision: Any person or RSO may appeal a ... monetary decision on the basis that the decision was not made [in a] viewpoint-neutral manner. The appeal is heard by the Student Judiciary pursuant to the procedures detailed above. 88 The above-described procedures apply to GSSF grants distributed by the SSFC. An RSO may instead seek funding from the ASM Finance Committee. The ASM Finance Committee distributes three different types of grants: operations grants, event grants and travel grants. Part Two, Article Seven of the ASM Bylaws sets forth some very general guidelines for these grants. For example, the Bylaws outline the general application process, and require that the ASM Finance Committee assure that any group receiving a grant is an RSO, that the ASM name, logo and disclaimer is included on all printed materials paid for by the grant, and that the ASM Finance Committee prepare and maintain the grant applications. The Bylaws also set forth certain types of expenses which cannot be paid for with certain types of grants. For instance, operations grants cannot be used for events, salaries, stipends or wages, and event grants cannot be used to fund travel to conferences or periodic publications. Additionally, the Bylaws require the ASM Finance Committee to withhold a certain percentage—which varies by the type of grant at issue—of funds for the spring semester. 89 Other than these very general provisions, however, the Bylaws do not provide any specific funding criteria for operations, event or travel grants. Rather, the Bylaws delegate this responsibility to the Finance Committee: [The] Finance Committee must develop [a] set [of] criteria for making event, operations, and travel grants.... The Finance Committee will outline the criteria in financial rules of procedure. However, in delegating this responsibility to the Finance Committee, the Bylaws do provide that [t]he criteria that the Finance [C]ommittee adopts must be viewpoint-neutral. 90 Pursuant to this delegation of authority, the ASM Finance Committee adopted Rules of Procedure governing the distribution of event and operations grants. 10 Specifically, the Finance Committee Rules of Procedure set forth the following criteria for the allocation of event grants: Section One: Criteria Event Grants 91
92
93 1. The student group must be a Registered Student Organization 94