I am taking a bit of a leave from my standard fare to explore part of the philosophy of Well Armed Sheep and my take on it. It deals with what I consider the role of this weblog to be. I will begin, though, with a few hypothetical situations.
Suppose you are trying desperately to get one of the new video game systems out there (you know, whatever the hot new thing is out there that they only make about 100,000 of even though about 100 times as many people will want it as soon as it comes out and you get people willing to pay 5-10 times retail for it on Ebay). You have a friend who works in a store that's selling them. Do you ask your friend to hold one for you? If the friend offers to hold one for you, do you accept? What if the friend asks for money to hold it for you?
You are trying to get a law passed. Everything is written, passed, goes through the proper channels and spurs a lively debate on the floor, but it is destined to fail for lack of support. Does this bolster your confidence in the government or undermine it? What if a key opponent offers to let it through in exchange for something else?
I could bring up more of these, but the point I am trying to make here is one of choices that we all must make from time to time. I see many decisions as being made based on one is a guardian of results or of process. I believe that there are times when being a guardian of results is the best course of action, whereas other times being a guardian of process is correct, but the overall balance for me weighs in favor of process. And that is what this weblog is geared toward: guarding the process of student government from abuse by those who are too focused on results.
A person who acts as mostly a guardian of results often appears to me to be one who lacks conviction and principles. I see it as a willingness to change the rules to suit one's own desires at the time. When a group gains power by challenging the corruption of others but tolerates the same or worse among its own members, I see them as guarding results over process, and that frightens me.
This means that, in most cases, I believe a good process is better than a favorable result. If the process is upheld but the particular decision goes against me, so be it. Now there are times when the process itself is bad, and as such, bypassing it may be for the best for everyone. I don't have a problem with that, so long as this becomes a catalyst for fixing the process. Without that balance, the possibility of abuse and favoritism is too great, and everything falls apart.
With that in mind, let me make it clear that I don't believe that student government should be abolished. Rather, the processes that are being abused need to be fixed, and those who are abusing them need to be taken to task for them. I don't mind rules that create restrictions, as long as they apply to everyone; for if the rules prove too abusive, the fact that they are universally applied will cause them to become unpopular and thus worthy of change.
I am starting to hear more people who agree with this concept. Welcome aboard!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Mr. Rabbitball, the Howitzer,
I agree with the concept. I saw this online. Would this fall under guardian of process, or guardian of results?
University Student Court
University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
USC 06-002
July 27, 2006
In the matter of the actions of the Senate Appropriations Committee meeting held on July 25, 2006 and freezing of student organization funds
Discussion
In response to the actions of the Senate Appropriations Committee and a submitted request for relief from the University Student Court, the court has reviewed the actions taken and history surrounding the actions and is issuing the following injunction. There is a dispute between the various levels of government and the court exists to mitigate those disputes and provide a constitutional view of actions taken and what their potential legal ramifications are.
Two versions of the Agenda are in circulation. The version submitted for public review contains 27 allocations. The version submitted to the Senate shortly before the meeting, for approval, contains 58. The Speaker erred in this dissemination. A review of the actions taken by the SA senate on May 7, 2006 shows the following items were approved, although technically in violation of our standard of public notice:
A. Senate Appropriations Committee Grants over $700
1. AB05-378 African Student Association, Event $4023
2. AB05-379 Alliance for Animals, Event $2517.20
3. AB05-380 Alliance for Animals, $1050 Travel Blanket
4. AB05-381 Alpha Kappa Psi-Delta Phi Chapter, Operations $1439.48
5. AB05-382 American Medical Student Association, Operations $924.86
6. AB05-383 American Society of Civil Engineers, $956.17 Travel Blanket
7. AB05-384 American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Operations $2601
8. AB05-385 Anime Circle/Japanese Animation Association, Operations $815
9. AB05-386 Apologetics Association, Event $1139
10. AB05-387 BlackCat Ultimate, $7638.45 Travel Blanket
11. AB05-388 BlackCat Ultimate, Operations $5000
12. AB05-389 Chinese Christians on Campus, Event $1100
13. AB05-390 Circle K, $1400 Travel Blanket
14. AB05-391 Club Baseball, Operations $4448.58
15. AB05-392 College Republicans, Operations $916
16. AB05-393 The Conservative Union, Operations $916
17. AB05-394 Cycling Club, $2678.46 Travel Blanket
18. AB05-395 Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc., Event $3225
19. AB05-396 Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc., Event $1894
20. AB05-397 Gamma Phi Beta, Operations, $1313
21. AB05-398 Gamma Phi Beta, Event $1535
22. AB05-399 Golden Key International Honor Society, $1400 Travel Blanket
23. AB05-400 Hmong Student Association, Operations $1024.50
24. AB05-401 Hmong Student Association, Event $910
25. AB05-402 Human Movement Sciences Graduate Student Association, Travel $1400
26. AB05-403 Lady Panther Soccer Club, Operations $5000
27. AB05-404 Lady Panther Soccer Club, Travel Blanket $13500
28. AB05-405 Latino Student Union, Event $2110
29. AB05-406 Latino Student Union, Operations $801
30. AB05-407 Latino Student Union, Travel Blanket $1400
31. AB05-408 The Leader, Travel Blanket $1400
32. AB05-409 The Leader, Operations $12093
33. AB05-410 Lutheran Student Movement, Travel Blanket $1400
34. AB05-411 Men’s Club Volleyball, Travel Blanket $5879.59
35. AB05-412 Milwaukee Panther Football, Event $4287
36. AB05-413 Milwaukee Panther Football, Operations $908
37. AB05-414 Milwaukee Panther Football, Travel Blanket $1790
38. AB05-415 Milwaukee Panther Soccer, Travel Blanket $6456.80
39. AB05-416 Milwaukee Panther Soccer, operations $5000
40. AB05-417 Music & Entertainment Industry Student Association, Event $13082
41. AB05-418 Music from Almost Yesterday, Event $2600
42. AB05-419 The Mystery Science Theater 3000 Club, Event $3012
43. AB05-420 Object, Jewelry, and Metalsmithing Student Club, Operations $1766
44. AB05-421 Organizations and Strategic Management Area Research Club, Travel Blanket $1050
45. AB05-422 Panther Gymnastics, Operations $5000
46. AB05-423 Panther Rugby Football, Travel Blanket $7135.25
47. AB05-424 Sailing Club, Operations $6920
48. AB05-425 Strategic Game Club, Operations $3766
49. AB05-426 Tau Kappa Epsilon, Operations $932
50. AB05-427 University Christian Ministry, Operations $800
51. AB05-428 UWM Feminists, Event $2616.20
52. AB05-429 Wisconsin Chapter of Triangle at Milwaukee, Operations $855
53. AB05-430 Wrestling Club, Travel Blanket $7045.02
54. AB05-431 Women’s Wrestling Club, Operations $2425.68
55. AB05-432 Women’s Wrestling Club, Technology $849
56. AB05-432 Women’s Wrestling Club, Travel Blanket $6083.31
57. AB05-433 Senate Appropriations Committee, Operations $2000
58. AB05-434 Senate Appropriations Committee, Technology $5000
Furthermore, all SAC allocations are considered as automatic consent items and are approved when the agenda is approved, unless a senator objects. No objections were raised at the meeting and were subsequently approved.
These agenda items were what were presented to the body at the meeting and in electronic form prior to the meeting, 1 hour and 14 minutes prior to the start of the meeting to be exact. SA Governing documents require that all agenda items be submitted to the Speaker of the Senate 4 days prior to the meeting in which they are to be considered. All evidence points to the fact that these items were submitted to the Speaker within that time frame.
It has been past precedent of the Student Association that agenda items have been released prior to the meetings, a time frame varying from the four days to 48 hours prior to. The Speaker has in the past complied with that precedent, however did not in this incidence.
The Senate Appropriations Committee, in its meeting on July 25, 2006 decided to revisit these allocations. While SAC may have grounds for justifying this action as Speaker Duncan did err in his notice and publication of agenda items, based on precedent, however the potential harm to organizations is astronomical. One committee cannot reverse the decisions of the entire body or association; it is counter to the system of checks and balances that exist within our governmental structure. The court is not about to allow an action to move forward that will cause harm to student organizations and absent of sound legal justification.
Orders
The University Student Court hereby orders that the actions by the SAC on July 25, 2006 are not with sufficient justification and that the grants approved by the Senate on May 7, 2006 listed above be allowed to be expended as approved.
The University Student Court is appalled by Speaker Duncan’s flagrant disregard for precedent and intent of the law, both SA and state. The University Student Court calls upon Speaker Rueden to adhere to the spirit of the law and praises him for the vast amount of notice that has been given in regards to the Senate meeting scheduled for July 30, 2006.
This ruling shall be final until such time as legislative action is taken by the Senate as a whole or the court issues countermanding orders.
It is so ordered
Neal A. Michals
Associate Justice
University Student Court
P.O. Box 413, Union Box 107, Milwaukee, WI 53201
Phone: 414.229.5295 Email: court@uwm.edu Website: http://studentcourt.uwm.edu
It is entirely possible that results and process yield the same answer. Here, while the technical minutiae of the process may have been violated, the intent was clear, as the Court indicated.
Too much of a reliance on process results in the mentality of "rules are rules" and "zero tolerance" policies, neither of which allow for common sense and judgment to enter the picture. But too much of a reliance on getting the results you want results in an "end justifies the means" mentality, which I find to be a greater danger. Ultimately, as I stated before, there is a time for both, so as to avoid both extremes, but if I must accept one extreme or the other, I will take process over results.
Post a Comment