The Daily of the University of Washington

New student regent selected


Last week, four UW student regent finalists finally got the news they’ve been waiting four months for, with Gov. Chris Gregoire’s office selecting second-year UW law student Ben Golden as the 2009-2010 student regent.


Photo by Thom Weinstein.

UW law student Ben Golden has been appointed to the position of 2009-2010 student regent by the Office of Gov. Chris Gregoire, replacing Jean-Paul Willynck.



Photo by Thom Weinstein.

Newly chosen student regent Ben Golden signs an oath, officially making him a member of the UW Board of Regents.


“Since I found out, I hit the ground running,” Golden said. “It’s been exciting. I come from a student-government background, so I have a lot of advocacy ideas, but I want to be patient, listen to both sides of the administration, faculty and the student voice.”

A panel comprised mostly of students had selected four students from a pool of 15 applicants and forwarded their applications to the governor’s office back in late April. Since then, it’s been a waiting game for the finalists.

“[Our] applications were forwarded to the governor’s office,” Golden said. “Four months of nerve-wracking waiting, and on Aug. 3rd, I heard the good news.”

Each student regent position is supposed to last from July 1 until June 30, but the governor’s office had delayed the decision of selecting a student regent, allowing the former student regent, Jean-Paul Willynck, to serve an extra 34 days.

This year’s student regent will have a tough agenda ahead of him. While the former regent, Willynck, had taken a role in voting on 14-percent tuition hikes due to historical 26-percent budget cuts to the university, Golden will play a role in administering those cuts.

“It’s going to be a very difficult year,” said Jake Faleschini, the UW Graduate and Student Professional Senate (GPSS) president and member of the panel that selected Golden as a finalist. “There’s going to be a lot of communication that needs to take place between the three of us, and there’s going to be a lot of strategizing ... and learning how not to undermine one another.”

Faleschini added that not only will Golden need to be able and willing to listen to the student body as the university implements a lot of the budget cuts that took place last year and departments feel pressure to cut costs, but next year’s student regent will also have to make a case for the university and the importance of getting state funding during these economic times.

Willynck penned an op-ed in the Seattle P-I emphasizing the university’s need for state funding, and Golden will be expected to seek similar avenues of advocacy for the university.

Before handing off the torch, Willynck gave Golden some wisdom he has accumulated from his year in the position. He told Golden to listen to both sides of an argument — something Willynck did when student, faculty and staff groups and coalitions demonstrated in protests and rallies. Willynck would sometimes be there listening to what they had to say, speaking to student groups with a megaphone, and balancing the rationale of student groups with those of the regents.

“Listening is so critical because it’s not you leading an organization; it’s you helping to lead an organization,” Willynck said. “I’ve been talking with Ben to realize the responsibility that you hold as a member of the Board of Regents. You are one of 10 people who help to govern the university, and that’s a huge responsibility.”

Before his appointment, Golden has spent the past few months attending monthly Board of Regent’s meetings and gaining a sense of what to expect from the position and what will be expected of him.

“ASUW and GPSS presidents are ex-officio members of the board, and there’s one student regent member, but there’s more than three opinions and voices on the university campus, so I hope to be an intermediary for students who are pushing issues on campus to have direct access to the regents,” Golden said.

Golden isn’t new to administrative positions or student advocacy. In the past, he’s served as the ASUW’s director of government relations where he fought for lower tuition as well as managed a state legislative campaign. He’s also currently in a summer externship with the King County Prosecutor’s Office writing briefs in The Appellate Unit, which handles appeals in its criminal division.

“I have experience in Olympia talking about tuition issues,” Golden said. “I have the background of a student advocate, and now I have to look at what’s best for the university and what’s best for the state. So, I have a difficult task ahead of me.”

Golden has already met and established relationships with some of the student government leaders. He is now scheduled to meet one-on-one with the other regents.

“I’ve got a lot of meetings set up for the next month; I’ve got a lot of learning to do, a lot of reading to do, and we’ll go from there ... I’ll make this my primary commitment, and hope my friends and family understand if I’m MIA for the next year.”

Reach News Editor Eric Staples at

news@dailyuw.com.


7 Comments

#1 Ben
(Seattle, WA | UW Community)

on August 12, 2009 at 10:10 a.m.
Report this comment

Hello UW community! I would love to hear your ideas and vision for the University. And I look forward to working with you to make it happen!

#2 Christy G.
(Washington, DC | UW Community)

on August 13, 2009 at 1:44 p.m.
Report this comment

Congratulations Ben! The Office of Federal Relations in DC looks forward to working with you.

Christy Gullion
Director

#3 Sean K.
(Seattle, WA | UW Community)

on August 17, 2009 at 8:55 a.m.
Report this comment

Congratulations Ben.

