Hello all! Hope you are doing well. I'm going to comment on the increasing stipends, the bylaw committee, the Auxiliary Raid (see other posts for background), and some of the general sentiments on ASM.
Increasing Stipends
There are some very strong words I could use to describe the way that current members of council and SSFC are attempting to raise stipends for positions of power.
I shouldn't do this but I'm going to give my opinion first:
Student Council is doing the students a major disservice if this passes. There should be no stipend increases this year (unfortunately they're already in the budget, but with the requirement that if a member voted for them this session they can't get more than 15% of the raise/possibly can't take the position at all because there are some conflicting bylaws) and if for some reason this does have to pass because Student Council feels it's so imperative to make more money this is how it should be done:
- Specific language that would prohibit any member of ASM currently from taking more than a 15% pay raise (I think it should personally be more like 5%) so that we alleviate concerns of authorizing our own raises.
- If not that language, than the proposal that this wouldn't take effect until 18th session, or not next year but the year after, so the 15% rule would stay in place (or the other rule which I'm not sure about).
- Knock 5% of the tuition % off every chair position but leave the secretaries the way they are.
Editor's note: one thing I may have over-looked is how this might open up the position to someone who might not have the ability to complete the job, and may love it, because they have to work two jobs to stay in school. Although I still feel the stipends are too high; there is definitely some validity to the fact that working students may not be able to find the time between jobs and school to be on ASM.
Here is the language for the proposal:
Here is the language for the proposal:
Title: SSFC Stipend Recommendation (Manes)
Historically, stipends in the ASM have been decided on a year by year basis for the following term; this has lead to a lot of unpredictable variability over the years, with some sessions slashing stipends by thousands and other sessions adding them right back in (Editor's note: true). Additionally, ASM student leaders have been chronically underpaid relative to the amount of work they put in (Editor's note: not sure, there is really no break down of the work members have put in and this is one of the issues with accountability). In order to remedy this, the SSFC this year made the attempt to create a self adjusting metric that would be solidified in our own bylaws, thereby alleviating concerns that students would simply vote themselves more money in a given year and ensuring that the stipend amounts would not be arbitrary (Editor's note: the percentages seem awfully arbitrary to me; what says that the Vice-Chair deserves 20% less than the Chair?) and instead more reflective of the work involved.
The reason that the student leadership within the ASM is paid via stipends and not by an hourly wage is twofold: first, students tend to put in many more hours than would be feasible to pay hourly, and second the stipends are seen as mitigations of opportunity cost, not payment for services rendered. The opportunity cost to the student in filling many of these positions is significant, and in some cases it is completely unrealistic to expect an individual to be able to fill that role, attend classes, and have a job (or several) on top of that and not have all of them suffer unduly. Because it is an opportunity cost, it was decided that the amounts the metric would be based on would be that of tuition (Editor's note: in state, out of state, graduate... what tuition and where does it solidify that? I missed it; 1.01(4)(a)?), and that each position would be set at a percentage of tuition for that following year. Thus, as the cost of attending here rises and the opportunity cost of not working rises as well, the stipends themselves would automatically adjust proportional to those increases (Editor's note: meaning it would be harder to stop an increase in the future, possibly).
The actual amounts the positions were set at took into account the amount of work that is ascribed (administrative duties) vs. potential (campaigning and personal initiative), the nature of that work, the potential for disruption of the organization if that position sees high turnover or remains unfilled, the reasonability of working a job in addition to the position, and the total cost of attending UW-Madison, as well as expectations of $5,500 in Federal Stafford Loans and $4,000 expected family contribution. The final hope is the stipends are set at a level such that the students in these positions are compensated enough for their time that the position itself becomes available to the majority of students on this campus should they want to pursue it. With that, the SSFC arrived at totals as follows:
Historically, stipends in the ASM have been decided on a year by year basis for the following term; this has lead to a lot of unpredictable variability over the years, with some sessions slashing stipends by thousands and other sessions adding them right back in (Editor's note: true). Additionally, ASM student leaders have been chronically underpaid relative to the amount of work they put in (Editor's note: not sure, there is really no break down of the work members have put in and this is one of the issues with accountability). In order to remedy this, the SSFC this year made the attempt to create a self adjusting metric that would be solidified in our own bylaws, thereby alleviating concerns that students would simply vote themselves more money in a given year and ensuring that the stipend amounts would not be arbitrary (Editor's note: the percentages seem awfully arbitrary to me; what says that the Vice-Chair deserves 20% less than the Chair?) and instead more reflective of the work involved.
The reason that the student leadership within the ASM is paid via stipends and not by an hourly wage is twofold: first, students tend to put in many more hours than would be feasible to pay hourly, and second the stipends are seen as mitigations of opportunity cost, not payment for services rendered. The opportunity cost to the student in filling many of these positions is significant, and in some cases it is completely unrealistic to expect an individual to be able to fill that role, attend classes, and have a job (or several) on top of that and not have all of them suffer unduly. Because it is an opportunity cost, it was decided that the amounts the metric would be based on would be that of tuition (Editor's note: in state, out of state, graduate... what tuition and where does it solidify that? I missed it; 1.01(4)(a)?), and that each position would be set at a percentage of tuition for that following year. Thus, as the cost of attending here rises and the opportunity cost of not working rises as well, the stipends themselves would automatically adjust proportional to those increases (Editor's note: meaning it would be harder to stop an increase in the future, possibly).
The actual amounts the positions were set at took into account the amount of work that is ascribed (administrative duties) vs. potential (campaigning and personal initiative), the nature of that work, the potential for disruption of the organization if that position sees high turnover or remains unfilled, the reasonability of working a job in addition to the position, and the total cost of attending UW-Madison, as well as expectations of $5,500 in Federal Stafford Loans and $4,000 expected family contribution. The final hope is the stipends are set at a level such that the students in these positions are compensated enough for their time that the position itself becomes available to the majority of students on this campus should they want to pursue it. With that, the SSFC arrived at totals as follows:
Approved FY09
|
Approved FY10
|
Proposed FY11
|
% of tuition
| |
ASM Chair
|
$4,800.00
|
$8,000.00
|
$9,330.00
|
100%
|
ASM Vice Chair
|
$4,100.00
|
$6,500.00
|
$7,470.00
|
80%
|
ASM Secretary
|
$1,100.00
|
$2,000.00
|
$2,000.00
|
25%
|
FC Chair
|
$3,600.00
|
$6,000.00
|
$7,000.00
|
75%
|
SACGB Chair
|
$5,300.00
|
$5,300.00
|
$6,530.00
|
70%
|
Shared Governance Chair
|
$3,100.00
|
$5,300.00
|
$6,530.00
|
70%
|
Diversity Chair
|
$3,100.00
|
$5,300.00
|
$5,130.00
|
55%
|
Nominations Chair
|
$3,100.00
|
$5,300.00
|
$5,130.00
|
55%
|
Leg. Affairs Chair
|
$3,100.00
|
$5,300.00
|
$5,130.00
|
55%
|
Academic Affairs Chair
|
$3,100.00
|
$5,300.00
|
$5,130.00
|
55%
|
SSFC Chair
|
$5,330.77
|
$6,800.00
|
$8,400.00
|
90%
|
SSFC Vice Chair
|
$1,591.70
|
$4,000.00
|
$7,000.00
|
75%
|
SSFC Secretary
|
$876.89
|
$2,000.00
|
$2,800.00
|
30%
|
SJ Chief Justice
|
$3,500.00
|
$5,300.00
|
$6,070.00
|
65%
|
SJ Vice Chief Justice
|
$2,200.00
|
$3,000.00
|
$2,800.00
|
30%
|
Finally, in implementing this system 3 considerations needed to be made. 1.01(4)(g) and the amended 2.02(1) are exemptions that will allow this system to be implemented for 17th session. The compensation bylaws currently in place do not take into account the possibility of switching to a permanent system, and these exemptions will only have a meaningful effect during the transition period. Additionally, the language also takes into account the new Shared Governance Directors and Chief of Staff positions, allowing them to be filled by qualified people for next year. The 3rd consideration is in 1.01(4)(f) and adds a stipulation ensuring, in the case that tuition rises by more than 15% (Editor's note: should be nothing over 2% increases, but council will probably settle with 5% if this passes) that if the administration doesn’t manage to keep their costs down we are still being responsible with our budgets. This is a percentage that was generated from the bylaws currently in place; a stronger safeguard is definitely a viable option and one worth discussing.
Be it resolved:
The ASM Student Council does hereby:
Rename Section 1.01 to read:
1.01 – Compensation within the ASM
Create the new bylaws:
1.01(4) Chair Stipends
1.01(4)(a) The stipend amounts to be awarded and placed into the internal and administrative budgets for the following fiscal year shall be calculated as a percentage of the summation of both fall and spring tuition for the current school year, with any additional known increases for the following school year. The tuition amounts consulted will be that of an in-state undergraduate, not including any additional fees or charges that may result from attendance in a particular college or program.
1.01(4)(b) - Internal Budget Stipends
For the Internal Budget, the stipend amounts shall be calculated and awarded as follows:
-The Chair of the ASM shall receive a stipend valued at 100% of tuition
-The Vice Chair of the ASM shall receive a stipend valued at 80% of tuition
-The Secretary of the ASM shall receive a stipend valued at 25% of tuition
-The Finance Chair shall receive a stipend valued at 75% of tuition
-The Shared Governance Chair shall receive a stipend valued at 70% of tuition
-The Diversity Chair shall receive a stipend valued at 55% of tuition
-The Nominations Board Chair shall receive a stipend valued at 55% of tuition
-The Legislative Affairs Chair shall receive a stipend valued at 55% of tuition
-The Academic Affairs Chair shall receive a stipend valued at 55% of tuition
1.01(4)(c) – SSFC Stipends
For the SSFC Budget, the stipend amounts shall be calculated and awarded as follows:
-The Chair of the SSFC shall receive a stipend valued at 90% of tuition
-The Vice Chair of the SSFC shall receive a stipend valued at 75% of tuition
-The Secretary of the SSFC shall receive a stipend valued at 30% of tuition
1.01(4)(d) – SACGB Stipends
For the SACGB Budget, the stipend amount shall be calculated and awarded as follows:
-The SACGB Chair shall receive a stipend valued at 70% of tuition
1.01(4)(e) – Student Judiciary Stipends
For the Student Judiciary Budget, the stipend amounts shall be calculated and awarded as follows:
-The Chief Justice shall receive a stipend valued at 65% of tuition
-The Vice Chief Justice shall receive a stipend valued at 30% of tuition
1.01(4)(f)
Beginning for Fiscal Year 12, none of the stipends mentioned in this subsection may exceed an increase of more than 15%.
This is messed up:
1.01(4)(g)
An exemption will be made to subsections 1.01(1) and 1.01(2) to all members holding positions within the ASM in the 16th session
Amend Bylaw 2.02(1) to read:
2.02(1)-
Any member that votes in favor of a salary increase may not receive the increased salary amount if elected or appointed into the position in following years. This bylaw shall not apply to subsection 1.01(4).
Questions:
- How does this incentivize trying to lower tuition?
- Isn't this biased against out of state students if we're talking opportunity cost?
- The way the bylaws read it just says tuition, not undergrad in-state, out-of-state, or graduate; could this be interrupted wrong?
- I missed it. It's in 1.01(4)(a).
Bylaw Committee
I brought this up at council: should include different student populations such as equal numbers of; current ASM representatives, student organization representatives, women, people of color, etc. this is a good chance for people outside of ASM to learn about bylaws and be involved with the process. It also is a defense so that students can't say that these committees are made up of the same people over and over again.
Auxiliary Raid
There is no reason the administration is taking $180,000 of student allocable segregated fees. They should redistribute this to Housing or FP&M (Transportation) because at the time when the bill was sent out to the different auxiliaries (unfortunately ASM among them even though it isn't an auxiliary) there was approximately $7,000,000 in the housing account and approximately $3,500,000 in FP&M. Perhaps I'll upload the documents later to prove this. I can't believe people have said that redistributing the bill that will be paid by allocable segregated fees would create
General Comments
What is this feud that is going on between Student Judiciary and Student Council leaders. No where in the bylaws does it say who is supposed to redistribute seats. SJ did it by population of the schools and even if we can't get graduate students to run for council doesn't mean we should reapportion the seats; it's based on a formula. For people that are so concerned with having a formula for stipends; I can't believe that they would want to just say
It just doesn't make sense. On top of this, Theo Sharpe, chair of Nominations Board was grilled quite publicly about his committee last night. It my opinion, whether or not he has been completing his job duties should not be brought up in the council meeting until people have spoken with him privately. It's just rude. And on top of this; it's not just his responsibility alone to see things get done, it's the collective responsibility of his committee and Student Council as a whole.I brought this up at council: should include different student populations such as equal numbers of; current ASM representatives, student organization representatives, women, people of color, etc. this is a good chance for people outside of ASM to learn about bylaws and be involved with the process. It also is a defense so that students can't say that these committees are made up of the same people over and over again.
Auxiliary Raid
There is no reason the administration is taking $180,000 of student allocable segregated fees. They should redistribute this to Housing or FP&M (Transportation) because at the time when the bill was sent out to the different auxiliaries (unfortunately ASM among them even though it isn't an auxiliary) there was approximately $7,000,000 in the housing account and approximately $3,500,000 in FP&M. Perhaps I'll upload the documents later to prove this. I can't believe people have said that redistributing the bill that will be paid by allocable segregated fees would create
"unnecessary burdens on other accounts".Anyways, plain and simple; ASM leadership needs to put pressure on the administration because they messed up. Let's hope a lawyer comes through quickly.
General Comments
What is this feud that is going on between Student Judiciary and Student Council leaders. No where in the bylaws does it say who is supposed to redistribute seats. SJ did it by population of the schools and even if we can't get graduate students to run for council doesn't mean we should reapportion the seats; it's based on a formula. For people that are so concerned with having a formula for stipends; I can't believe that they would want to just say
"well looks like we're not gonna get a graduate student so lets reapportion the seats to somewhere where more people are willing to serve".
Feel free to disagree with me,
Maxwell Love
1. How does this incentivize trying to lower tuition?
ReplyDeleteSince any student receiving these stipends would also have to pay tuition, and since the stipend is based on tuition and would change reflective on any changes in it, this shouldn't affect one's desire to increase or decrease tuition in any way. If tuition increases, then the stipend increases, and that increase is then used to pay tuition; similarly, if tuition decreases, then the stipend decreases as they all of a sudden have to pay less. Basically, the value of the stipend remains constant regardless of what tuition is.
2. Isn't this biased against out of state students if we're talking opportunity cost?
Are you simultaneously arguing that these stipends are too high but that the amount used to pay them is too low?
3. The way the bylaws read it just says tuition, not undergrad in-state, out-of-state, or graduate; could this be interrupted wrong?
It can only be interpreted wrong if you don't read the bylaws. It specifically says in 1.01(4)(a) (which you posted):
The tuition amounts consulted will be that of an in-state undergraduate, not including any additional fees or charges that may result from attendance in a particular college or program.
~Matt Manes
Alright so I missed the under-graduate part.
ReplyDeleteBut in response to #1. what if we're talking about a student who already gets their tuition payed for by parents/scholarship/or other means? Then they would not have any incentive because they'd be making more on the top.
#2. No I'm using your argument, of creating an opportunity pay-out, because if I come here from out of state and see that I would proportionally be making less than an in-stater I have no reason to say, yes I'll do that.
By the way, I'm not opposed to making these bylaw changes. I am opposed to current council members getting the positions next year. I would love to see this pass with a little more discussion and accountability included in the bylaws that establishes a way to make it transparent so that students know what the leaders are doing.
I've also updated this after talking to TJ, he's concerned that if this doesn't pass it would limit the ability for working class students, and this was something I didn't really take into full consideration. There just need to be some changes!
"Editor's note: one thing I may have over-looked is how this might open up the position to someone who might not have the ability to complete the job, and may love it, because they have to work two jobs to stay in school. Although I still feel the stipends are too high; there is definitely some validity to the fact that working students may not be able to find the time between jobs and school to be on ASM. "
ReplyDeleteThis. I know I couldn't put in 30-35 hours into ASM if I wasn't at least modestly compensated. I could make more money with only 20 hours per week as a bartender but the money isn't the important part because I like my work. The money simply makes it possible for me to do it.
Also, I'm not crazy about allowing ourselves to take the raises next year either. I'm ok with amending that (Colin's proposals seemed reasonable as a starting point) but I do think its important to get an exemption for the new positions. I can explain why during lunch tomorrow but I do want to let you know that I'm confident we can reach compromise on this legislation because the overall premise is to increase the effectiveness of ASM, which is everyone's goal right?
Okay, so the Editor's note that Adam sites is pretty much the entire rationale for proposing these changes. Ideally, students in these positions who could afford NOT to take the stipends would do so (for example I refuse to take the 20 dollar/ meeting SSFC stipend because it's actually ridiculously high for some of the meetings post-GSSF season and more importantly because I'm a lucky SOB whose parents are paying for his college, room, board, etc. (I know, I suck). That said, I think that I am much more of an exception than I am the rule and for that very reason the argument presented in the Editor's note outweighs, essentially, your counter argument as presented in "But in response to #1."
ReplyDelete