Students question fee legality

Half a dozen University students, including several Law students, are preparing a document to present to the Michigan Student Assembly and the University Board of Regents that questions the legality of the Yes! Yes! Yes! ballot question that was in part passed by the student body in last week's MSA elections.

Based on the Michigan Campaign Finance Act, passed in 1976, the students said they believe the $4 MSA student fee increase will be an illegal use of public funds to qualify a state ballot question.

If approved by the regents, the money raised by the fee increase will be used to hire a private firm that would collect the necessary signatures to place a question on the ballot next November. The vote would give Michigan voters a chance to change the state constitution to add a student regent to the University Board of Regents.

Mark Hanna, a Law first-year student who is behind the effort, offered this analogy: "It's as if the MSA were to raise $400,000 to give to Clinton's re-election campaign. It's just as wrong."

The students said their concern does not lie with MSA's attempt to attain a student regent. Instead, they disagree with its use of what they consider public funds for a political campaign.

The students said they are not yet prepared to offer their specific arguments, but gave the following statement: "We believe ethically and legally that public funds should not be used for political campaigns. We also believe that this use of funds would constitute a violation of the Michigan Campaign Finance Act, and we are pursuing statutory remedies."

Bram Elias, an LSA sophomore and co-chair of MSA's Student Regent's Task Force, said he has not spoken with any of the "concerned" students. MSA representatives were aware of the legal issues surrounding the use of public funds for campaigning when they prepared the ballot question, Elias said.

"It's hard to comment without seeing the details," Elias said.

"But my hunch is that the Law students are misinformed. It's my understanding that since it's a voluntary fee increase and students can pick up a refund without hazard or impediments, it isn't really public funds - it's private," he said.

Elias said he regrets this "miscommunication," but that he looks forward to meeting with the students to discuss the issue.

LSA junior Andrew Wright, co-chair of the Student Regents Task Force, said MSA has managed to avoid the legal questions surrounding their political effort to get a student regent by making the fee refundable.

"Our position is that the only standing they have is if (students) are forced to pay the fee," Wright said. "We feel very confident that we are not usurping student power."

The students who are challenging the initiative said that whether or not the fee is optional is irrelevant.

"If one student gave their money (to MSA), it would still be illegal," Hanna said. "The issue is a public body is spending money for a political issue. Though the funding is coming from a specific source, it's still a public body."

Law first-year student Charles Keckler said that the students are putting together their arguments because they "noticed something odd."

"Our current reading of the law makes it look like something not appropriate is going on," Keckler said.

Several legal advisers who were contacted concerning the question of what constitutes public funds said they could not comment without knowing the specifics of the students' challenge.

03-25-98