Would it be possible for the Regents to spur the creation of a comprehensive explanation of the budget - beyond the broad generalizations that President Emmert included in his e-mails to student during the tuition-hike/budget cut deliberations? (in which he essentially said that it was budget was 'too complicated' to explain and that across-the-board reductions in salary - to maintain current personnel levels - was ‘not possible’)

There should be a one-stop location where one can find:

1) What are the different revenue sources and what are their limitations in scope? (what can they and can't they be spent on).

2) How is this revenue allocated (in detail)?

3) What are the salaries of the administration of the University of Washington and the various departments and programs? What are the faculty salaries? (direct compensation, grant money, etc.). What are the salaries of UW maintenance and service personnel?

It's hard not to believe that the latest financial crisis was not couched in the language administrative self-preservation that we have seen so often in the recent corporate “crisis”. It should be the burden of the UW to show, against this data, that recent choices were not simply a case of finding cuts among the most vulnerable/least represented.

#4 Omar H.
(Seattle, WA | UW Community)

on August 17, 2009 at 2:14 p.m.
Report this comment

Hi congratulations Ben. my name is omar i live in seattle, iam one of the unlucky heroes in the USA, arrived lately, so iam glad to see things happen for you and i hope i will see you at the campus though iam not sure if i can make it or not. all the best Ben.......

#5 Ben
(Seattle, WA | UW Community)

on August 17, 2009 at 9:41 p.m.
Report this comment

Thanks, Christy - I look forward to working with you!

I will bring up your concerns to Paul Jenny of Planning/Budget at a meeting in September. Keep holding us accountable!

And thanks for the kind words, Omar. I hope to see you around on campus!

#6 Rebecca_F
(Denver, CO | UW Community)

on August 28, 2009 at 10:35 a.m.
Report this comment

Since we are airing are concerns here, let me share my pet concern: ideological discrimination in student activities. But first, let me acknowledge that I've already explained this in a letter-to-the-editor, discussed it with both student governments, and even sent a letter to the regents. But in case you missed the excitement or didn't know what it was all about ...

I personally disagree with a lot of the prevailing opinions on campus. Of course, people are entitled to their honest opinions (or, I suppose, even dishonest opinions). But a lot of the activities are funded from the Services and Activities Fee, appropriated by the Regents upon recommendation from the SAF Committee. This wouldn't be such a problem either if non-prevailing viewpoints were offered equal funding (for equivalent initiatives).

The SAF Committee funds some sweet services including IMA (which I keep telling myself I should visit, but that's another story). They also fund things like ASUW, GPSS, and the Q-Center, which use the funding for pervasively ideological purposes.

Some of you may point to a service offered by ASUW (bike shop, perhaps?). Many would agree with the opinions (or most of them) promoted by ASUW, GPSS, and/or the Q-Center. But a distinction stands: they are promoting viewpoints which not all students agree with, but which all students are required to fund. And equivalent funding is not offered for alternative viewpoints (across the board).

[I will note that the Daily is funded from SAF and does publish a variety of viewpoints. But that still only amounts to a student newspaper, not funding equality for all.]

If the University wants to promote discussion of a wide range of ideas, to further the development and education of students, they should ensure that all groups - that is, all viewpoints - receive equal funding opportunities whether they are the opinions of the majority or of a minority.

Offering funding exclusively to the majority, does not promote dialogue, it promotes bias. You may call the bias good (if you agree with it), or bad (if you disagree); but bias it is.

Offering funding primarily to the majority or otherwise favored groups, with very circumscribed opportunities for others to receive funding, still promotes bias although it allows for a greater degree of dialogue than if there were no opportunities for alternative views to be funded. This is probably the closest description of what UW does.

It is unfair to require students to subsidize expression by other students which they disagree with, but not offer them an equal opportunity to receive funding for the causes they care about. It's also illegal.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the viewpoints of those in power shouldn't have the opportunity to be expressed: I am saying that they do not represent me personally, and that alternative views should have an equal opportunity to be expressed. Fair is fair.

- Rebecca Faust

#7 Ben
(Seattle, WA | UW Community)

on September 1, 2009 at 6:02 p.m.
Report this comment

Rebecca: Thanks for expressing your concerns. I think that ASUW - and student government in general - is a great medium to express your viewpoints. It is, however, a representative government and you are free to express that alternative view.

Sean: I recommend looking to the Office of Planning and Budget's website to address your questions about transparency at a macro-level. http://www.washington.edu/admin/pb/home/ I also communicated your concerns to Vice Provost Jenny about improved communication with students. Now that UW's operating budget receives a larger contribution from student's tuition than funds from Olympia, it is indeed important to let the students know what services they are receiving for their money.


Post a comment

Name:


(None, None | Unverified Name)
Login to verify your name

Email:


Required, but not shown.

Comment: