Well Armed Sheep

University (non-)Relations

2008-05-09T11:08:00.002-06:00

I would like to take this time to highlight the problems one student organization has been having with the Union Policy Board. This has extended into University Relations, as all of their records have apparently been transferred there.

Strategic Game Club has been denied an office in the latest office allocation, despite having filed all appropriate documents on time. In this, the latest round, the UPB held a meeting without notifying anyone who might be interested that it was taking place on May 7. The legality of such a move has yet to be determined, but the important part of that meeting, as far as this discussion is concerned, is that the club was removed from a previous allocation because of, among other things, "current and previous/continued lease-violations".

The idea of "current and previous/continued lease-violations" was news to the club, and London Burt, the Secretary, made a request for previous UPB meetings and any records of lease violations, so as to understand what things were being used against them. Here is the reply he received:

From: Amy R. Watson <awatson@uwm.edu>
Date: Thu, May 8, 2008 at 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: Open Records Request
To: London Burt <malkavian999@gmail.com>

Hi London,

First, this message serves as receipt of your request for an audio copy of the meeting held on May 7th. I do not know if I am able to provide that to you in the next day or two, but I will certainly process your request as quickly as I can.

Second, I am still working on your first request, which I hope to complete soon. One clarification: you did ask for complaints, allegations, or investigations about lease violations about Strategic Gaming Club, but you did not provide the time frame of five years, so I will have to find out if there are any such documents that date back to 2003.

Also, one note. The reason this request takes some time is that in accordance with FERPA (the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act), I cannot release the personally identifiable information of students in conjunction with their activities in an organization. This means that the audio you are requesting as well as the copies of the UPB minutes will be heavily redacted, because personally identifiable information extends beyond just name. It includes other information that would make a student's identity easily traceable, and that includes a student's voice. So, the only portions of an audio recording of a UPB meeting that I can release are the voices of non-student employees who are members of the UPB or at a UPB meeting (for instance, Scott Gore or Tom Viel).
When I complete the request and provide the documents to you, I will provide a more detailed explanation as well as citation to the FERPA federal statute and regulations. I just want you to be prepared that the minutes and audio recording will have significant redactions.

Thanks, and I will be in touch as soon as I can.

Amy
--

Amy Watson
Communications Project Manager/
Public Records Custodian
Department of University Relations
UW-Milwaukee
(414) 229-5188
(414) 229-6261 fax

I understand that privacy issues regarding student organizations are to be respected. I would not want the records of random organizations thrown into the public record. However, the organization being considered here is the Union Policy Board, and the material being considered here is the audio record of the meetings at which they make policy for the UWM Union. A such, this is more of a government organization, as they have the power to vote on the Union budget and assign office space within the Union; and their membership, meetings, and activities are open to the public. Being willing only to publish non-students' comments (which make up 1/3 of the voting membership and 40% of overall membership) frustrates the idea of open meetings, especially since this is the committee in charge of a large portion of non-allocable student segregated fees. This unholy alliance of secrecy on the part of the University Relations department and the Union Policy Board in charge of large amounts of money (and half a floor of office space) is an open invitation to corruption.

SA Sedition Act?

2008-02-10T15:04:00.000-06:00

From the preprinted agenda for tonight's meeting:

SA Sedition Act
Author: Senator Ohler
Sponsors: Senator Ohler, Senator Piwarun, Senator Draheim, Senator Kristopeit

Whereas the Student Association at UW-Milwaukee is a venerated institution critical to preserving and expanding student rights, and

Whereas in the recent past some parties have disseminated untrue or otherwise misleading statements about the Student Association, and

Whereas libel and slander are not protected free speech, therefore

Be it resolved that upon evidence of libel or slander communicated by one or more individuals, or by one or more groups, the Student Association shall issue a cease-and-desist order to such entities, and

Be it further resolved that if the aforementioned entities do not cease libelous or slanderous communications regarding the SA after being served, the SA shall pursue civil relief against said parties, and

Be it finally resolved that the SA shall allocate from its reserves for this purpose if and only if no other funding mechanism is available.

I have been asked to comment on this proposed legislation. Here are my thoughts:

1. If the SA is really being libeled or slandered, the Senate has every right to fight against it.

2. However, my past dealings with the SA Senate lead me to believe that the actions the Senators term "libel" or "slander" is probably just dissent, and dissent is a natural part of the democratic process.

3. Therefore, while I support the concept of the bill, I will be very suspicious of any letters sent under its auspices, and extremely suspicious of any civil suit filed.

4. I will be even more suspicious if any such letters are sent my way.

This situation will be monitored here.

No one claims responsibility for Union Policy Board

2007-08-30T15:16:00.000-06:00

Last year, the University Student Court denied that it had jurisdiction over decisions made by the Union Policy Board. This year, it's the Administration. Here is the redacted text of a letter sent by the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, Helen Mamarchev:

August 14, 2007

Dear [student organization representative]:

Following an extensive review of the Union Policy Board Constitution, I have determined that student organizations' rights to appeal are limited to the Union Policy Board, not the Director of the Student Union or the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs.

Therefore, any request for appeal by [your organization] must be submitted to the Union Policy Board for their consideration.

Sincerely,
Helen L. Mamarchev, Ph.D.
Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs

This places the Union Policy Board in the unique position of being its own oversight board. So if a decision is clearly wrong, you just appeal it -- to the Union Policy Board. And if they refuse to hear it, appeal that decision -- to the Union Policy Board. This is obviously an exercise in futility.

The Union Policy Board Constitution states that the Union Director may appeal policies within ten days, and he may choose to send this appeal to the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, but Dr. Mamarchev's interpretation of this is that student organizations may not ask for such an appeal, not even from the Union Director. This means that, if the Union Director is somehow unable to attend a Union Policy Board meeting at which a problematic policy is passed, and the record of the meeting does not allow him adequate time to file an appeal within ten days, a student organization representative can't inform him of the problem. Instead, this must be filed with the Union Policy Board itself, which meets every month -- far too late for any appeal.

Action needs to be taken now for there to be a legitimate oversight mechanism for the Union Policy Board.

Needless panic over stupidity on Facebook

2007-05-11T13:37:00.000-06:00

DISCLAIMER: I do not condone violence against any student, student government official, or member of the campus community at UWM. Any attempt to read the remarks below as encouraging any of the above actions is a misreading, and should immediately be abandoned. If you do not see how to avoid such a reading, please contact me before making any public statements so I can help you understand my intentions more clearly.

The Student Association again made news this week when an alumnus made comments on Facebook suggesting that their problems could be solved by gathering them into a room, locking the door, and gunning them all down. The reaction by SA officials is to demand that this person, who now lives in another state, be charged with a crime for making these remarks. While the comment is stupid, the facts of the case indicate that anyone who has any sort of knowledge of the workings of SA could immediately see that this was harmless, and anyone who has such knowledge but chooses to take the threat seriously is just causing needless panic.

Take the substance of the threat. The poster suggested that the solution to SA's problems would be to call a general meeting of SA in Bolton 150, lock the doors, then take his machine gun (which he conveniently provided a picture of, with him holding it) and open fire. This sounds scary, as he seems to provide all the details as to how to pull this off. However, the chances of this scenario coming to pass are about as likely as watching Jupiter eclipse the sun.

To begin with, the poster makes no distinction among the various officials of SA: senators, justices, and the members of the Executive branch are all apparently treated equally. The rules for calling each branch into session are far different, and no single act has brought all of them together into one place in quite some time. Even if it were to happen, it would not be possible for a single student to call a general meeting of all of them, much less an alum. Emergency senate meetings, which this would have to be, require either the President or five senators, and can only be called for specific purposes.

As for the named room, Bolton 150 is a large lecture hall that is totally unsuitable for senate meetings. The standard setup for a senate meeting is to have a front table with the Speaker and other officials, the senators seated at long tables, and then seating for observers set behind the senators, so that a clear space exists between the senate and the crowd. Bolton 150, while large, does not have the capacity to conform to this. Therefore; since the Student Association would be the ones making the request for a room, they would not choose Bolton 150.

In addition, Bolton 150 is considered a classroom, unlike the normal meeting areas of the SA. Most events done by Student Association are done in the Union, and reservations for these rooms are handled by the Union Reservation and Event Planning Service (REPS). Classrooms, on the other hand, are done through a different agency, and the only time such a room would be used is if no other suitable room were available in the Union, as that process is much longer.

Also, the situation of who would be in a position to lock a door is different. Building custodians and UWM Police officers are the ones who hold keys to classrooms, while the Union's Client Services and REPS people hold keys to the Union rooms. Thus, the chances of finding the keys to lock the door are greatly reduced by doing the "hit" outside the Union. And even this problem is overcome, the fire codes mandate that the doors be openable from the inside even when locked.

Now for the problem of bringing enough firepower onto campus to execute the threat. There are people on this campus who are paranoid even about foam weaponry as used by live action roleplayers and wooden "swords" used for kendo classes. If any of these people saw a real weapon on campus, especially around the time of an historic "general meeting of SA", they would melt the phone lines of the UWM police, the Milwaukee Police, and any other officials they could reach trying to get people onto campus to stop the perpetrator.

To summarize, the "plan" to assassinate SA officials relies on people calling meetings they can't call; into a room that the people who are supposedly going to meet wouldn't use over several more eligible ones; finding one of the few sets of keys that exists to that room and using it to lock doors set up to allow people to exit despite being locked; and managing to bring a large machine gun past a campus that already is paranoid about weapons. As such, anyone who heard about it in all its "detail" should have recognized it for the joke that it is. The administration seems to understand this, as all they have demanded of this person is a public apology. For everyone else, may I point out that a threat that can't be carried out isn't really a threat?

Union Policy Board Meeting of May 7 to be redone

2007-05-11T13:16:00.000-06:00

The Union Polilcy Board met on May 7 to finalize the office allocation map, or at least that was the intent. After some discussions about possible moves, a motion was made by SA President-elect Robert Grover to make no changes to the map. This motion was supported by three members (Grover, Stueber, Nelson) and opposed by three members (Scott, Givens, Dercks). The UPB chair then voted to break the tie and approve the map as final.

There are, however, two major problems with this maneuver. One has to do with the map itself. If you take a look at the map, which is found in front of the Student Activities office and in the Student Organization wing near the mailboxes (and has a revision date of 4/30/07), you will see that the UWM Post (currently in EG80) has no listing, not even in the "Not on Map" section, and that their current location is listed as being assigned to Student Association. Furthermore, the SA's current location (EG79) and the Studio Arts and Crafts Center (currently EG77) are both listed as empty.

But there is also a parliamentary problem with this maneuver as well. I reported that there were three votes in favor and three against, with the chair breaking the tie. However, the chair of the UPB is Robert Stueber, who had already voted on the matter. Robert's Rules of Order, the parliamentary authority of the UPB, explicitly forbids a chair from both voting as a member of the board, then again as the presiding officer. This matter has been forwarded to Scott Gore, the Union Director, who is using his authority per the UPB constitution to bring it back before the board.

Helping the Union Policy Board do its job...

2007-03-28T21:08:00.000-06:00

With the Union Policy Board scheduled to take its last kick at the office allocation can in just two weeks (April 11, 3:30 p.m. to be exact), I would like to take this opportunity to encourage the members to become knowledgeable in the process. To that end, here are some questions that members should familiarize themselves with. In addition, being able to cite written, verifiable sources of the policies involved is a very good thing.

1. Which documents provide relevant information on the office allocation process?

2. What are the criteria under which the UPB may assign office space?

3. Does filing an application for office space guarantee that one will be allocated to the applying organization?

3a. If so, what should an organization who knows that an applying organization is ineligible for an office do?

3b. If not, under which conditions would an organization not receive an office, and what procedures are in place for checking for these conditions?

4. If the UPB is unsure of the capacity or usage of an office, what options do the members have to gain this information?

5. If, after this meeting, an organization believes there are procedural errors which unduly damaged the members, what is that organization's next productive course of action?

I know of at least two members of the UPB who read this. I would ask any members who do read this to forward these questions to those who do not.

When I can get to it: The election madness

Senate runs late into night to complete funding requests

2007-01-29T16:28:00.000-06:00

In a meeting that lasted nearly six hours, the SA Senate approved funding for all of the entities that were recommended for funding by the Senate Finance Committee, plus added funding back into the budget for four entities that were declared ineligible by SFC: Women's Resource Center (WRC); Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Center (LGBT), Peer Outreach and Mentoring (i.e. the LINKS center) and the Center for Volunteerism and Student Leadership (CVSL). However, the means by which this was done is a parliamentary nightmare that I, for one, don't feel comfortable about. I will go into the funding votes, from the beginning, and discuss all the decisions made. Those of you who fancy yourself to be experts on parliamentary procedure may wish to inject commentary as to how legal this is, and what the ramifications of the process as done are.

After attending to the necessary business of hearing reports and electing replacement senators to fill vacancies, the next item in Special Orders was the SFC funding requests. Most of the groups who applied were recommended for some level of funding. One group, Campus Activities Board, was approved for a token amount of 5 cents per student (or about $1400 total). This recommendation was made because the SFC did not think they were doing anything useful, but since they are a standing committee of SA, they must be funded at some level. Campus Activities Board is the organization that sponsors the Homecoming events at UWM, and has sponsored several other events in the past.

Six other organizations were declared ineligible for SFC funding: These are the organizations, together with a summary of the reasons they were declared ineligible:

Panther Dance Team -- neither a sub-unit of SA nor a critical service as defined in the SFC Bylaws section VII.D
Union Activities Board (8th Note) -- neither a sub-unit of SA nor a critical resource
Peer Outreach and Mentoring (LINKS) -- not a sub-unit of SA, and provides duplicated service already covered by the Peer Mentoring Center in Bolton Hall
Center for Volunteerism and Student Leadership -- not a sub-unit of SA and provides a duplicate service, since SA also provides opportunities for volunteerism and student leadership
Women's Resource Center -- not a sub-unit of SA, provides a duplicate service since SA has a Women's Issues Coordinator. Also, while it is an on-campus resource center not currently funded by SAC, it does not meet the requirements of Section VII.D8, because it does not serve the needs of all UWM students.
LGBT Resource Center -- not a sub-unit of SA, provides a duplicate service since SA has an LGBTQ Issues Coordinator. Also, while it is an on-campus resource center not currently funded by SAC, it does not meet the requirements of Section VII.D8, because it does not serve the needs of all UWM students.

With the exception of the SA Legislative and Executive allocations, two stipulations were put onto every group for which the SFC recommended funding:

I. SA Logo Stipulation: All official advertising/materials of the organization/deparment must prominently display the official SA Logo. The SA Senate will determine when a violation of this stipulation has occurred. A first time violation within any 12 month period will carry a fine of up to $10000, as determined by the SA Senate. Second and subsequent violations of this stipulation within any 12 month period will carry a fine of $10000.
II. Oversight Stipulation: Not including SFC suggestions, significant alterations to proposed budgets or negative alterations to services provided must be approved in advance by the SA Senate. The SA Senate will determine when a violation of this stipulation has occurred. A first time violation within any 12 monthe period will carry a fine of no more than $50000, as determined by the SA Senate. Second and subsequent violations of this stipulation within any 12 month period will carry a fine of no less than $10000 and no more than $50000, as determined by the SA Senate.

Two other groups received additional stipulations:
UWM Athletics: Funding level unconditionally set at $74.00, and to approve $77.75, contingent based on acquiring an additional $250,000.00 annually from the University, and it can not be from Segregated Fees.

Student Activities Office: Amount of funding would not go toward an assistant director.

When the funding requests came up, a question was put to the floor as to whether the groups that were denied funding could even be brought up by the Senate. From the SFC Bylaws:

XV. Senate Approval
A. The Senate may approve, deny or change a recommendation to fund or deny funding to an applicant.
B. The Senate may not fund an applicant whose request for funding was not considered by SFC regardless of the reason for non-consideration.

The argument (presented primarily by Senator Dan Bahr) was that since the organizations were declared ineligible, they were not considered by SFC for funding, and therefore could not be added back in by the Senate. After submitting the matter to the Student Court justice kept on hand to act as Parliamentarian, the ruling was that the determination of ineligibility was effectively a recommendation by SFC to deny funding, which could be changed by the Senate in accordance with Part A. Part B was put in place to prevent an organization from bypassing the SFC process by waiting to submit until after SFC had finished their recommendations, not to give the SFC absolute power to deny a group without Senate oversight.

With that ruling dealt with, the first motion on the floor was to approve the recommendation as presented by SFC. As this requires a 2/3 vote, it failed. Then a motion was made to split off the decision on the six groups denied funding plus UPARK. That motion passed by a majority vote (it did not approve or deny funding). The next motion was to approve the recommendations by the SFC for all other groups, which passed by the necessary 2/3.

After this, a motion was made put the four student resource centers (LINKS, WRC, LGBT and CVSL) into a package and approve them en masse. Heated debate ensued, but this motion failed by one vote.

The next motion was to approve the LGBT center for eligibility. After more heated debate, this passed 21-7.

The next motion, which would approve WRC, had another strange quirk in it. Senator Antwan Jones was not in the room when the roll was called, but he entered as the vote was being counted. When he asked for the right to vote on the matter, he was denied, being told that the votes had been counted (even though they had not yet been announced). Despite that, the motion failed failed 18-10, another close call. As it turned out, his vote would have made it 19-10, which still would have failed.

At this point, a motion was made to adjust the SAC funding, as now it looked like SAC would need extra funding to cover the lost resource centers. After more rancor, the motion was tabled until afterward to see just how much extra funding would be needed.

At this point, it was getting to be 10:40 p.m., and the ballroom was only reserved until 11:00. (A word of advice to whoever reserves rooms for SA: If you are going to reserve the room until 11:00, go all the way and reserve it until midnight, as no one will reserve a room for that hour anyway. True, no one's going to kick you out of that room in the meantime, but at least you don't have the mad panic at 10:40 wondering what to do.) So a motion was made to recess the meeting until another time to be determined by Speaker Voigtlander, so that they didn't automatically reject all unconsidered organizations. Since no one was sure if they could make the meeting time and they couldn't agree on one on the spot, the vote to recess failed 14-16. Thus the meeting continued.

Debate times were constantly being shortened to get things done. So here are the remaining votes in rapid succession:
Package WRC and LINKS and approve them for eligibility: Passed 21-10
Deny eligibility to UAB & Panther Dance: Passed 21-9
Approve UPARK at $9.00, up from the $8.50 recommendation: Passed 25-4
Approve Eligibility for CVSL: Passed 24-5
Approve the four newly eligible organizations at 2006-2007 levels: Delayed to consider amendment
Amendment to stipulate that the funds only be used for student employees: Failed 4-26
Approval of 2006-2007 funding levels: Passed 21-6

Also, in a (literal) last minute action the Concurrent Services Act was passed. This defines the Presidential Cabinet in the Student Senate Bylaws as the President, Vice President, Chief of Staff, Treasurer, Academic Affairs Director, Legislative Affairs Director, and Shared Governance Director.

A complete list of funded groups, their per student funding levels, and an approximate total funding level, will appear later.

Why is it closed? And why was it ever open?

2007-01-24T18:37:00.000-06:00

The Student Organization Programming Center (SOPC) has been closed since the start of the semester. While I was never a big fan of it, there has been no explanation as to why this place was closed.

My cynical side wants to assert the utter uselessness of the SOPC as a reason for closing it. But there are so many other things that operate at this university without any concern for such trivialities as usefulness, so that's not a viable explanation.

I have heard a rumor that it is related to the general defunding of programming centers by the Senate Finance Committee. Links, CVSL, Women's Resource Center and the LGBT Center were apparently told they were not eligible for student funding because they don't service the entire student population. I don't think they are related, but I do want to comment on the defunding.

The reasoning for defunding them came from the newly passed Senate Finance Committee Bylaws:

VII. Criteria for Funding Eligibility
C. The applicant must:
1. Provide a critical resource, as its primary mission, not offered by other campus entities.

D. "Critical Services" consist of:
1. Student Health Facility
2. Transportation services for students
3. Professional legal services for students
4. Student housing assistance
5. Direct administrative support for student organizations
6. Child care services for students
7. UWM Athletics Department
8. On-campus student resource center, not currently funded by SAC, whose primary mission is to serve the diverse needs of all UWM students

That last part is the key. The argument is that these centers don't serve all UWM students, but rather a limited subsection of students, and therefore don't qualify for funding. But each of these were created to enhance the services for an underrepresented group, and the sum total of their efforts do serve the diverse needs of all UWM students. This seems a bit shortsighted on the part of the SFC.

The actions of the SFC must be approved by the student senate and SA President before they take effect. But as of now, this is a rather dramatic departure from previous policy and it deserves to be looked at.

So now they want to play by the rules -- sort of

2006-12-06T21:25:00.000-06:00

The Student Association Senate has scheduled another meeting to replace the one they couldn't hold due to lack of quorum. Here is the relevant text of the notice:

PUBLIC NOTICE
The Student Association of the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
EMERGENCY STUDENT SENATE MEETING
DATE: Sunday, December 10th, 2006
TIME: 6:00pm
LOCATION:
UWM Union Ballroom
2200 E. Kenwood Blvd.
Milwaukee, WI 53211

Agenda First Available on Friday, December 8th, 2006
By emailing: amandav3@uwm.edu
All meetings are open to the general public.
The senate may go into closed session pursuant to Wisconsin State Statute 19.85(1-6)
According to SA Senate Bylaws Article II Section VI, an
Emergency meeting must be held when requested by 5 senators.
"Emergency meetings shall be for the sole purpose of approving SFC or SAC actions..."

In another world, we could just accept this as is and move on. But in the world we have seen so far, it makes sense to post the section of the Senate Bylaws relevant to this situation, namely Article II, Section VI:

Article II -- Meetings
Section 6 -- Emergency Senate Meetings (for those of you following with your own copy of the Senate Bylaws, it's the second Section 6 -- i.e. the one after the Section 6 dealing with the State of the Students Address)
a. Emergency Senate meetings shall be called by the Speaker of the Senate or by the request of 5 senators, in writing, to the Speaker.

b. The agenda shall be written by the Executive Committee.

c. No senator shall be penalized for absences during emergency meetings.

d. There must be at least 48 hours between the time the meeting is called and the meeting itself.

e. Quorum shall consist of 40% of Senate Seats filled.

f. Emergency Senate meetings shall be for the sole purpose of approving SFC or SAC actions or taking up items requiring Senate action due to timelines outside the control of the Student Association.

So, when the meeting in the garage was to be held, it was for "items requiring Senate action due to timelines outside the control of the Student Association" clause that doesn't appear on the notice. Yet, here, the implication of the notice as written is that this clause doesn't exist.

If you want to be around when the Executive Committee creates this agenda, that will be on December 7 (i.e. tomorrow as I write this) at 3:30 p.m. in EG79I, 16 minutes after the Shared Governance meeting. Either there are so few items being covered by Shared Governance that their meeting will be extremely short, or the Executive Committee will have to set the agenda without the input of the Shared Governance Director.

But the big question is this: Why should all the other items wait until the next regular meeting? The only reason they weren't discussed was there was a lack of quorum, and the number who did show up (12) isn't enough for quorum even for an Emergency meeting (16).

As for timeline issues, the Election Commission Formation Act becomes nearly meaningless if not passed now. The Concurrent Service Act can possibly wait, but why should it? The Student Association Senator Award Act could run into problems if its failure to be addressed removes a senator who would have been eligible to remain had it passed. There are constituencies who would argue that these and other measures need to be addressed sooner if not later. Why create a notice that precludes them?

No Quorum, what now?

2006-12-04T12:04:00.000-06:00

In the fine tradition of the Student Association Senate, the meeting scheduled for December 3 could not be held due to lack of quorum. Normally, this doesn't happen until near the end of the school year, when one controversy or another keeps a large block of senators away, but this time it's happening in December.

Here is the agenda listed for that meeting; what could have kept them away this time? Could it have been the proposal that would finally resolve the separation of powers? The Concurrent Service Act would amend the Senate Bylaws, Article VII, Section 1(f) to read: "Senators may not concurrently serve as a member of the Presidential Cabinet or as a Student Court Justice. The Presidential Cabinet shall be defined to include the following positions: President, Vice President, Chief of Staff, Treasurer, Academic Affairs Director, Shared Governance Director, and Legislative Affairs Director. The Vice President will retain his right to cast the tie-breaking vote in the senate as defined in Article V Section 6(a) of the SA Constitution." This would keep some people out of concurrent service, but there are some notable exceptions, such as the Secretary and the other Directors not specifically named above. But there is another problem that the legislation as written does not address. What happens if a shady SA President decides to have the same types of offices but call them different names?

Maybe the item that kept senators away was the Nursing Mothers Protection Act. This would guarantee the rights of women who choose to breastfeed their children to do so anywhere where the woman and her child are otherwise allowed to be. This came about as a result of the previous senate meeting, where a provision to ask the Union Policy Board to change one of their policies was justified by "inappropriate breastfeeding" in a Union office, among other things.

Could it have been the Students Vote Act of 2006? That would have directed the Vice President or designee to work with the City of Milwaukee Election Commission to adopting a campus polling place in the next election cycle to be staffed primarily by student volunteers and to investigate the lack of ballots during the last election. That doesn't seem too controversial, so I wouldn't expect that to be the problem.

Also on the agenda, we had the Election Commission Formation Act of 2006. This would require the formation of an Independent Election Commission by the start of spring 2006, "appointed by a special election committee, consisting of two persons from each party or independent candidate in the last election and/or representing student organizations on campus", not to include current or former members of SA government or any former IEC member. It would also change the name to Independent Student Association Process Committee and require that the Dean of Students or another administrative representative be present for all vote counting. Given the general reluctance to appoint an Independent Elections Commissioner, that may be what kept people away, but we'll see.

Then there is the last issue on the listed agenda (i.e. the one sent out by e-mail), the Student Association Senator Award Act. This would change one rule in the Senate Bylaws [Article IV, Section 1(d)] and remove 4 demerit points for being "present and not late or leaving early at a Senate meeting" instead of the -1 listed. Note that this rule is in the Senate Bylaws, so it would need to be passed as a Bylaws change and thus take a 2/3 vote.

Even so, this would cheapen the system as it stands. First, you need 12 demerit points (or miss three consecutive Senate meetings) to be removed from office. Second, if you inform people ahead of time of your absence, you only accumulate two per meeting, not four. Third, you only get to remove demerits if you have accumulated them in the first place. So this measure, if passed, would allow a person to miss two meetings with notification, then attend one all the way through and have the exact same demerit record as someone with perfect attendance. This is ludicrous.

Apparently the meeting will be rescheduled for December 10, same Bat-Time, same Bat-Channel. Let's just hope it isn't the same Bat-Result.

Wondering about Senate Agenda

2006-12-02T13:42:00.000-06:00

At the last Constituent Services Forum, it was indicated that there would be a streamlined process for getting the agenda for upcoming Senate meetings. As of now, this has yet to be implemented.

It's back...

2006-11-28T14:07:00.000-06:00

I wish to thank the good people in the Legislative Affairs department for getting the SA Constitution back online. In an era of distrust and suspicion, it's good to see something being done correctly.

On another note, someone pointed out that another missing face appeared here.

Coming off the milk carton

2006-11-23T10:42:00.000-06:00

SA Thanksgiving Photo

This was found in a Facebook folder of an event with all of the top SA officials. Happy Thanksgiving!

Restructuring the Division of Student Affairs?

2006-11-21T13:25:00.000-06:00

I have come across a draft of a letter intended to be sent to Provost Rita Cheng, among others by Student Association President Samantha Prahl:

November 20, 2006

Dear Provost Cheng,

It has been brought to my attention, via a forwarded email, that the University has established plans to restructure the Division of Student Affairs. The students were never made aware of such endeavors. "As active participants, there must be a meaningful opportunity for input so that student ideas are received and considered before decisions have been made and the meaningful opportunity must include timely notice to students of pending issues concerning immediate governance and policy development of the institutions." Regent Policy 86-4.

It is the position of the students that the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee Administration is in violation of both the letter and the spirit of Wisconsin Statute 36.09 in regards to the restructuring of the Division of Student Affairs and we request immediate relief from the Office of the Chancellor under Regent Policy 86-4. It is our belief that the Chancellor has vested you, as Provost, with the responsibility to review this matter per [Wisconsin Statue] 36.09(3)(b).

The fundamental thrust of 36.09(5) is to ensure that students are "viable participants in university affairs." Regent Policy 86-4. The most minimal standards of compliance under 36.09(5) and Regent Policy 86-4 have not been met. An elementary reading of the Statutes and Regent Policy affirms this position.

I look forward to working with you to remedy this most troubling situation. Wi will await your reply.

Sincerely,

Samantha R. Prahl
President
UWM Student Association

CC: Chancellor Santiago
Interim Vice Chancellor Hill
Student Association Senate

As this is a draft copy, I have no idea how the final presentation will be laid out. However, I do support the effort being made.

The pull quotes from Regent Policy 86-4 are accurate. The text can be found here, although it begins at Page 85 of that document. This is also the place where it states that any irreconcilable difference in the interpretation of 36.09(5) may be taken to the Board of Regents through the UW-System President.

The reference to Provost Cheng being in charge of this is based on Wisconsin Statute 36.09(3)(b):

The chancellor may designate a person as provost, to act as chief executive officer of the institution in the chancellor's absence, if the person currently holds a limited appointment as vice chancellor, associate chancellor, assistant chancellor, associate vice chancellor or assistant vice chancellor. The chancellor may not create an additional administrative position for the purpose of this paragraph.

As the Chancellor is recovering from surgery at the moment, this qualifies as an absence during which the Provost acts as chief executive officer.

This news is troubling at this time because the University is currently reviewing candidates for Assistant Chancellor for Student Affairs. If this restructuring takes place, it will have been done prior to the new Assistant Chancellor's selection. Also, unless action is taken immediately, it will have been done without the meaningful opportunity for students to have input on this matter.

What are you guarding?

2006-11-18T13:16:00.000-06:00

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!

Conspiracy theorists...

2006-11-17T14:45:00.000-06:00

I received the following as a comment about a previous note:

For your information, the SA website was hacked and deleted last week, probably by someone friendly with you or one of the anti-SA Facebook groups. There was a backup of many of the files, but not of the Constitution, among others. Please cease your conspiracy theorism.

Fascinating. Since my comment about it was so brief, here's a full reprint of what I had to say about the missing Constitution:

Wednesday, November 15, 2006
SA Constitution missing from website.

This may not mean anything, but the link that normally connects you from the SA website to the online version of the SA Constitution is not working right now. For those who wish to try it: http://www.uwm.edu/StudentOrg/sa/Constitution.htm

We'll see what comes of it

To be honest, I don't see how that is expounding on a conspiracy theory. I am simply pointing out that an online tool that I use frequently is no longer available. If anyone wishes to explain what this means (I would ask the person directly but he or she has chosen to reply anonymously), please do so.

I would, however, like to address the comment directly. Beginning at the beginning, "For your information, the SA website was hacked and deleted last week, probably by someone friendly with you or one of the anti-SA Facebook groups." I'm not sure when this deletion occurred, as I don't usually monitor the SA website except when writing for an article or explaining the information to others when I happen to be near a computer. But nevertheless, it would be a simple enough matter to replace, would it not? There clearly is a previous version available that could be modified to reflect changes. If modifying a PDF is too much, it is also found as a Word document through simple searches. If all these failed, it would be a reasonable use of office time and office staff to get someone to take an electronic copy of the current Constitution (which must exist somewhere within SA) and link it into the site, or at the very least get a paper copy from somewhere (even the administration if necessary) and have someone type it in. So the idea that this information has been missing from the site for at least 36 hours shows some degree of either indifference or incompetence.

But as someone who uses the information posted on the SA websites, why would I want to see it removed? The people I have met who are fighting against SA are seeking more transparency and information from SA, not less. Such a move is detrimental to the process. Is our anonymous poster trying to say that I believe that the information is being removed specifically to prevent people like me from using it against SA? Let's just say that if that were true, there would be a lot more missing than just the Constitution.

Rueden in Senate Appropriations?

2006-11-15T22:30:00.000-06:00

Senate Appropriations Summary
This is another document from the Student Association records. This one is amazing for two reasons. The first is that it represents the exact amount that appeared on Russ Rueden's time card for August 2006 (the one where he claimed to work ten days over the summer from midnight to noon). The second is the heading "Senate Appropriations Committee." The only association that the Speaker of the Senate has is to chair the meeting at which SAC elects its chair. So what is he doing being paid out of this account?

SA Constitution missing from website.

2006-11-15T21:25:00.000-06:00

This may not mean anything, but the link that normally connects you from the SA website to the online version of the SA Constitution is not working right now. For those who wish to try it: http://www.uwm.edu/StudentOrg/sa/Constitution.htm

We'll see what comes of it

The Original Separation of Powers

2006-11-15T13:33:00.000-06:00

Through my sources, I have obtained a copy of the original documents relating to the separation of powers. Note that Russ Rueden was arguing for the separation of powers at this time.

I did not get these from Ray Duncan himself, but rather from one of the people he chose to distribute this to initially.

These are copies of files that are on the hard drive, but do not exist in a
"document" form. It was very hard to get.

Please widely distribute.

Sincerely,
Raymond Duncan

UNIVERSITY STUDENT COURT
University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND INJUNCTION

Acting under the authority granted in Section 4.3 of the University Student Court Bylaws, I hereby grant Speaker of the Senate, Clayton E. Clouse's request for a Temporary Restraining Order and Injunction.

This Order restrains all individuals in violation of the Court Order in Michals v. Clouse from functioning within the Student Association government. Individuals in violation must choose to serve on a single Branch of SA and to vacate their remaining office(s).

Individuals in violation of the Order in Michals v. Clouse that fail to choose by 4:30 PM on Sunday, September 12, 2004 to serve on a single Branch of SA are in violation of the Court Order thus illegally occupying their offices. At 4:30 PM on Sunday, September 12, 2004, members that have not complied with the Court Order in Michals v. Clouse will have all of their positions vacated, their titles in SA stripped of them, access to their office denied, and their pay suspended. In short, individuals that fail to comply will have all of their positions in SA vacated and all of their rights and privileges of those positions denied.

There will be a hearing on Monday, September 13, 2004 at 4:00 PM before a 2/3 majority of the Court to discuss the Continuance and/or Validity of this Order. The location of the meeting will be posted outside of Union Room 392 at least four hours before the hearing time.

On this 12th Day of September 2004,

It Is So Ordered.

________________________________________
Russell E. Rueden
Chief Justice

University Student Court
University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee

Senator Neal A. Michals, Student Association Senator and Shared Governance
Director,

v.

Speaker Clayton Clouse, Speaker of the Student Association Senate

Released Thursday, September 2, 2004.

Heard Before: Justices Rueden, Zahn-Craig, and Frank.

Introduction - Student's Self Governance

The Court acts as the guardian of the Constitution and the protector of all things just within the Student Body. The bylaws passed by the Student Association (SA) Senate and signed by our SA President grant us final authority in interpreting the governing documents that direct our student government. As the final student interpretive authority, it is important that we recognize the right of self governance. All matters heard before the Court have been dealt with exclusively by students, as demanded by Wisconsin State Statute 36.09(5), "The students of each institution or campus shall have the right to organize themselves in a manner they determine and to select their representatives to participate in institutional governance."

State law allows the students to form a government of their choosing. The students chose to create the Court and give us final interpretive authority: Section 3.2 of the Court bylaws: "The USC shall be the final source in all matters concerning the
interpretation of the Student Association's Constitution and its legislation."

The Court's decisions are therefore final in matters involving student governance. To stray from this destroys shared governance and ignores the will of the students that we are all here to represent.

Case Before the Court

This case began as the result of an election held during the Senate meeting on Sunday, June 6, 2004. The election was for the two Senate seats on Union Policy Board, a board that formulates policies for the UWM Union. Three individuals ran for two spots. Senator Robert Schuettpelz won with 12 votes. Senator Neal Michals and Senator Christopher Vega tied with 10 votes each. The (SA) Secretary, Ms. Scottie Allen, was not allowed to vote in this election as she was deemed an ex-officio member of the Senate by Speaker Clayton Clouse. The issue before the Court is whether or not Ms. Allen should have been allowed to vote, as she holds both the SA Secretary position and the position of Senator.

Issues in this Case

This case asks us to look at four particular areas of conflict.

The first area of conflict is whether or not an ex-officio member is allowed to vote. The current governing documents are silent as to whether they can or cannot vote. Therefore, in the absence of any guidelines, the governing documents tell us to look to Robert's Rules for clarification (Article II, Subsection A of the SA Senate Bylaws). It is clear in Robert's Rules that ex-officio members are allowed to vote (Article IX, Section 51 of Robert's Rules).

The second area of conflict is the question of holding dual roles within the Student Association. It is clear within the governing documents that the Student Association and the students at-large are looking to maintain a three branch government with a complete system of checks and balances. This is evident in the President's veto power (Article V, Section 5, Subsection C of the SA Constitution), the Senate's abilities to formulate legislation and over-ride a veto (Article IV, Section 8, Subsections D and F of the SA Constitution), the President's ability to appoint Court Justices with 2/3 consent of the Senate (Article V, Section 5, Subsection B of the SA Constitution), and so on.

The Student Association's attempts at forming "a more perfect student government (SA Constitution Preamble)," are being bastardized by the current administration in that many of the Directors are concurrently serving as Senators. This inevitably causes a great deal of conflict. The potential level of corruption in a government of this nature is immense. The student body entrusts that a three branch government will aggressively and proactively check each of the other branches. This is simply not possible within the current Student Association. The Chief of Staff, who also serves as a Senator, is charged with oversight of the Directors, many of whom are also Senators. It would be very difficult for a Senator to voice the wants of their constiuents when their supervisor is sitting next to them voting another way. The current state of the Student Association, in regards to the integration of the Executive and Legislative Branches, is completely unacceptable. The students elect a President to be their voice and to "promote our general welfare (SA Constitution Preamble)." To stand idly by and allow no true check to exist is deeply upsetting and will not be tolerated by this Court.

The third conflict that exists is the level of privacy between the three branches. It is very difficult for the Senate to conduct investigations of the Executive Branch when they share the same office space. This once again brings about the potential for corruption and destroys the ideal government that the students expect. The Vice-President is in a unique position in that he is both a member of the Executive Branch as well as the Legislative. It is therefore difficult for that office to be shared as he can participate in the activities of both branches.

The final conflict was the issue of how the tie was to be broken between Senators Vega and Michals in aformentioned election. Senator Michals argued that there should have been a run-off election. Speaker Clouse argued that Vice-President Rodriguez has all tie breaking authority. In reviewing Article IV, Section 6, Subsection A of the SA Constitution, it is clear that the Vice-President does have all tie breaking authority.

Orders

The Court is appalled at the current level of integration amongst the branches of government. We therefore Order that any member of the Senate that currently holds any office within the Executive Branch choose which of those two offices they would like to occupy and to vacate the remaining office. This must be done within seven calendar days of the release of this opinion. The Vice-President is an exception to this rule, as he is Constitutionally mandated to be a member of the Senate and technically does not hold dual roles. The Court Parliamentarian is also exempt as this is a Constituionally mandated service of the Court.

We further order that ex-officio members are currently allowed to vote. This however, would not change the outcome, as Ms. Scottie Allen was acting as the Secretary during the meeting and is not allowed to hold dual roles. As such, she should not have been voting at the meeting as a Senator.

We let stand the decision of Speaker Clouse to recognize Ms. Allen solely as the SA Secretary.

We further order that the Union Policy Board immediately address the office allocation and see to it that the Legislative Branch has their own locking office.

We finally order that tie-breaking authority in the Senate falls solely upon the Vice-President in all cases, as directed by the SA Constitution. Therefore, the
decision of Speaker Clouse to allow the Vice-President to break the tie stands.

It is so Ordered.

____________________________________________
Russ Rueden
Chief Justice

____________________________________________
Jessicka Zahn-Craig
Assistant Chief Justice

_____________________________________________
Ryan Frank
Clerk of Court

This is the temporary restraining order followed by the actual court case filed to deal with separation of powers.

Student Association
University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee

Office of the President
President Brett P. Belden

Response to University Student Court Mandates in the Opinion of Michals v Clouse

On Thursday, September 2 at approximately 5:20 PM Chief Justice of the University Student Court Rueden issued an email release of the opinion of Justices Rueden, Frank and Zahn-Craig which stated that I, as President of the Student Association, am responsible for enforcing the Court's opinion in the matter of Michals v Clouse. For this reason, I am issuing the following public response to the University Student Court's orders.

Background

First, I must address certain assumptions I am required to make in the interpretation of this court order. In reviewing the opinion of the Court, the only order I appear to have any direct impact on is the order of the Court for officers serving dual roles to choose one role within seven days of the release of the opinion and vacate the other role. Therefore, I will assume that this is the section of the opinion the Court states that I am responsible for enforcing and I will limit the scope of my response to this section. Furthermore, the Court has been unclear exactly how I am to address the issue of individuals who choose not to vacate one of their positions within the given time period. Again, the only power I myself would have to address this would be to remove the individuals from their Executive Branch positions, and thus I am forced to assume this is the intention of the Court's order.

With this being said, I would like to address the Court's contention that I have chosen "to stand idly by and allow no true check to exist." I have never disallowed checks and balances from existing in the Student Association as they are defined in the governing documents. In fact, I have never claimed that I am in favor of officers serving concurrently in more than one branch. The reality is, I do not have the power to impose a restriction on members of the Executive Staff that disallows them from serving on both the Legislative and Executive branches. Article VI, Section 1 of the Student Association Constitution states that "The Judicial Branch shall have a University Student Court, which shall have five justices. These Justices may not hold any other office in SA."

Clearly, the Legislature and students at large, in approving this Constitution, have defined this situation in which members of the Judicial Branch are restricted from holding offices in other branches. No such restriction exists in the Constitution for the Executive or Legislative branches; that is, no restriction has been approved by the Legislature and students at large to be included in the Constitution or any other governing document of the Student Association. Furthermore, precedent shows that Directors and other Executive Branch members have in the past served as Senators as well. Prior to the 2003-2004 session, Directors were actually placed under the Legislative Branch, and to my knowledge all of the Director positions were filled by Senators. With the bylaw changes that occurred at the beginning of the 2003-2004 session the Director positions were moved to the Executive Branch, but many Executive Staff members still served concurrently as Senators. Treasurer Ben Butz, Student
Organization Relations Director for the first semester Avigal Harris, Student Organization Relations Director for the second semester Robert Schuettpelz, who currently serves as a Senator, and Chief of Staff Clayton Clouse, who currently
serves as Speaker of the Senate, are all examples of individuals who served concurrently in both the Executive and Legislative branches in the previous
Student Association session. Considering these precedents and the fact that no Legislature-approved law exists prohibiting officers from serving dual roles, I
can only conclude that I do not have the power to disallow members of the Executive Staff from serving as Senators as well. To remove someone from their Executive position for serving concurrently as a Senator would make me vulnerable to very real legal action for unfair termination of employment, since I could site no rule currently in the governing documents as my reasoning.

Powers of the Judicial and Legislative Branches

Article IV, Section 8, Subsection (d) of the Student Association Constitution states that "The Senate shall formulate rules, regulations, and policies that govern the activities of SA." It goes on in Subsection (i) to state that "The Senate shall have the power to approve all SA By-Laws." This jurisdiction of the Court is in the interpretation of the governing documents of the Student Association. However, the effect of this opinion is to alter the governing documents of the Student Association, creating a rule where none exists in the Constitution. Clearly, Article IV, Section 8 of the Constitution reserves this power for the Legislative Branch, not the Judicial Branch. The Court uses the Preamble of the Constitution to impose its own opinion of what are appropriate checks and balances onto the Student Association. The Preamble reads, "We, the Students of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, in order to form a more perfect Student Government; to ensure participation in Student Governance; and to promote our general welfare, do hereby establish this Constitution." In other words, in order to ensure a more perfect Student Government, we establish rules in the Constitution. Only the Legislative Branch has the authority granted in the Constitution to approve alterations to the rules and governing documents of the Student Association, and this ruling serves to take that power away from the Legislative Branch and give it to the three Justices who heard this case.
For me to take action against an officer serving dual roles citing only this Court opinion without the benefit of a legislature-approved rule change would again make me vulnerable to reprimand, not only on behalf of the affected officer, but also on behalf of the Senate for attempting to enforce a rule which the Senate did not approve.

Dual Roles in the Judicial Branch

I find it interesting that the Court is so appalled at the integration between branches considering its own Chief Justice is currently serving a potentially
disastrous dual role. Sandburg Halls Administrative Council (SHAC) is the second major governing body on campus. It is so important, in fact, that the 2003-2004 Student Association Senate passed a piece of legislation reaffirming its support of SHAC and acknowledging SHAC's authority in matters of residence life. This piece of legislation essentially reaffirmed SHAC as an extension of the Student Association in the shared governance process. The Chief Justice of the University Student Court currently is serving concurrently as the President, the head executive, of SHAC. The potential damage that could result from this dual role is certainly far worse than that of an individual serving in both the Executive Staff and Senate. What would happen should an individual who falls under the jurisdiction of SHAC be displeased with a decision made by the SHAC President and decide to turn to the University Student Court? Surely it would be difficult for that individual to find any sort of justice in the Court. Even if the Chief Justice were to recuse himself, the considerable influence he has as the head of the Judicial Branch would certainly affect the opinions of the Justices hearing the case.

Conclusion and Possible Remedy

In conclusion, the individuals affected by this opinion have been made aware of the Court's wishes, but I cannot personally take any action against the individuals who are serving in both the Executive and Legislative branches. I want to be absolutely clear that I am not purposely defying the Court, but rather I simply do not have the power to take any action without a specific clause prohibiting Executive Branch members from serving on other branches, as exists with the Judicial Branch. I leave it to the Senate to decide whether to pass a bylaw change implementing this restriction; I am most certainly not opposed to the discussion of a bylaw change, and I absolutely will do my best to enforce anything the Senate passes that is signed into law. I only ask that if the Senate considers the elimination of the dual roles that exist in the Student Association, it do so fairly and equitably, and address the dual roles which currently exist in all branches of the SA.

In service to the students of UWM,

Brett P. Belden
President
Student Association of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

This is then SA President Brett Belden's response. Notice that he is aware of Rueden's cozy relationship with the Sandburg Halls Administrative Council, and notes how such a problem can exist even outside the normal divisions of student government.

Again, please widely distrubute these. I will offer more comment when I have a chance to study these further.

Annual Tradition -- Union Counting Day

2006-11-14T11:08:00.000-06:00

Once again today, the fine tradition of counting the students who enter the Union takes place. As I mentioned last year, this is a rather tedious process that would be useful if it were accurate, but when you get a mass of people coming in from various directions, you can never be truly accurate.

Once again, I call for people to determine if we need this service. If we don't, perhaps we can use the money for real student services.

SA Senate Meeting November 12: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

2006-11-13T17:07:00.000-06:00

It is good to see the Student Association Senate functioning in the expected manner again . . . or is it?

Six vacant Senate seats were filled, which is a good sign. Most of them, as expected, are people invested in the status quo, so the chances of radical change taking place are slim. In this case, however, the process as outlined appears to be working, so I am treating this as a net plus.

The proposed Student Court nominee was not taken up, as she was unable to attend. However, a new Shared Governance Director was appointed and confirmed: Brandon Decker. His confirmation places him in the list of people for whom the separation of powers, were it to be enforced, would be definitively forced to choose either his Senate seat or his new directorship.

Executive Order
This is an amazing loophole so large you can drive a herd of mastadons through it. The Order "ordered" Ms. Prahl to "use any and all private funds" to obtain legal counsel. By framing it as an executive action, it was packaged as a Special Order. The Senate Bylaws, Article II, Section 3d states that Private Account Expenditures are normally done by automatic consent, unless a senator objects, in which case it is pulled and moved to New Business. But it was framed as an Executive Order, which filed it under an executive action, not a Private Account Expenditure automatic consent item. This supposedly triggered Article II, Section 3g:

All executive actions to be included in Special Orders shall follow a specified procedure. The President shall report on the executive actions and upon the completion of the President's report, all items shall be included in t a consent item and approved at that time, unless a senator objects to an item. The Senate may overturn an executive action by a 2/3 majority vote.

By doing it this way, Article V, Section 3b of the Executive Bylaws, which states that "This $2000 [minimum amount in the account] shall be used only for emergency purposes, with approval of 2/3 of the Senate" was bypassed. So now, instead of it taking a 2/3 vote to approve the expenditure, it took a 2/3 vote to prevent the expenditure.

This creates a new potential avenue for exploitation: Fiat by executive action. The President could, if she were unscrupulous, simply decree her will by executive action, and dare the Senate to come up with the 2/3 necessary to overturn it. This would require a more independent Senate than what I have witnessed to date.

Separation of Powers at stalemate
Antwan Jones' Separation of Powers act failed, but the passages in the Senate Bylaws that prohibit senators from serving on the Cabinet are still there, with the dilatory motion to strike them tabled. The idea was that a compromise position was to be drafted, but we will see what compromise can be made.

Senate Finance Committee bylaws approved
The Senate Finance Committee Bylaws were approved. One of the more interesting elements of this process is that it became clear that the senators who sit on SFC don't get to draft them. Rather, they are created by another body who forwards them to University Legal to insure that state laws are being followed, and then they are sent to the full Senate for approval by a 2/3 vote. The problem is that there are 13 members of SFC, including the Vice President, so it is possible for every member of SFC to vote against the bylaws but still have them approved, forcing the people who voted against the bylaws to operate under them.

Ban on breastfeeding in Union offices?
When the "Registered Student Organization Rights Act of 2006" came up for a vote, one of its authors, Senator Dan Bahr, lobbied for it by saying he had passed by one of the University offices and saw a topless woman breastfeeding her child there. This, plus other unspecified inapporpriate activity, was the reason that he wanted the Senate to recommend that the Union Policy Board change its policy on student organization membership and adda clarifying passage that Union offices are intended to be used for administrative purposes only. I will not comment on what Mr. Bahr thought he was doing by peering into Union offices not his own. Instead, I will focus on more salient points. Why even bring this up before the Senate? The other author of this legislation was Robert Stueber, the current chair of the Union Policy Board, and Senator Russel Scott is the UPB vice-chair. Are they so impotent within their board that they could not have brought this matter to the UPB themselves? The document that is being recommended for change is the Student Organization Manual, which is a publication of the Student Activities Office, not the UPB, and does not derive its material from the UPB, so how do the authors and sponsors intend to affect anything by asking the UPB to do anything? In addition, the University Student Court has ruled that the UPB is not a part of Student Association, so what benefit is gained by having the Student Association Senate express their opinion? And while Mr. Bahr in the Q&A session expressed that it was not the intention of the legislation to ban advisors, checking of e-mail or Facebook, other standard uses of the office, enforcement of this policy would not fall to him, but to the UPB, of which he is not a member. This matter passed the Senate and we will see if the UPB chooses to do anything about it.

Conclusion
Overall, procedures were followed (maybe not the correct ones in all cases, but at least they were documented), and the usual pile of legislation got through. But the fact that a new loophole has been created and exploited is ugly, and needs to be dealt with.

More Financial Irregularities

2006-11-13T13:16:00.000-06:00

The following was forwarded to me anonymously:

Have you seen this e-mail?

Dear Senators:

As you may know, the UWM Internal Audit Department, in collaboration with the UW System Office of Operation Review and Audit, is presently conducting an audit of the UWM Student Association financial records. While the audit is not complete, we have discovered several irregularities that will require some additional explanation. I will be asking your President, Vice President, and Treasurer to meet with me in person as soon as possible to discuss these issues. In addition, if any of you has any information about SA financial matters that you think is relevant to the audit, please contact me.

Sincerely,

Paul W. Rediske
Director of Internal Audit
UW-Milwaukee
P.O. Box 413
Milwaukee, WI 53201

We will keep you informed of any developments as we get them.

For those of you who are waiting for news from the Senate meeting on November 12, I will post that when I get the chance. There is much to say.

Dilatory motion detected

2006-11-12T12:32:00.000-06:00

I am posting a message from Jacob Wu, a former SA Senator who ran against Russ Rueden for President in April 2005:

I wanted to make you aware, before the meeting, that at least one motion in New Business for today's meeting is dilatory, out of order and should be removed from the agenda. Senator Bahr and Scott's legislation titled "Student Association Senators Right to Serve Act" is the motion in question. Since our rules on what motions are out of order come from Robert's Rules or Order 10th Edition (I will refer to it as RR from now on) I will provide you those references.

If you look at your chart of motions in the back of RR you will see that "Student Association Senators Right to Serve Act" is a motion to "Amend bylaws or constitution" and is classified "M/B" (Page 10 of the "Chart for determining when each subsidiary or privileged motion is in order", number 16). You can find rules about this class on page 72 starting at line 10 "Motions that bring a question again before the assembly." Now, Bahr and Scott's last piece of legislation titled "SA Senate Bylaw Revision" did essentially the same thing as their new legislation in that it attempted to remove Article VII Section 1 parts (f)(g) from the Senate Bylaws. According to RR on page 72 starting on line 29:

a)During the meeting or series of connected meetings (called a "session") in which the assembly has decided a question, the same or substantially the same question cannot be brought up again, except through special procedures that imply an unusual circumstance.

Since the Senate meets in a series of connected meetings this legislation is out of order until the next session (2007-2008) of the Senate and thus should not be considered and should be removed from the agenda. To reconsider the old legislation ("SA Senate Bylaw Revision") one of the Senate members that voted for its defeat (a nay voter) would have to motion to reconsider. This is in keeping with the rules of a motion to reconsider for a M/B classed motion.

Thank you,
Jacob Wu
L&S Student, UWM

Part of the goal of Well Armed Sheep is to report events so that those who can spot something funny can pass the information onto others. I wish to thank Jacob for his timely catch.

Senate Agenda for November 12, with commentary

2006-11-11T14:50:00.000-06:00

I have now linked to the Student Association Senate agenda for their November 12 meeting. I would like to point out a few items worthy of commentary.

Executive Order 0607-001
The action line of this Executive Order is a cut-and-paste from the Financial Accountability Act of 2006:

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Student Association order the President to use any and all private funds to ensure that we effectively address the constitutional crisis that our government has faced in the past weeks and to seek the necessary legal counsel to ensure that the right of UW-M students to govern themselves without administrative tampering is protected.

As such, I see this as an attempt to get authorization for legal counsel before another walkout takes place. By placing this as an Executive Order, it is now scheduled under "Special Orders" and therefore before normal legislation, even though it reads like legislation and has the exact same line as legislation already scheduled under Old Business.

The problem is that the power to issue Executive Orders is specifically granted to the SA President under the Executive Bylaws, Article II Section 1j. As such, the Senate has no known power to act on it. While there may be a desire to create separate legislation to get the authorization for using the Private Account to obtain legal counsel and also a desire to get it past the roadblock created by the Separation of Powers Act, these are matters that should go before Senators, and the Senate should not be railroaded into dealing with it early by disguising the matter as an Executive Order.

Committee Publicity Act
This is a nice sounding way of getting information to students so they can participate in student government. This goal is noble and I have no objections to it.

I do, however, have a concern with the details. It directs "that those serving as chair of a committee compile/create an informational handout outlining their committee, the committee’s intention, and overall goals" and that each week, one such underrepresented committee be highlighted using the information provided. But not all of the committees upon which a student can serve as part of shared governance are chaired by students. Some, such as the Academic Policy Committee, are faculty run with student input. Clearly the Student Senate has no power to order a faculty chair to provide them with informational pamphlets. So the idea sounds great but cannot meet its stated goal.

Constituent Services Forum Act
The idea of this strange-sounding legislation is simple enough: The Legislative Affairs Director, for reasons that have yet to be explained, would be charged with setting up a listening session every month to hear from the students. But as I pointed out in September, writing legislation mandating these forums is no guarantee that they will happen. Such forums were to have taken place last year, and nothing came of them. I don't see how a new one, with such a pretentious-sounding title as "Constituent Services Forum", is likely to fare any better.

Student Association Newsletter Act
Again, good on ideas, but still questionable in substance. It would direct the Communications Director to produce a newsletter to highlight the accomplishments of Student Association each month. This is nice in theory, but what would a newsletter of the past month state? "This month, Student Association's office was cleared of documents as part of a criminal investigation of its Speaker and former President . . ." Also, while it may direct the Communications Director to publish the newsletter, details about how it is supposed to be delivered and what line item of the budget is supposed to pay for it remain to be seen.

Support for Responsible Consumption of Alcohol on Campus
This would allow the Director of School Spirit and Campus Activities [personal note: Why do we need this as a Director-level position?] to organize an alcohol prevention and awareness campaign. Again, no mention of where the money is coming from or what about this campaign would be different from all the other similar campaigns that are going on.

Resolution to Support the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Community on Campus
This would direct the LGBTQ Director to hold a forum where "students, faculty, and staff will be able to discuss the [marriage] amendment, their feelings surrounding it, and the impact the amendment will have on their lives." I recognize that many students on this campus have strong feelings about this amendment, and I can certainly empathize with the shock they must be feeling that their opinions were not shared by a majority of voters. But is the answer a forum that merely gives them a chance to vent? I can't really answer that question, but it seems a bit weak as a response to me.

Registered Student Organization Rights Act of 2006
I know certain people are really wanting my opinion on this item, and they have probably scrolled down to this section just to see what I have to say. For them, I am copying the entire text of this act here:

Registered Student Organization Rights Act of 2006

Author(s) Sen. Stueber, Sen. Bahr
Sponsors: Sen. Huibregtsee, Sen. Lesky, Sen Scott
Whereas, the resources available to Registered Student Organizations are significantly limited
Whereas, it is necessary for existing Registered Student Organization’s to maximize efficiency and to use the resources allocated to them in a manner that best serves current students.
Whereas, office space in the union is limited and should be maximized for current UW-M students.
Be is resolved that the SA Senate by majority vote recommend(s) to the Union Policy Board that it change its policy in the Student Organization manual (page 7, paragraph 1)
From:
“Student Organizations may include faculty, staff or individuals from the community as members, but they do not serve as officers or have a controlling interest in the organization.”
To:
“Student Organizations may only include current registered students as accredited members. Faculty, staff or members of the community may participate in Student Organization activities with out a controlling interest in the organization, but are not entitled to the resources allocated by Student Association that have been allocated with students’ segregated fees. Further, the offices allocated in the union are intended for administrative purposes only.”

I will begin with the title. What in this act provides any rights to a student organization? Isn't this a way to take some of the larger organizations who provide valuable service to the community and depress their perceived standing by limiting their membership to student members? There are already certain student governmental bodies who look at student membership only, so any reputable student organization will have the numbers already broken into student versus non-student membership. I don't see any rights asserted or granted by this act.

Now to the justifications. The act claims that "the resources available to Registered Student Organizations are significantly limited". I would be a fool to believe they were totally unlimited, but student organization resources are "significantly" limited primarily to the extent that they are being used by the Student Association itself and not being passed onto other organizations. Every student pays hundreds of dollars in segregated fees specifically to run student events and organizations. How does a $9 million budget not provide for the needs of student organizations unless most of it is absorbed before it gets there?

The act further states that "it is necessary for existing Registered Student Organization’s to maximize efficiency and to use the resources allocated to them in a manner that best serves current students." I would agree with this statement, but I would insist that Student Association also live up to this mandate. The previously released financial records show large payments for executive and speaker salaries, and large budgeted items such as printing and travel that can be open to abuse. Furthermore, one of the items of Old Business is an act that would reset the Presidential salary to $10,000 from the original $9,000. The Student Association Senate and Executive branches need to lead by example and prove that their financial house is in order before they start ordering around other organizations in the name of granting them "rights".

And just when you thought that the hubris couldn't get any worse, then the act claims "office space in the union is limited and should be maximized for current UW-M students." The Union Director, in an attempt to create more Registered Student Organization (RSO) space, released the area where the old Union Outing Center was for RSO use, but after the move by the Post into that space, and the move by Student Assocation into the Post's old space, SA didn't release its old space for other organizations, instead converting it into an Organizational Programming Center, which sees little to no use. Releasing that space, which has a central "lobby" area with six adjoining offices, would have allowed space for several RSOs to receive the space they need to maximize their efforts for current students. Also, if there is such a premium on office space, why is Robert Stueber, chair of the Union Policy Board and an author of this act, advertising in the Union 3rd Floor that there is office space available?

I mentioned the proposed solution to these self-created problems before, but there are more things that need to be said about it. Again, for the record, the idea is to ask the Union Policy Board to change its policy in the Student Organization Manual to read:

“Student Organizations may only include current registered students as accredited members. Faculty, staff or members of the community may participate in Student Organization activities with out a controlling interest in the organization, but are not entitled to the resources allocated by Student Association that have been allocated with students’ segregated fees. Further, the offices allocated in the union are intended for administrative purposes only.”

First, the item to be changed is part of the Student Organization Manual, published by the Student Activities Office, which is an arm of the University's Office of Student Life and is not part of the Union Policy Board. Second, what do the authors of this act mean by "accredited members"? Third, what does it mean that non-students are not entitled to the resources allocated by the Student Association that have been purchased with segregated fees? These things need to be spelled out.

The last sentence is something that needs to be addressed on its own. "Further, the offices allocated in the union are intended for administrative purposes only.” It has always been the policy that Union office space is to be used for the work of the club who has it, but the definition of "the work of the club" varies depending on the club involved. Would the Chess Club be prohibited from monitoring high-level chess tournaments from their office? Would Peer Health Advocates have to find a new office from which to conduct counseling sessions? These activities fall under the "work of the club" but are not necessarily "administrative purposes". This definition is too vague to mean anything important.

Diversity Restoration Act
This would create a diversity forum each semester to promote awareness and express the need for diversity on campus. It would also create a Diversity Committee composed of minority Senators and majority non-Senator students to aid in the purposes of the act. Again, this sounds nice, but how can we be sure this will do anything useful?

Student Association Senators Right to Serve Act
And as usual, bringing up the rear, is the latest attempt to weasel out of the Bylaws hole they are in:

Student Asspciation Senators Right to Serve Act
Authors: Senator Bahr, Senator Scott
Sponsors: Senator Draheim, Senator Grotz, Senator Decker, Senator Magar, Senator Huibretsge, Senator Nesgoda, Senator Pfeifer, Senator Kopczyk, Senator Malke

WHEREAS, democratically elected Student Association Senators have a right to serve in the Student Association Senate.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Student Association Senate Bylaws be amended to ensure that right by removing the following passages: Article VII, Section 1, sub-sections (f)(g)

The pretense of a more sweeping cleanup is removed in favor if a more direct approach. Personally, I don't have a problem with democratically elected senators serving in the Senate -- as long as they aren't compromising their position by being in multiple branches of government. Having made the choice to earn money at this, I have no problem saying that they have chosen to give up their Senate seat as well.

This will certainly be an interesting meeting, especially if the issues raised here reach the Senate floor.

Cute little detail about October 29 Senate Meeting

2006-11-07T15:19:00.000-06:00

In consulting with sources I have access to who monitor Student Association Senate activities, I noticed one small detail that has yet to receive comment. Apparently, one of the Senators motioned for a recess just before the vote on the SA Bylaws Revision Act was to be taken. The motion failed, and so did the Act, by a vote of 10-8 (as a bylaw change it needed 2/3).

The idea of calling for a recess just prior to a vote creates a rather awkward time during which Senators can be approached by outside interests and given "instructions" on how to vote. Given that the Senators are relatively new to parliamentary procedure (or so we have been told), giving them time to be browbeat by more experienced parliamentarians isn't exactly the best way to inspire confidence.

There is another Senate meeting on November 12. We'll see if this tactic is tried again then.

A few questions for the Union Policy Board...

2006-11-05T14:52:00.000-06:00

The Union Policy Board is now on record claiming that, despite making several adjustments to the office allocations made last spring, there were no violations of process. USC 06-001 granted the Union Policy Board the "right to unbridled discursion", meaning they can say whatever they want. I call upon them now to use this right to answer these questions:

1. Why is failure to adhere to the meeting schedule provided as part of the application for Union office space not a process violation?
2. Why, when the schedule for office allocations provided for an initial allocation in March followed by two allocations in April to handle appeals was the process not complete after the allocation meetings of April 7 and April 28?
3. Why was the matter of Peer Health Advocates brought up on May 5, when it was already decided on April 28 and no new paperwork was filed about it?
4. Why was Chess Club brought into the Peer Health Advocates matter when they had filed no appeal and were happy with their office assignment?
5. Why was Strategic Game Club brought into the Peer Health Advocates matter, even though their appeal had nothing to do with Union 360/398 (Peer Health Advocates' office assignment at the April 28 meeting) or Union 379 (PHA's assignment after the meeting) but rather their status in Union 372 or a larger office?
6. Where on the audio of the May 5 meeting where all three of these are supposedly combined into a single issue (available from Scott Gore's assistant) is a motion made one way or another regarding Strategic Game Club's appeal?
7. If, as my review of the tape indicates, Strategic Game Club's appeal has not yet been addressed, why was it not up for discussion in either the May 18 meeting or the November 3 meeting?
8. Why are none of these actions and inactions violations of process?

I look forward to having these questions brought up and hearing the Union Policy Board's timely and relevant response.

Looking into the jaws of the SFC Bylaws tiger

2006-11-01T20:56:00.000-06:00

I have specifically refrained from looking into the SFC Bylaws changes that were proposed at theSA Senate meeting of October 29, as they are long and tedious. Here is an attempt to decipher what's going on:

The proposed changes to Section II remove the allowance for funding University departments with permanent employees. It also removes this: "The SFC may fund organizations, programs or services (hereafter "applicants") with an emphasis on the following criteria:

A. Supporting the mission of UWM.
B. Providing services to all UWM students.
C. Providing support for ongoing UWM projects.
D. Providing support for UWM leadership development.

Section III has a few changes. It adds language about "alleged" violations, and stated that a decision to deny funding based on alleged allegations is appealable under Section XVII.

Section IV would state that anyone who wants to be nominated to SFC "shall express that wish either in writing in advance to the Speaker of the Senate;" if there is any alternative, it is cut off the copy of the agenda I have. It would remove two senators from SFC from the pool of schools (Arts, Health Sciences, Architecture, Engineering & Applied Science, Nursing, Information Studies and Social Welfare), giving an additional seat to an At-Large senator and another one to Letters & Science, bringing each of them to two appointments. In addtion, four alternates would be appointed by the Speaker, instead of the current two.

Section VI would add two alternates to the Appeals Committee. Instead of these people being appointed by the Senate directly, they would be nominated by the Speaker and approved by a majority vote. Also, the three non-Senator students that are appointed by the Shared Governance Committee would no longer require Senate approval, and the absence of a Chief Justice would cause that position on the Appeals Committee to be held by whichever justice is next on the judicial hierarchy chart.

Section VII rates to be potentially controversial. The changes would limit funding to University departments, organizations with written governing documents, all of SA, including its sub-units and the Senate Allocation Committee. Furthermore, the applicant must "Provide a critical service, as its primary mission, not offered by other campus entities." The current document allows for agencies employing a permanent UWM employee to be eligible as well.

In addition, the changes would list all of the critical services: Norris Health Center, transportation services for students, professional legal assistance for students, student housing assistance, direct administrative support for student organizations, child care services for students, the Athletics Department, and "On-campus student resource center, not currently funded by SAC, whose primary mission is to serve the diverse needs of all UWM students", whatever that means.

Much of the language of VII.E about organizations that move from SAC funding to SFC funding has been removed.

Section VIII removes the requirement that an applicant that wishes to receive funding must complete its application and return it to the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs by October 1.

Section X.D adds an interesting line: Insufficient funding through SAC is not a legitimate justification to request a transfer to SFC. I don't have enough background to understand why this line would be added, but it is interesting nonetheless.

Section XI.B is another interesting proposed change: An organization that is deemed eligible as a critical service under section VII above may still be denied funding within SFC's funding priorities.

The next potential firestorm comes in Section XVI, Presidential Ratification. This allows the SA President to veto any individual assignment, and the SFC process is not considered complete until the President has had an opportunity to act on it.

Section XVII has a few changes proposed. The Appeals Committee would get 20 school days to act on the appeal, instead of the current ten. But XVII.E as proposed would seem to contradict this:

If, for whatever reason, the Chief Justice does not convene the meeting within five days of receiving the appeak, the Speaker of the Senate shall unilaterally remove the Chief Justice as Appeals Committee chair and temporarily occupy the position of chair in order to call the meeting and elect a new Appeals Committee chair from amongst the membership. The Speaker will vacate his/her seat upon the new chair being elected. If the Speaker does not call this meeting, the Deputy Speaker shall call this meeting.

I will defer this issue to those who have more experience with the Senate Finance Committee. When I learn more from people I trust on this issue, I will pass it on.

Quick comment on Executive Bylaws

2006-11-01T20:08:00.000-06:00

In an attempt to find the original (i.e. unmarked) 2005 bylaws for the Senate Finance Committee, I found the Executive Bylaws for both 2005 and 2006. The 2005 listing is the list that was in effect when the Senate Bylaws were passed, so we can interpret the intent of the passage that has drawn such attention, namely Article VII, Section 1, subsection f: "Senators may not concurrently serve as a member of the Presidential Cabinet or as a Student Court Justice."

From the Executive Bylaws of 2005, Article IV:

Section 1 -- Composition
a. The President shall have the power to create and decide the composition of a Presidential Cabinet.
b. The Presidential Cabinet must include the following positions:
1. President
2. Vice President
3. Secretary
4. Treasurer
5. Chief of Staff
6. Communications Director
7. Academic Affairs Director
8. Shared Governance Director
9. LGBTQ Issues Director
10. Women's Issues Director
11. Legislative Affairs Director
12. Multicultural Affairs Director

c. Further Director Positions created by the President shall be members of the Presidential Cabinet.
d. The President shall designate weather [sic] other officers hired are considered Executive Staff or Cabinet positions.
e. The President may invite other officers to join the Cabinet as he/she sees fit.
f. Cabinet positions shall be considered Executive Staff positions and subject to these By-Laws.
g. Any deputy, advisor, counsel, intern, or similarly titled non-director position is not considered a cabinet position.
h. Any cabinet officer may not concurrently serve as a senator, or court justice.

This definition scheme was in place when the Senate Bylaws were made, and thus determines the intent of what Senate Bylaws VII.1.f was talking about. First, let's look at the people who were, by the 2005 definition, the minimum cabinet:

President Samantha Prahl: No senate position
Vice President Jon Tingley: No senate postion
Secretary Casey Glader: Senator -- Peck School of the Arts
Treasurer Emily Grotz: Senator -- School of Business
Chief of Staff Alicia Bagley: Senator -- Helen Bader School of Social Welfare
Communications Director Renee Hayssen: No senate position
Academic Affairs Director Alex Jacobs: No senate position
Shared Governance Director --VACANT
LGBTQ Issues Director Lauren Otte: No senate position
Women's Issues Director Cassy Magar: Senator -- School of Education
Legislative Affairs Director Kyle Durestein: No senate position
Multicultural Affairs Director Chris Wiley: Senator -- Peck School of the Arts

Now add to this the provision of 2005 Executive Bylaws IV.1.c: "Further Director Positions created by the President shall be members of the Presidential Cabinet."

School Spirit & Campus Activities Director Sarah Lesky: Senator -- Letters & Science
Diversity Director Sergio Piceno: No senate position

We can go no farther in terms of the exact wording of the bylaws, because the rest are added at the discretion of the President. But even with this more restrictive wording, there are still six positions that are double-booked in violation of the intent of the Senate Bylaws, with more people who are wearing two hats when you add office managers, assistant directors and the like.

More on October 29 Senate Agenda

2006-10-30T09:56:00.000-06:00

UWM Student Association
Agenda
October 29th, 2006
6pm Union West Ballroom

I. Call to Order/Roll Call
II. Approval Of Agenda
III. Approval of Minutes from September 24, 2006
IV. Comments and Questions
a. President
b. Vice President
c. Dean of Students
d. Chancellor or Designee

V. Reports
VI. Special Orders
a. Presidential Appointments to the Student Court

1. William Anderson
2. Amanda Schaeffer

b. Senate Vacancies
1. Freshman Senate Candidates (5 vacancies)

a. Amber Skattebo
b. Gavin Jackson
c. Erin Kruizenga

2. Letters & Science Senate Candidates (1 vacancy)

a. Joseph Ohler
b. Brian Averill

c. Senate Appropriations Committee Senate Appointment (1 vacancy)

1. Russel Scott
2. Calob Kopczyk

d. Union Policy Board Senate Appointment (1 vacancy)

1. Russel Scott
2. Tobin Huibregtse

VII. Senate Old Business
VIII. Senate New Business

1. Resolution to Oppose the Proposed Constitutional Amendment 2
2. SA Financial Transparency Act
3. 2006 SA Senate Bylaw Revision
4. Separation of Powers Act
5. Budget Reorganization
6. Senate Responsibility Act
7. The Fiscal Accountability Act of 2006
8. SFC Bylaws

IX. Open Forum
X. Announcements

As was mentioned in my previous post, the meeting was adjourned during discussion of the Separation of Powers Act. But there are other interesting things that didn't get discussed. Here is a brief summary of the new business listed:

Resolution to Oppose the Proposed Constitiutional Amendment: This act puts the Student Association on record as opposing the proposed amendment to the Wisconsin State Constitution which would define "marriage" as between one man and one woman, and would not recognize a "legal status identical or substantially similar to marriage for unmarried individuals". These types of resolutions are a personal pet peeve of mine. I don't care if I agree or disagree with the stance adopted; the fact that the Student Association takes a stance is a disenfranchisement of some portion of the student body, which is not something I want from a body that's supposed to be representing me.

SA Financial Transparency Act: This act calls for an annual internal audit of the Student Association every year, to be initiated by the SA President. It would allow the Senate to inspect financial documents, including audits, on a majority vote.

2006 Senate Bylaw Revision: This would remove the Senate prohibition from serving in other branches. Since Senate Bylaws take precedence over all other SA bylaws, having Article VII, Section 1, subsections f and g in place effectively cancels the attempt to commingle the branches until it is removed.

The other changes appear to be attempts to allow the Senate to refrain from filling seats if they choose. It would put a requirement that the Speaker approve filling a seat, and it removes the provision that Freshmen Senator seats be filled at the second senate meeting in September.

Separation of Powers Act: This would force the 14 senators (by one count from a supporter of commingled branches) who are part of the executive branch to resign from one seat or the other within 5 business days. It cites the current bylaws as a reason for such a demand.

Budget Reorganization: This would "clarify" the line items for various offices, including the SA President. This would set the Presidential line item at $10,000.00 instead of $9,000.00. Even if this clarification were to take place, it would still mean that the current pace of Presidential salary would exhaust the line item well before the end of the term.

Senate Responsibility Act: Despite its high-sounding title, all this does is track senators' level of participation in senate activities and present those who achieve a certain level with a certificate at the end of the year.

The Fiscal Accountabiliy Act of 2006: This act has been slightly modified from the form presented here. The transaction that uses UWM Union money to bolster the Athletics Department is no longer called "illegitimate" but rather "possibly questionable". The section that talks about the permissibility of an audit no longer adds "and until such time as the audit can be completed the department must cease functioning" to the end of it. The section that stated, "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Student Association orders the operatios of these departments must cease immediately in order to comply with the University's interpretation of F20" was removed. And finally, the final section is modified to read, "BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Student Association order the President to use any and all private funds to ensure that we effectively address the constitutional crisis that our government has faced in the past few weeks and to seek the necessary legal counsel to ensure that the right of UW-M students to govern themselves without administrative tampering is protected."

Even with the new wording, it's still questionable. In the press release published on October 26, the Private Account, an account under the control of student government mandated by Article V of the Executive bylaws, "contains money that SA has fund-raised on its own and is not student money." While it may not be Segregated University Fee money, such money is for the student government to promote student interest. If it isn't student money, whose money is it?

Senate Finance Committee Bylaws: This covers the bylaws under which Segregated University Fee money is allocated. The changes proposed are numerous and require an article of their own to detail. I will do so at a later time. For now, the fact that the meeting was adjourned before dealing with this makes life interesting.

Fireworks at SA Senate meeting

2006-10-29T22:03:00.000-06:00

Well, there are still some things left to be discovered, but the lack of Russ Rueden at the Student Assoication Senate meeting was apparent.

To begin with, there was an actual call for a no-confidence vote against Russ Rueden. It made it to a vote, but failed. (That isn't surprising, since it takes a 2/3 vote to pass.)

There was an actual appointment made to the Student Court as well. This makes it so that there are enough justices (barring a resignation) for the Court to actually do things. No word yet on if Drew Baryenbruch's issue will be taken up as a result.

There was a call to add an annual audit requirement to the Senate bylaws. I'm not sure what happened with that, I will post what did happen when I get reliable information on that.

The big fireworks came over a proposed revision to the Senate Bylaws that would have removed the prohibition of Senators holding executive or judicial positions (transcribed exactly from the Agenda, except that I am using full names are given for all authors and sponsors):

2006 SA Senate Bylaw Revision

Author: Senator Daniel Bahr, Senator Russel Scott

Sponsors: Speaker Amanda Voigtlander, Senator Tyler Draheim, Senator Brandon Decker, Senator Caleb Kopczyk, Senator Tobin Huibretsge, Senator Zachary Nesgoda, Senator Nikki Pfeifer

WHERAS, nearly half of the SA Senate could be unseated as a result of the aforementioned action not being taken.

WHERAS, past efforts to separate the branches have been unsuccessful and have lead to the vacancy of up to eighteen seats on the SA Senate.

WHERAS, those most willing to volunteer their time in the legislative branch would be disenfranchised from prospective employment in the executive branch with out the aformentioned action being taken.

WHERAS, current SA executive branch members who have already planned on serving in both branches woule be denied their understood right to do so.

WHERAS, separation of the branches at this time would lead to a denial of due process on behalf Senate member who currently serve in both branches.

WHERAS, the Student Association amended the Executive Bylaws on July 25th, 2006.

WHEREAS, there is a need for the legislative language to be consistent in order to prevent any misinterpretation of the bylaws.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Student Association Senate Bylaws be amended by striking out the following passages: Article VII, Section 1, sub-sections (f)(g).

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Student Association Senate Bylaws be further amended by striking the following passages: Article III, Section (b) "second";
Article III, Section (b) "in September".

THEREFORE BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Student Association Senate Bylaws be amended by adding the following passage to Article III, Section (e): ", and the Speaker approves."

The first change would remove the passages in the Senate Bylaws that contradict the Executive Bylaws. Here is the sentence from which the wording of the second change is to be struck: "The Freshmen Senators shall be filled with this same process and occur at the second senate meeting in September." The change would make it, "The Freshmen Senators shall be filled with this same process and occur at the senate meeting." Neither makes any sense, even in context, but the change was supposed to allow Freshmen Senators to be appointed at any meeting, not just the one mandated.
And the final change would require that the Speaker approve the filling of a seat by the nomination process.

After much debate, this didn't get the 2/3 vote needed to enact a bylaw change. This led to the next item up for debate:

Separation of Powers Act
Author: Senator Antwan Jones

Sponsors: Papa-Kwesi Coleman

Supporters: Carlo Albano, Nina Vandenhounter, Chris Larson

WHEREAS: a number of student representatives in the Student Association currently hold positions in both the Student Senate and the Presidential Cabinet; and

WHEREAS: the Senate Bylaws in Article VII, Section 1-f state, "Senators may not concurrently serve as a member of the Presidential Cabinet or as a Student Court Justice; and

WHEREAS: the Senate Bylaws take precedence over all other SA bylaws under the SA Constitution Article VII; and

WHEREAS: the protection of the separation of powers in the Student Association is vital to the integrity of the Student Association; therefore

BE IT RESOLVED THAT: all SA Representatives holding positions in both the Student Senate and the Presidential Cabinet must resign from one of the two posts within 5 business days.

This was the act that the previous bylaw change was supposed to circumvent. We at Well Armed Sheep aren't the only ones pointing out the problem that was lurking in the Senate Bylaws. This led to even more debate, and during a motion to table this indefinitely, three senators (Antwan Jones, Mark Talatzko and Andrew Hable) left in protest. As the senate was barely above quorum before they left, a quorum call was made at this point, and the meeting ended when quorum failed.

Next time, I'll post the full agenda, including the provision that would have put another $1,000.00 into the Presidential salary for the current year.

SA press release leaves much to be desired

2006-10-28T20:59:00.000-06:00

The Student Association has released its version of events. It reiterates the same points I have been making here about their response and stated actions.

As I mentioned on Friday, the request for an independent auditor is a non-starter. In the letter, Ms. Prahl notes that the Director of the Internal Audit division rejected it "with no reasoning provided."

Given the discussions, I can see why Director Rediske didn't bother to give a reason. From his viewpoint, he has the right to see these documents, and asking for an independent auditor to see them first is evidence that there is something to hide.

However, what really caught my attention was the statement that despite the Student Association being effectively shut down, it had "retained Attorney Teresa Rickert of the Brookfield law firm of Schmidt Rupke Tess-Matner & Fox, S.C. on Monday, October 23 to intervene on its behalf." Remember that as of Friday, October 20, an emergency Senate meeting was held for the purpose of discussing obtaining legal counsel. As there was no quorum, no action could be taken. And no new Senate meeting has occurred since then, although one is scheduled for October 29. So under what authority were they able to retain an attorney? Money coming from the Private Account in excess of $150.00 must be approved by the Senate. So are we to assume that this attorney is either working pro bono or taking a severe pay cut?

The Student Association also wants to make it clear "that SHAC [Sandburg Halls Administrative Council] and SA are two completely separate entities." However,as we have seen , checks to AcerPrudens were written from both SHAC and SA for services no one is able to verify were delivered. Both of these accounts have also been under the control of Russell Rueden at one time or another, and as such, it is worth looking into the possibility that this account has been tampered with as well. This counters the argument that "no link between the check under investigation and SA has ever been made."

The statement also says, "The execution of the search warrant [of October 23] has now completely disabled SA." However, they were able to hold an informational meeting on the day of the press release, and they are going forward with plans to have a Senate meeting on the 29th. Furthermore, someone was able to post this press release, which came out after they were "completely disabled", on the SA website. (To be fair, they have been disabled enough to prevent posting the Senate agenda, which was promised to be available after the 27th.)

Again, this appears to be a case of the Student Association hiding behind meaningless platitudes and blather, and as such, isn't worth the electrons it's being stored with.

"Wigg-ing Out" -- A response

2006-10-28T14:56:00.000-06:00

James Wigderson's blog quoted my article in the University Standard and used it as more evidence of his position that student government should be abolished. I would like to respond to the comments made there.

I do not believe that we should abolish student governance in the current environment. So long as the U.S. Supreme Court affirms the legality of student segregated fees, and the University of Wisconsin System campuses keep charging them, a student body on these campuses to administer the use of these funds is necessary. The exact form and scope of the body is up for debate, but failing to provide for such an administrative body devolves the practice into taxation without representation, and this nation's founding fathers fought a war to oppose that.

I realize that such a body is prone to corruption. Student politicians, like other politicians, have a hard time keeping their hands out of a money bag that appears to be lying unnoticed in front of them. The only check on corrupt officials in any governmental institution, though, is a vigilant and informed public. Vigilance has been lacking for quite some time, but until recently, the information has been there for those of us who have been around enough to know where to find it.

The discontent and the outrage over issues are both greater now than in the past. This is because the most recent incarnations of UWM's student government have become more outrageous by dropping all pretenses of propriety. The end of the 2004-2005 school year saw the SA senate paralyzed by enough factions boycotting the proceedings at key times that quorum could never be achieved. In the 2005-2006 school year, the primary tool for stagnating the process was the depletion of the Student Court. At the conclusion of the election that created the student government for that year, the following was posted in the Student Activities Office newsletter:

STUDENT COURT APPLICATIONS

If anyone is interested in filling the current Court vacancy, please submit a resume, cover letter, and two recommendations to the Student Activities Office c/o Student Court by Tuesday, March 29, 2005 at noon. For the two recommendations, include one personal recommendation from someone that knows you well and one from a legal scholar that can attest to you knowledge of the legal field. These recommendations are to be sealed in an envelope with the signature of the author of the recommendation across the seal.

In addition, you must also respond to all of the requirements outlined below. The interview stage will consist of a presentation and questioning period. You must make a presentation on the following topic: "The role of the judiciary in a three branch government." The presentation should last no less than 10 minutes and no more than 20 minutes. Following the presentation, a standard question and answer period will take place. All candidates must be available on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 from 3:00PM until 9:00PM for their presentation and interview. Questions: email chief@uwm.edu.

1. List all of the powers of the University Student Court.
2. Explain the importance of the University Student Court in terms of Student Organizations.
3. Explain in detail any legal experience you may have.
4. Is a court justice ever required to recuse themselves? Please describe each instance.
5. What importance do you place on precedent?
6. Please rephrase the entire Section 10 of the University Student Court Bylaws in terms of a timeline.
7. Does the University Student Court have the power to affect the election? Elaborate on all of the powers of the court in this instance.
8. Please review the Bush v. Gore opinions from the High Court at http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html and prepare briefs of the following opinions:
-Opinion
-Concurrence (C.J. Rehnquist)
-Dissent (Stevens)
-Dissent (Souter)
-Dissent (Ginsburg)
-Dissent (Breyer)

You must have six separate briefs, one for each of the opinions above. Each one must be 3/4 of a page at 12 pt font, 1 inch margins, double spaced. Responses to these eight requirements must be attached to your resume and cover letter. All submissions must be in print format

I understand the desire to make sure that qualified people are applying, but the requirements here made sure that practically no one could meet them. This year's requirements are at least as strict, and as such, Samantha Prahl can claim that she is sending up for appointment the only two applicants for the Court position, even though there are five openings. This dearth of Court members has led to situations where people can't get the relief to which they are entitled, simply because there is no one to grant it.

So what do we do? The same thing any other group must do if it wants to fix a dysfunctional governmental system:

1. Fix the problems that are present in the current system. This means that either amendments to the SA Constitution need to be made to prevent the strangling of the inherent checks and balances system, or a new one must be built from the ground up that prevents the problem from occurring to begin with.

2. Truly keep the electorate informed. Part of the problem is that there is a large section of the electorate that doesn't get involved until large checks are cut in apparent embezzlement schemes. But there are enough leader types who can keep track of the byzantine workings of student government if they know what to look for.

3. Work with those who can enforce the mandates. In this case, I'm referring to the administration. There won't be any issue of having fewer than the three justices required to conduct any business on the Student Court if the Constitution states that the entire Student Government is dissolved if the number of justices remains below five for more than 14 days. The failure of the Union Policy board to meet once this school year would be less of a problem if that failure gave the Union Director license to act independently until its next scheduled meeting. By using either the power or the threat of administration takeover, the student government becomes more motivated to act responsibly.

There have been past failures in reforming the system, but the need to have some system of student input into fees that are being charged for student activities remains. As such, the reformation efforts continue until something works.

Bad Call

2006-10-27T17:06:00.000-06:00

The letter from Student Association President Samantha Prahl to the Director of UWM's Internal Audit division was already seen as a sign of desperation. But from the accounting people I have spoken to about it, the fact that she requested an independent audit is suspect in itself. Standard accounting practice is to let any internal audit division have first crack at the books.

While having an independent audit sounds good, having that be the first audit is suspect because there is too much leeway for bribery or coercion to affect the results, especially from the agency that commissioned the independent audit. So when Ms. Prahl offered an independent audit in lieu of the University audit, that only made people more suspicious . . .

Articles From University Standard newspaper

2006-10-26T22:40:00.000-06:00

At the request of the University Standard newspaper on campus, I posted a history (warning, it's long) of events of the last few months.

Also, Drew Baryenbruch has added his commentaries:
Democracy Now an Illusion at UWM
Let's See What Happens

New documents released

2006-10-26T15:35:00.000-06:00

The Campus Democracy Coalition, a loose confederation of concerned students and student organizations, held a press conference this morning to release financial documents that were obtained through an open records request. The documents, and their meaning, are:
Time Log -- Russ Rueden This is Russ Rueden's time card from August 2006. It lists him as having worked ten days that month from midnight to noon. While this may be the case, there are obvious questions associated with this:

1. What was going on at that time that required working such hours and required 12 hour shifts?
2. Over the summer, the building closes at 10:00 p.m., and anyone who is in there after hours (allowable as an officer of a student organization) must contact Client Services (who act as on-site security for the building) and inform them of this. Do their records concur with this timecard?
3. The building is locked two hours before these shifts began. Did Mr. Rueden gain access after hours, or did he enter before his shift and choose to begin working at midnight?
4. It is possible to edit the file, so the time period may have been mistaken (and should have read noon to midnight instead of the reverse). Even so, it still means that he was in the office after hours, for which records should still be available from Client Services.

Time Log -- Jon Tingley This is Vice President Tingley's card from the same time period. This one shows important information. First, the EDIT tag is visible, which would allow people to edit the record. Second, there are, in most cases, exact times posted, as opposed to the neatly-rounded hours found on the previous card. This shows that this is likely a record of hours that was not edited after the fact, except for one or two possible places.

Time Log -- Samantha Prahl This is the most interesting of the time logs. Not only are all of the times rounded off, there are a large number of them recorded by hand. When asked about this, she claimed that those times represented days when there were over 20 people who needed to be entered into the system, which is more than it can handle. Therefore, on those days, she volunteered to not be included and record hours manually.

20 people maximum on the account seems like a reasonable number, but the claim that the limit was not only reached over the summer, but reached nearly constantly, begins to stretch the imagination. If this is true, then there are records of the 20 people who were clocked in on each of those days, and I for one would like to see them.

Summary of Executive branch pay August 2005 This is a summary of how much the four main Student Association officers and the Chief or Staff were paid in August 2005, under the Rueden administration. Note that, of these, the highest number of hours are attributed to Rueden and Prahl, more than double any other officer.

Segregated Fees Summary: Executive Wages This shows the amount of wages paid to the current executive officers as of October 18. Note that there are double entries for three officers, where two amounts are paid in the same month, and that each officer who has this double entry does so in a different month. Also note that the $1,680.00 that is claimed on Prahl's August timecard is annotated as September, suggesting that these listings are for the month after work is completed.

It is also worth noting that Ms. Prahl has already claimed $5,743.60 of the $9,000.00 annual salary available for the office of SA President. At this rate, her salary fund will be exhausted halfway through her term of office.

Segregated Fees summary: Legislative Wages This shows the payments to those members of the legislature who receive pay. Note that, just as in the case of the Executive branch, Speaker Rueden has already collected thousands of dollars in salary, and is on pace to exhaust his salary cap halfway through the term.

Segregated Fee Expenditures 2005-2006 This summary of expenditures and transfers has an interesting note on the fifth entry: $1,437.00 to AcerPrudens, the company at the heart of the Sandburg Halls controversy. My sources tell me that this money was authorized for AcerPrudens to create a website that was never finished by them. In another parallel to the Sandburg Halls Administrative Council scenario, there was a webmaster already on the payroll at the time.

In addition, there are large budgets for things such as printing, postage and travel. While all of these expenses may very well be justifiable, the pattern of the past mandates that all of these be investigated to avoid problems.

Interesting Observation

2006-10-25T16:46:00.000-06:00

On the door to Union 394, the following note is posted:

AcerPrudens
is an anagram for
Rueden's crap

Need I say more?

Student Association to meet with students tonight

2006-10-25T11:36:00.000-06:00

The Student Association is hosting an open forum for students tonight (October 25) in the UWM Union. The flyer passed around in the Student Organization wing says it will be in the Lounge on the 2nd Floor at 7:30 p.m.

The problem is that the proposed meeting place is closed to normal traffic in preparations for the Open House this weekend. As such, the normal supply of chairs and tables has been moved out. Not only that, but there are a number of questions people have that probably aren't going to be answered effectively. This will be interesting for anyone who wants to attend. In any case, the Well Armed Sheep will be around to report any juicy tidbits.

Financial records found in Union hallway

2006-10-24T13:02:00.000-06:00

A set of grant requests from the Spring 2006 Senate Allocation Committee was found in a box in the hallway on the Union 3rd Floor. When an organization files for a grant request, eight copies must be turned in, one for each member of the committee; these are single copies of such requests. Each one has the original date stamp, and notes are on them as to how much was actually granted to the organization in question.

No information is available as to whether it was a full or partial set. However, all the records that were found were turned over to the Dean of Students' office for safekeeping.

At this point, the question of how these records came to be in a box in the hallway remains to be answered.

The Administration comments

2006-10-23T22:49:00.000-06:00

This was sent to all UWM students:

Dear UWM students, faculty and staff,

On October 21, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel published a story about
UWM and the Student Association (SA), Student government shut down: UWM police investigating possible embezzlement.

Because we value and respect student government, we believe it is important to share with you the perspective of the UWM administration regarding current questions relating to the UWM Student Association (SA). Federal privacy laws restrict us from disclosing everything, but many facts can be shared about what has happened over the past month and a half.

At the outset, we want to emphasize that our concerns in this situation are not about the role of student governance, but rather about our obligation to ensure that all students are represented with accountability, transparency and adherence to state laws and policies. The UWM administration fully supports the right of students to independently govern themselves.

Two separate but related investigations are currently under way. Both commenced September 6, the same day a Sandburg Halls Administrative Council (SHAC) representative discovered the existence of the $10,000 check written from a SHAC account to an entity called AcerPrudens.

UNIVERSITY AUDIT

The first of the two investigations is one being conducted by the UWM Department of Internal Audit with assistance from the UW System Office of Operations Review and Audit. Its purpose is to determine whether student funds were used in adherence to state law and UW System policy. Following SHAC’s report of the $10,000 check written to AcerPrudens, the auditors reviewed SHAC’s financial records. SHAC cooperated fully with the auditors in this effort.

Related to the audit, on October 9, the Chancellor requested that the Student Association also provide UWM officials with access to its financial records, in particular those relating to an outside bank account for funds privately raised. Such an account, which does not contain state funds or segregated fees, is permissible under UW System policies.

Authority for the Chancellor’s request is found in UW System Financial Administration Policy F20 (which can be found online at www.uwsa.edu/fadmin/fppp/fppp20.htm):

All student organizations receiving Segregated University Fees (SUF) support along with any student organization using University facilities, must agree as a condition of such support or use, to provide financial records, if requested, indicating specific revenues and expenditures for the particular event for which they received SUF support or the particular event they utilized a University facility. If SUF is received for ongoing operations of an organization, the organization must provide financial records of their entire operation, if requested by the Segregated University Fees Allocations Committees (SUFAC) or the
Institution. An organization's failure to comply with a request for financial information may result in the denial of SUF support and/or use of University facilities.

On at least three separate occasions after October 9, UWM Director of Internal Audit Paul Rediske communicated with Student Association President Samantha Prahl regarding the university’s request to access all financial records relating to the outside account. On each occasion, while Ms. Prahl suggested alternatives to UWM’s review of the records, she clearly indicated that the Student Association did not intend to turn over SA’s financial records relating to the outside bank account.

In light of SA’s response, on October 20, UWM administration took action to deny continued access to the SA offices pending resolution of its request for SA records. Part of UWM’s concern has been to ensure that the records it is seeking would be secure throughout any further delay in SA’s response to the request.

Please note that UWM’s action to suspend SA’s access to university funding and facilities was intended to impact only SA. No other student organizations are affected by that action at this time.

On Monday, October 23, SA’s attorneys contacted UWM administration to cancel the scheduled meeting between SA representatives and the auditors, and to propose that the requested records be removed to SA’s attorney’s office for review at that location. This proposal was under consideration, but has since been impacted by recent events in the criminal investigation as outlined below.

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

The second of the two separate investigations is being conducted by the University Police Department for potential criminal violations pertaining to the previously mentioned $10,000 check.

The latest development in that case came on the evening of Monday, October 23, when University Police executed a search warrant upon the SA offices. The warrant for the search was authorized by a Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge after being briefed on the case.

As a result of the University Police Department’s gathering of evidence, it appears that at this time there is no reason to continue to deny SA representatives access to university facilities, and we will work with SA to allow the offices to reopen.

Previously in this investigation, on September 25, information gathered by University Police was presented to the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office, which then requested that certain additional information be gathered. As a result, on October 4, University Police executed a separate search warrant on a private residence, in addition to the warrant executed on October 23.

University Police will use the information gathered during the two searches to determine, along with the district attorney’s office, whether criminal charges will be issued.

We will continue to make every effort to keep the campus informed as future events surrounding the investigations into this matter unfold.

Sincerely,

Rita Cheng
Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs

I will be investigating this and commenting on this later.

UPDATE: 1:37 p.m., October 24
I will be attempting to read between the lines of this letter. The obvious part is that two separate but related investigations are happening. One is being done by the Internal Audit Division, and the other is a criminal investigation through the District Attorney's office. However, the search warrant in the criminal case has obviated the need for the lockdown of the SA office realting to the audit. This means one of two things:

1. The records of the "Private Account" believed to be in Union EG80 were not found there, thus making the lockdown meaningless.
2. The records were found and seized.

We will find out which is correct later.

Student Association not completely locked down...

2006-10-23T17:33:00.000-06:00

The Student Association isn't completely locked out of using any facilities, as had been previously assumed. Instead, the only office for which they are not granted access is the one they hold in Union EG80, on the ground floor near the Studio Arts and Crafts Centre. That is the one which is believed to hold the records that the University Administration seeks, and as such is the only one to which SA is denied access. The Student Organization Programming Center, which is in the former SA office of Union 363, is operational, although the question of what funds are being used to pay the workers there remains unanswered at the moment.

As such, we expect the next scheduled meeting of the SA Senate to go on as scheduled (October 29, 6:00 p.m., Fireside Lounge) despite the fact that this information was actually published well in advance. Agendas are supposed to be available by Friday the 27th, and it will be interesting to see if the Financial Accountability Act of 2006 will be on it.

The letter that triggered the lockdown

2006-10-22T12:04:00.000-06:00

In addition to Interim Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs James Hill's letter informing Student Association of their denial of service, a copy of the e-mail that Samantha sent to the Director of UWM's Internal Audit Deparment was posted as well:

Date: October 18, 2006
To: Paul W. Rediske (Director, Internal Audit Department)
CC: Sherwood G. Wilson (Vice Chancellor, Finance & Administrative Affairs)
Sub: Student Association Audit

Director Rediske,

I would like to make the position of the Student Association clear; it is my intention, and the intention of the Student Association, to work with the university administration to conduct an audit of our financial accounts that is both just and preserves the integrity of an independent association. A very dangerous precedent is set when an independent association is subject to unbridled intervention by a co-equal in university governance. As such, it is our hope to continue the discussion to find an amenable solution that preserves the legitimacy of our independent association.

I ask that you please work with me to develop the most appropriate solution to this situation that will satisfy both parties.

In service,

Samantha Prahl
President
Student Association

Every Student Association I have witnessed has had delusions of grandeur, but calling itself a "co-equal in university governance" is a bit much. And if they are a co-equal, how can they be an independent association?

It also seems clear to me from the tone of this e-mail that Ms. Prahl was made aware that consequences would be forthcoming before sending it. If there is a working arrangement, or if there is progress being made toward one, there is no need for such language as "it is our hope to continue the discussion" or "I ask that you please work with me". These are the words that come a person who has been clearly told that her position is unacceptable and her refusal is about to get her in trouble.

If my supposition is correct, then President Prahl had one to two days notice that something along the lines of the lockdown was about to take place. Who else knew, and what did anyone do about it? She spoke at the meeting in the garage about how much harm is being done to students by the SA office being locked down. If she could have prevented the lockdown but failed to act, isn't part of the blame for that harm on her?

The wall of silence is broken...

2006-10-21T10:13:00.000-06:00

For more information on the campus community, visit Well Armed Sheep.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has decided to report on the shutdown of the Student Association office. This article is an excellent summary of the situation to date, and it counters the assertion made by Samantha Prahl at the garage meeting of the Senate that the SA shutdown was unrelated to the embezzlement investigation.

As to the meeting itself, the meeting appears to be in violation of the SA Senate bylaws Section 6d, which states, "There must be at least 48 hours between the time the meeting is called and the meeting itself." The explanation given at the meeting was that the bylaws listed are out of date and only two hours notice is needed. If this is the case, why are the old bylaws listed (if indeed there really was a change in the bylaws)?

This is part of the history of meetings of questionable legality perpetrated by this SA administration. The Senate Allocation Committee, one of the two that allocates segregated fees, held a meeting in July where unconfirmed appointees attended to achieve quorum and pass sweeping changes that put them in charge of approving student organization charters, which has been run in the past by the Student Activities Office. The Senate meeting to approve these bylaws was never posted in the Union, where it was to be held, except on the daily event listing provided by Reservations and Event Planning Services, where it was buried with all of the other listings. Even then, that listing said that the room was reserved from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m., and when no one had appeared, a call was placed to the contact person, who told them that the room was no longer needed. As the room setup for a Senate meeting is different from normal, the REPS crew reset the room to normal. However, at 6:00 p.m., the senate came in, moved furniture around, and held their meeting anyway.

For a group that is claiming to empower the students, the actions taken seem to convey the opposite message. Meetings suddenly lack quorum when they don't need it or when people are motivated to attend, whereas meetings with no one around seem to happen. At first, I was willing to chalk this up to coincidence; now I am not so sure. And with more media coverage, there are fewer places to hide.

The next time, they'd better bring a band...

2006-10-20T21:45:00.000-06:00

This publication came from Well Armed Sheep.

I went to the UWM Student Senate emergency meeting in the garage. The posting in the Union listed the purpose as "Discussion of Obtaining Legal Counsel". When we arrived, we got a single sheet of paper with the agenda on one side and a proposed piece of student legislation on the other side. Here is the full text of both; I will comment through parts of it, with full explanation afterward:

AGENDA
Student Association Senate
Emergency Meeting October 20, 2006 7:00 p.m.

1) Call to Order/Approval of the Agenda
2) Reports
3) New Business
a. The Financial Accountability Act of 2006
4) Adjournment

The Financial Accountability Act of 2006
(Comments in italics are mine)
Author: Sen. Daniel V. Bahr
Sponsor: Sen. Bahr

WHEREAS, segregated fee expenditures are governed by (UW-System)Financial Administration Policy F20, and

WHEREAS, the Student Association is charged with allocating segregated fees and ensuring that those fees are being spent legitimately, and

WHEREAS, the Student Association is aware of at least one illegitimate transaction that occurred at the direction of Interim Vice Chancellor James Hill between the UWM Student Union and the Department of Athletics totaling over $100,000.00, and

WHEREAS, the policy of the University, as echoed by Chancellor Carlos Santiago, is that an audit of a SUF (Segregated University Fee) department is permissible at any time under F20 and until such time as the audit can be completed the department must cease functioning (See below for explanation of this comment), and

WHEREAS, F20 allows equally for "SUFAC (Segregated University Fee Allocation Committee, appointed by the Student Association) or the Institution" to demand a financial audit, and

WHEREAS, both SUFAC and the Institution are equal in the eyes of policy F20, and

WHEREAS, SUFAC is a subcommittee of the Senate, comprised entirely of Senators, and

WHEREAS, all actions of SUFAC must also be approved by the Senate;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Student Association is requiring a complete financial audit to be conducted on the following entities: UWM Student Union, Norris Health Center, Klotsche Center, Department of Athletics, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Student Association orders the operatios of these departments must cease immediately in order to comply with the University's interpretation of F20.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Student Association empower the President to use all practical and logical means to enforce this order, and

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Student Association order the President to use any and all private funds to ensure that we effectively address the constitutional crisis facing our government.

Events of the last few days
In light of the controversy over the Sandburg Halls Administrative Council's mysterious check to Senate Speaker Russ Rueden's company, as listed in the UWM Post Blog, there have been calls to audit other records stemming from last year's administration (i.e. when Rueden was Student Association President). As part of this investigation, the University has asked for records relating to the "private SA account" from current SA President Samantha Prahl. By this, she is referring to an account that any student organization can have for funds that aren't part of segregated fees, usually through the UW Credit Union.

Prahl is refusing to release these records for fear of setting a precedent that would allow the University to examine this account any time they felt like it. The University's position is that this account is a legitimate part of the audit per the Policy:

If SUF is received for ongoing operations of an organization, the organization must provide financial records of their entire operation, if requested by the SUFAC or the Institution. An organization's failure to comply with a request for financial information may result in the denial of SUF support and/or use of University facilities.

--UW System Financial Administration Policy F20, Section II.

Therefore, since Ms. Prahl refused to release the records for the "private account", the University invoked the "failure to comply" clause and
denied Student Association the use of its University office.

This proposed legislation is an attempt to respond in kind. If failure to respond to all of an auditing agency's requests is enough to order their denial of University space, then the Student Association can do the same thing by demanding that other organizations submit to an audit. This, however, is flawed on the following grounds:

1) The policy states that the SUFAC can request the financial records, not the Senate that appoints them. While actions of the SUFAC may be subject to Senate approval, there has been no meeting by the SUFAC itself to request this audit.

2) The wording of the policy does seem to favor the University position. It does state the organization "must provide financial records of their entire operation" if requested. The fact that some of these records are not of segregated fees does not seem to be an issue.

3) This move appears to be one of retailation, not of legitimate concern. The alleged illegal transaction is one that has been a part of student government here for years. Back in 2002, money was taken from the Union budget (which makes money from its dining services) and moved to the athletic budget with the full support of the student government at the time. (They even used these payments to demonstrate their commitment to athletics on campus.) Samantha Prahl's claim is that these transfer payments continued without student approval in subsequent years. While I have found no votes to authorize this continued use of funds, neither have I found any votes to disallow it either. Anyone with information one way or the other on this is encouraged to share it with me.

It seems to me that the Student Association is taking an open secret (Union funds being used for athletics) and using this as a pretext to close the entire school. Even so, the question of whether other student organizations on campus are similarly shut down remains. Stay tuned for more details.

Student Association Emergency Meeting to seek legal counsel

2006-10-20T17:32:00.000-06:00

For more on campus issues, see Well Armed Sheep.

There's a rather interesting note up in the Union. It's calling an emergency meeting of the Student Association Senate for tonight at 7:00 p.m., to be held in a garage just off campus (3301 N. Cramer), with the stated purpose of obtaining legal counsel. Rumors are flying about what triggered this particular meeting, but I will wait until I get reliable sources before commenting further.

Trying again

2006-10-19T13:44:00.000-06:00

For more on the state of the UWM campus, visit Well Armed Sheep.

The Union Policy Board is going to try once again to meet, but this time they are going for a time when college students are likely to be awake. So mark your calendars for November 3 at 2:00 p.m.

As there have been a number of office issues, the first meeting (whenever it happens) is likely to be a fun-filled event with many tempers flaring over seemingly inconsequential issues. But even if it doesn't, I will be sure to post what happens.

Come out, ye scurvy dogs!

2006-10-08T13:54:00.000-06:00

For more information about the UWM campus community see the rest of Well Armed Sheep.

In My last entry, I promised you that I would post a full report about what happened at the Union Policy Board meeting at 9:00 a.m. on October 6. Here it is:

We sat around until 9:21, at which point the roll was taken, and only two members were present: Jesse Dercks (Sandburg Halls Administrative Council president) and Michele Nelson. The three members chosen from administration were excused, but the other three listed members from the student side were conspicuously absent. It's amazing that the absent students (Russ Rueden, Robert Stueber and Robert Grover) were all three student members who were part of last year's UPB.

With lack of quorum, the meeting never took place. This is an infectious disease that used to be limited to the Senate and the Court; now it has migrated to entities such as UPB.

There is more to this situation than meets the eye. When I find out, I will post it here.

Union Policy Board -- now at 9:00 a.m. for your convenience...

2006-10-04T14:11:00.000-06:00

This is just one of many comments about the happenings at UWM available at Well Armed Sheep. Please use this link to see the rest.

For those organizations with office troubles that have been waiting to be heard by the Union Policy Board, the good news is that you will have your chance soon. The bad news is that this chance will occur Friday, October 6 at 9:00 a.m. in the UWM Union.

When it comes to scheduling, early Friday morning is usually defined by either sleeping off the night before, studying for the Monday after, or getting all that stuff done you don't have any other time for. If I were scheduling to have the lowest student input, Friday at 9:00 would be one of my top choices.

I will post a full report about what happens at that meeting here.

Just when you thought there was nothing there...

2006-09-25T18:53:00.000-06:00

Remember when I asked if anyone was going to try to come in at 6:00 and run the meeting that was never announced? Well, that's what happened. Despite the fact that the Fireside Lounge was reset to its original configuration, the Student Senate came in, pushed some chairs around and approved everything.

Actually, "approved" is a bit of a misnomer, since there wasn't much going on beside Speaker Rueden asking if there were any objections to the things presented, and pushing them through. While this makes for short meetings, it defeats the work of the Senate as a deliberative body, where ideas are given a full hearing to weed out the bad ones. Here the bad ideas stayed without objection, even to the point where the Senate Allocation Committee bylaws now require the desecration of its leaders.

People who are monitoring this are encouraged to report any news they find.

Vanishing Student Association

2006-09-24T16:05:00.000-06:00

The meeting of the Student Association Senate, scheduled with Reservations and Event Planning Services for 3:00 p.m. today, has been canceled. This is despite the fact that the SA website lists the meeting as beginning at 6:00 p.m, not 3:00. Anyone who has information about whether people arrive at 6:00 to a room that will likely be reset to its original configuration by then is encouraged to share.

In any case, the agenda for this meeting (linked to the above tag) listed the approval of the Senate Allocation Committee (SAC) bylaws as an item to be done. Although a rewrite is promised, there has yet to be any assurance that the most onerous provisions are being removed. These would include the large amount of documentation that a student organization would need to provide in order to receive and retain funds, the provision that student organizations get renewed at the discretion of the SAC Chair and Vice Chair (the document says "desecration", but I don't think that's what they really want -- if they do, I have goat's blood ready to smear on both of them), and the attempt to divorce themselves from Student Court oversight (not that it matters if the Court will never get enough members to function, but it's still good to at least pretend there is an overseeing body).

By my count, the Court is non-functional, the Senate is canceling meetings, so that leaves only one branch of Student Government that at least attempts to function. That's a recipe for disaster if I've ever heard of one.

Haven't we seen this before?

2006-09-23T13:27:00.000-06:00

Despite the referendum to expand the number of Student Court justices, we once again have too few available to do anything. Amazing how this happens just as there is a serious challenge to the power of a student governmental body that needs the Court attention. There are plans to deal with this crisis; more as they unfold.

Update and Question of the Day

2006-09-10T12:12:00.000-06:00

Well, in response to the last update (see this article for more details), there will be two session of a "Student Organization Town Hall Forum" this Tuesday September 12. One will be at noon, and the other at 5:00 p.m. Both are to be held in the former Student Association office, Room 363.

This is certainly an improvement, but there are a few things that need to be said. First, if this is meant to be a fulfillment of the legislation requiring a town hall meeting every semester, why is it listed as a "Student Organization Town Hall Meeting"? I thought the legislation was to provide dialogue between the students and their representatives. What do the student organizations have to do with this? Second, if Student Association wants to help the organizations, why don't they just remand 363 back to the Union Policy Board for division into more student office space? (On another note, I can't find any mention of if or when UPB ceded that space from their control in the first place.) And finally, what's the idea of holding it on the same day as an important primary election for several offices, such as Sheriff and Attorney General? Are they trying to depress the turnout? Now that you know about it, feel free to attend yourself and post your comments about it here.

Question of the Day
Why is the ashtray that's under the overhang between EMS and Physics located inside the 30-foot no-smoking zone of the door leading to the 24-hour computer lab? As readers may know, I have thought the whole process has been pushed through without sufficient student input, and even then, the 38% of students who opposed this in the survey that was taken form a substantial minority that needs to be adressed. But now that the rules are in place, shouldn't the people who made them stop creating situations that encourage violations?

Doesn't SA believe in following its own legislation?

2006-09-06T19:03:00.000-06:00

Whatever happened to this?

Senate 2005 - 2006

S06 – 019

SA Town Hall Forum Accountability and Access Act

Author: Senator Brostoff

Sponsors: Senator R. Duncan

Whereas the Student Association of the University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee is the representative body of the student body; and

Whereas, the Student Association is responsible to the student body to help address their concerns and problems; and

Whereas, the Student Association should be accessible to the student body at large at all times; and

Whereas, the Student Association exists to serve the needs and interests of the student body; and

Whereas, the needs of the student body can best be expressed with an open dialogue between the students at their representatives;

Therefore be it resolved that the Student Association host a town hall forum with the expressed intent to receive input from the student body at large at least once a semester, and the aforementioned forum will be separate from the State Of the Students Address (SOSA), and

Be it further resolved that the Fall semester forum occur in September or October and the Spring semester forum occur in March or April, and

Be it further resolved that both the officers of the Legislative and Executive branch must participate in the forum, and

Be it further resolved that the Deputy Speaker of the Senate (or designee) be charged with organizing the forum including logistical support, scheduling, marketing, and ensuring participation by both the Legislative branch and the Executive branch.

I have been assured by people that this was passed and signed by SA, yet the proscribed Town Hall events never happened. What is going on here?

What's really going on?

2006-08-04T11:19:00.000-06:00

Given my limited time to deal with this blog, I am looking for others who have the information that the UWM campus needs to understand the truth. So if you see other people here, you'll know why.

So many targets, so little time...

2006-03-13T18:06:00.000-06:00

Well, there are many things that need to be mentioned, but I don't have enough time to give them the full attention they deserve. So like the current (drive-by) media, I will simply mention each of them and get to more details when I can...

1) SB 329 has now passed the Senate. In case you haven't been paying attention, this bill of attainder against UWM allows the City of Milwaukee to set aside one parking space near campus for residents only for every parking space we build on campus. So why should we build more parking now?

2) The Student Association right now is in need of effective leadership. The petition to remove Alderman D'Amato seems to be going nowhere. The events board in front of Union 363 (home office for SA until June 1) is both poorly done and of questionable accuracy. The Student Court, which is supposed to be the co-equal third branch of student government, is in limbo because they can't keep three justices in place.

3) The smoking ban has been sent to the Union Policy Board, where they were asked to get air quality samples to see if there is really any problem with the 8th Note maintaining smoking. My guess is that the UPB will ignore the request, but stranger things have been known to occur

4) There is still no election procedure in place. Given that the election is supposed to happen soon, the fact that no nomination papers are out is scary.

I'll get back to more later.

Beginning to Recall...

2006-02-18T11:35:00.000-06:00

The following e-mail has been distributed to UWM students:

UWM students are considering the recall of Alderman Michael D'Amato and we need your help! This is an effort headed by officials of the UWM Student Association to protect students, our rights and our pocketbooks.

Alderman D’Amato is responsible for Friday morning street sweeping – which in 2003 alone resulted in over 13,000 cars being towed – costing over $1.5 million in tickets and tow fees!

Have you ever received a parking ticket? You’re not alone! Last year over 248,000 parking tickets were issued around the UWM campus – totaling almost $5 million in fines! The Alderman is the only one that can change this – Ald. D’Amato refuses!

Even worse, he wants to rezone the UWM neighborhood to prohibit students from living within 400 feet of each other.

Bottom line – the students need an Alderman that supports students.

We need students like YOU!

If you are interested in a possible recall, please attend an organizing session at one of the following times:
1) Sunday, February 19, 2006 at 6:00 or 7:00 PM
Location: UWM Union Ballroom
2) Monday, February 20, 2006 at 4:00 or 5:00 PM
Location: UWM Union Room 191

Please email us for more information!

Thank you!

Alex Walters
UWM Student Association
2200 East Kenwood Blvd.
Milwaukee, WI 53211
Ph: 414-229-4366
uwmstudents@gmail.com

Heads up

2006-02-14T21:19:00.000-06:00

Flyers have started appearing on campus recruiting people to recall Alderman Mike D'Amato. It appears as though the Student Association may be planning to spearhead a recall effort. This would be one of the more ambitious effort to date. These flyers ask people to email annya@uwm.edu to volunteer.

Raises Concern...

2006-02-10T17:57:00.000-06:00

What planet do the UW Regents live on in order to raise the salary of the UW-Madison Chancellor by $56,000? If they want to improve the climate in the system, they can take half of that and pay me as an advisor to cut fraud and waste. Good luck getting that proposal through...

Cameras in the Union

2006-02-07T13:11:00.000-06:00

Whose bright idea was is to put cameras in the Union, and how much are we paying for them? Also, looking into the recesses where the cameras are held, they are either very small (and hidden in the back of the recesses) or are not installed yet. Either way, there is cause for concern.

What Were They Thinking?

2006-02-03T11:51:00.000-06:00

When the Student Association held an event to make students more aware of the organizations on campus, they offered pizza to those who showed up. This, however, lasted about a half hour, and the event quickly fizzled after that. Apparently, the SA didn't think there would be all that many people showing up, so they didn't plan for much food.

Here's the question I have: What kind of organization plans an event that they expect will fail? That's a guarantee for failure, and shows the silliness of the attempt.

Where is the Outrage?

2006-01-24T19:47:00.000-06:00

In April of 2005, a letter was sent out by several prominent multicultural groups on campus demanding that the person who sent out a derogatory and incendiary e-mail be punished to the full extent of the law and University policy. Now here it is nine months later, and the no actual punishments have been handed out.

Where is the outrage? Is the fact that a name was attached to the events sufficient, or has everyone simply forgotten about it? I haven't forgotten...

Being Jerked Around by the Soda Contract

2006-01-22T21:30:00.000-06:00

Does anyone else think it's strange that when the University renegotiated the soda contract they mandated that the prices go up? Or that the only substantive difference between the proposals was that Pepsi offered 56% of the profit margin, as opposed to the contractual minimum of 55.5% that Coke offered? Where does this money go, and what is being done with it? Anyone with information is welcome to share...

Signs of the Times

2006-01-11T18:13:00.000-06:00

The board near the Campus Activities Board office, which once had the "Destroy the UWM Times" statement from indymedia.org now has the UWM Leader posted on it so that the editorial about the Times ("UWM Times must acknowledge its agenda") is the only thing visible. Apparently, the same person or persons who had a problem with the Times couldn't stop trying to undermine them.

If you don't like something, don't patronize it. It has been my experience that those who take such extreme steps to destroy something only make it stronger, but time will tell.

Remodeling

2006-01-04T10:42:00.000-06:00

Has anyone noticed just how much remodeling of buildings goes on at UWM? Over Winterim, we have the remodeling of a staircase in the Union that over half the people who use the Union don't even know exists, as well as yet another remodeling of the EMS building. It's time an investigation took place as to how much of our tuition money is being spent on these projects...

2005-12-11T13:53:00.000-06:00

This is me doing what comes naturally.

Disguising the problem...

2005-12-09T15:09:00.000-06:00

When The Leader reported the latest Senate Finance Committee figures, they did so in the usual format: cost per student. To figure out the actual fifure, multiply the figures by the 28,000+ students that pay it. That's how they get the $18,000,000 figure.

Think about it. There's 18 million dollars that we pay that aren't going to tuition, but other things. Where is all this going? A full account of this money is in order.

Free Speech Applies to Everyone -- Especially the ones you hate!

2005-12-06T17:20:00.000-06:00

The idea behind free speech is that everyone has the right to publish what they want, and that if you don't agree with it, don't read it. But someone who posts on indymedia.org disagrees with this.

Regardless of one's personal ideology, the idea of actively advocating the suppression of unpopular ideas should bring universal condemnation.

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Reason Not to Attend Marquette, Volume 1

2005-12-06T12:16:00.000-06:00

If you think that having students being ignored is a problem at UWM, take a look at this report about a Marquette student who should have been ignored but wasn't. Just giving a few comments about a random professor and a quarter of the students with whom he has classes with is cause for having to repeat an entire semester? Give me a break!

Let them try and come after this site, and we'll see just how many well armed sheep there are...

Stupid Quote of the Week

2005-12-05T13:46:00.000-06:00

This week's winner is professor Arthur Brooks, who is quoted in the UWM Post as saying, "As a scientist I cannot understand why anyone continues to smoke given the overwhelming evidence that clearly shows smoking to be harmful to one's health." In our continuing role as advocates for the obvious, let me explain.

It is common knowledge that smoking is an addiction. If someone is addicted, they focus on doing the addictive behavior, to the exclusion of factors that would encourage them to stop, such as reasoned arguments about how detrimental it is. I have run into people who can cite every health risk associated with smoking but still do it because they don't have the willpower to stop (by their own admission, no less). Stopping something based on knowledge of its drawbacks is a rational response. Addiction, by definition, is not rational. People cannot be reasoned out of something they didn't reason themselves into.

If smoking can be solved by education, it is not an addiction. But we know that it is an addiction, so as a logician I cannot understand why anyone continues to promote educating the public about the dangers of smoking given the overwhelming evidence that clearly shows educating someone to overcome smoking to be useless.

Senate Bill 329 Update

2005-12-05T13:25:00.000-06:00

It has come to our attention that this bill, whose sole purpose for existing is to maintain the parking squeeze on our campus, has made it out of committee and thus has the potential to come before the Wisconsin State Senate. Without a strong push from students, it is likely to pass, simply because no senator is going to vote against having the local area impose restrictions on itself.

What they fail to realize is that if SB 329 passes, anyone who actually lives near campus can start leasing out parking spaces in the reserved areas to their "guests". If you read the text of the bill (found at ), the reserved spaces can be used by "persons whose residences are adjacent to [UWM, and] guests of such persons". So if you happen to live near campus, what stops you from having some person who pays you $200 per month to be your "guest"?

My sister thinks I'm crazy for wanting to move next to campus. Bills like this make me look more and more sane every day...

The Power of Suggestion....

2005-12-02T13:42:00.000-06:00

At one time, there were actual suggestion boxes in the Union. These were locked boxes with comment cards near them where people could ask questions and offer suggestions on how to improve the Union. Each floor had one, and if you know where to look, the holes drilled into the pillars and wall are still visible. (You can e-mail me if you want me to point them all out.) Along with these, there were display boards that took questions posed and offered responses from the Union Policy Board and other staff members who could act on the suggestions made.

Instead of these, there are now "electronic comment cards" that you can go to any of the kiosk computers and use from the main menu. The idea is that you can do the same sort of commentary but without all the bulky boxes cluttering up the Union.

The problem with this lies in human nature. If you don't use the kiosks for your computer needs, you probably will never see the option for a comment. Even if you do use a kiosk, are you going to remember to file your comment when you're there? With a suggestion box in place, it offers a constant reminder. Eventually you'll remember to put your response in.

This is still no guarantee that anyone will listen. In 1999, I put a suggestion in one of these boxes. In 2000, the comment card was still in the bottom of the box and the response board hadn't been updated, so I put another one into the same box, suggesting that they pay more attention to the boxes. The two of them sat for another year before the box was removed. (The response board was still in place and hadn't been updated since my first comment was placed in 1999.) When I ran for Student Senate in 2003, I mentioned my story during a party organizing event, which prompted the removal of most of the rest of the suggestion boxes and the display boards for responses. The last one (near the 8th Note) was removed in 2004. Am I the only one that finds this suspicious?

Interim Promotions -- A Start

2005-12-01T13:02:00.000-06:00

The UWM home page (http://www.uwm.edu) today officially recognized James Hill as the Interim Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs and Tom McGinnity as the Interim Dean of Students. This is a good sign, but we can't assume that this guarantees that our voices will be heard. It is still possible for the Chancellor to phase out the department from this position, so we still need to be alert -- and armed.

"Allowable Increase" misses the point.

2005-11-29T16:01:00.000-06:00

Our fine campus newspapers have pointed out that the Senate Finance Committee has graciously chosen to raise Segregated Fee money (that is, money that we pay along with our tuition that goes for student organization and activity expenses) in an amount less than what is the allowable maximum. While this demonstrates amazing restraint on the part of the SFC, it represents an endemic problem on this campus.

The problem is that the people who get to choose how much of our money they take from us seem to believe that since a certain increase is allowable, it is therefore "gracious" of them if they don't stick us with the maximum hit. Most of the extra money was sucked up by the U-Pass increase, but even so, aren't we taking enough of a hit from tuition increases? It shouldn't be too big of a leap of logic to conclude that maybe keeping the student portion down is a good idea, but what do I know?

The Holidays Have Names

2005-11-26T13:05:00.000-06:00

In the parlance of the day, we are now officially into the "Holiday Season." People greet each other with such amorphous greetings as "Happy Holidays" and "Season's Greetings" to the point where it is almost impossible to make out the individual holidays underneath. If you are one of these people, here is a brief introduction to the holidays involved:

Thanksgiving
This is the one that just passed. The proclamation that authorizes it each year encourages us to give thanks to God for the many blessings of the past year. You may have heard stories about Pilgrims from England and Native Americans coming together for a feast in the early days of Plymouth Colony. That much is true. Investigate the rest carefully on your own.

Oh, if Benjamin Franklin had been in charge of the national mascot, we'd have a turkey on our Great Seal and serve bald eagle for Thanksgiving.

Hannukah (or however it's spelled this year)
This is a celebration of a miracle of Jewish deliverance. God allowed a small supply of oil to last for eight days in a time of need.

Some people try to integrate Hannukah and Christmas, but that makes everyone who tries look silly. If you're a practicing Jew, I expect to see a menorah (the candleholder that commemorates the eight-day affair) in your house, not a Christmas tree cleverly disguised as a "Hannukah Bush".

Christmas
This is when Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus, the Christ. (Christ is a title, synonymous with Messiah, and it was not his last name.) If you aren't a Christian, you can do what you want on that day, just leave us alone and let us celebrate. Like any tradition, there have been a few things added over the years that have little bearing to the original meaning, such as Christmas trees, wreaths, and eggnog. Even the date was chosen for political reasons (see Kwanzaa, below for more details).

There are plenty of non-religious items attached to this religious holiday, so if you want to celebrate just because we Christians are, you can attach yourself to them. Just bear in mind that we who are Christians have a specific purpose to our celebration. A spirit of toleration is in order here: I won't care if you don't pray on December 25th as long as you don't care if I do.

Kwanzaa
This is an attempt to instill African heritage into people who have been removed from their African roots. The dates are chosen specifically to overlap the time from Christmas to New Year's Day. I have no problem with that, given that the date for the Christmas Feast was specifically chosen to coincide with the Roman Saturnalia celebration.

New Year's Day
This has become less of a celebration in favor of New Year's Eve, during which people choose to stay up all night drinking so they don't feel ashamed kissing the nearest member of the opposite sex when the new year finally arrives at midnight. Also, people "resolve" to do things during the next year, such as giving up drinking, that never actually get completed.

The holidays have names. Please do everyone a favor and use them whenever appropriate.

[On a personal note, I don't believe in wishing anyone "Season's Greetings". The season is winter, and what winter greets you with is snow and bitter cold. Why would I wish that on anyone?]

PantherPrint -- Stirring an old hornets' nest

2005-11-22T14:20:00.000-06:00

A bit of history for the newer students here at UWM:

Once upon a time, there was a time when students could print "for free" in the I&MT computer labs. To be honest, anyone with a valid PantherID could print, as there was no card reader attached to the printer.

However, like every other service here on campus, it was doomed. Although there is a technology fee assessed as part of tuition, apparently nobody thought to apply part of it to cover the printing costs. So this cost recovery system known as PantherPrint came into being. (Ever notice how things supposedly become cool if they make reference to the school mascot, such as PantherPrint and PantherProf?)

The response at the time was that the Education Technology Fee didn't cover printing costs. However, as is documented at https://www3.uwm.edu/imt/services/campus/printing/questions.cfm, Education Technology fees are used to subsidize the printing cost in part. (That's supposedly why we pay 6 cents per sheet instead of 8 cents.)

I appreciate the efforts of the students who worked hard to ease the burden this imposes on the entire student body. But there are still several questions that have yet to be answered. Why can't we just add a bit to the Education Technology Fee and print what we need? What are students who are barely scraping by financially and have no print access by other means supposed to do when their professors assign large papers? Or the others that expect that their mountain of e-reserve reading be brought into class for discussion? Students should never have to choose between printing necessary class materials and paying bills.

There are some who would see an issue regarding high-volume users printing large numbers of documents for personal use. If that proved to be a problem, that could easily be solved. Assume that an average student prints 100 pages a semester for school work, for example. Give each student a card at the start of the semester to cover that amount, and those who exceed the print limit can pay for any excess. If a professor needs to have extra pages printed by each student, have an additional print card with enough credit to cover the costs available.

We who have been here before will not forget. Neither should you.

The One Problem I Have With Smoking Bans (and the like)

2005-11-21T11:36:00.000-06:00

The latest issue of The Leader brings up the issue of whether the Chancellor will uphold the recommendations of the Physical Environment Committee on campus and restrict smoking access in the Union. This is all well and good except for one thing: We, the students of UWM, pay for the maintenance of the Union through Segregated Fees. As a result, it should be expected that we would be able to make the decisions for this building.

As the article pointed out, there was no real input from the students before this decision was made. This is a common theme around here, and we cannot let it continue. Personally, I don't smoke, and any decision to ban smoking in the Union will not affect me in the slightest, but the decision should be made by us, not by random officials who rarely visit the Union.

We're still watching...

2005-11-17T18:00:00.000-06:00

The past year's elections for Student Association President, Vice President and Senate were, to put it mildly, a disaster. Charges of questionable campaign practices and of bias on the part of officials who are supposed to be independent observers of the process have led to one of the more screwed-up situations in recent memory. (Yes, this is even worse than the situation in April 2004, where the election was nearly thrown out because it was held over Passover, denying the Orthodox Jewish students a chance to participate.)

In theory, this was supposed to be fixed by an independent commission whose job it would be to fix the mistakes of the past two years, but as of today, this has not happened. The integrity and sanctity of this process need to be protected.

I for one am willing to wait to see whether this process actually takes place, and if so, what results come from it. I will keep people posted.

Senate Bill 329 -- The Catch-22 that may catch you!

2005-11-16T12:40:00.000-06:00

There is a bill going through the Wisconsin legislature that would defeat the purpose of building extra parking spaces on campus. The text of this bill follows, with my explanatory comments:

The people of the state of Wisconsin, represented in senate and assembly, do enact as follows:

Section 1. 349.13 (1k) of the statutes is created to read:

349.13 (1k) (a) As provided in par. (b), a local authority, with respect to highways under its jurisdiction including connecting highways within corporate limits, may authorize persons whose residences abut a highway in a zone where parking is prohibited by official signs, guests of such person, and commercial enterprises providing services to such persons to park their vehicles in the highway zone without regard to the posted prohibitions. [In other words, if the provisions below are met, a local authority (city, village or town) can make an exception to local parking prohibitions for area residents, guests of residents, and business entities in the area.]

(b) If a University of Wisconsin System college campus located in a 1st class city [note, there is only one "1st class city" in the state of Wisconsin, namely Milwaukee] creates 721 parking spaces on campus [which, amazingly enough, is the exact size of the Klotsche parking structure], a 1st class city may initiate a program to reserve 721 parking spaces for persons who residences are adjacent to the University of Wisconsin System college campus, guests of such persons, and commercial enterprises providing services to such persons. [In short, the gains that UWM intended to make by providing extra parking at Klotsche could be canceled by reserving an equal number of near-campus parking spaces for residents, guests and businesses.] If a University of Wisconsin System college campus located in a 1st class city creates additional parking spaces on campus, a 1st class city may reserve an equal number of parking spaces for persons whose residences are adjacent to the University of Wisconsin System college campus, guests of such persons, and commercial enterprises providing services to such persons. [So the city of Milwaukee would not only be able to cancel the effect of the current Klotsche parking garage, but also every future parking structure that UWM may choose to build.]

This denial of access to campus cannot be tolerated. Wisconsin lawmakers need to be informed of the horrors of trying to find a place to park now and how such a disastrous bill would only make things worse. The primary business of Milwaukee's East Side is the university; making it impossible to get there will only stagnate the area.

Union Counting Day

2005-11-15T22:01:00.000-06:00

If you came into the Union today, you probably saw the random flunkies posted near the door. Why are they there? To count you!

Every year, on the third Tuesday of November, the Union staff hires a bunch of minimum wage flunkies to assist the rest of their flunkies in counting how many people enter the Union through each of its access doors. This is fine in general, but the process is horribly flawed and cumbersome. Why are we continuing to pay for this?

There is one person assigned to each door at any given time. This means that someone who needs to take a bathroom or lunch break must get someone to cover the door, leave the door unattended (and thus uncounted), or worse. I know for a fact that the 3rd Floor entrance door that enters the Student Organization wing near Union 381 was unattended at 1:30 p.m. (I left from that door), only to find two of the Rent-a-Temps on an extended lunch break at City Subs. (I was counted coming back into the Union near Burger King -- I think.)

I know someone who was hired for this two years ago, and he told me that when a large mass of people comes through the assigned door at one time, the temps are supposed to do an "amazingly accurate survey of the number of that group" known as guessing. The real number doesn't matter, he was told, as long as it's close. At the time, he was apparently considered so skilled at this task that he was assigned two doors at once (the one near Burger King and the other one near City Subs). With one clicker in each hand, he had the amazing task of directing his eyes toward two different targets, each of which required precise guesswork to count. He doesn't remember how many times he hit the wrong counter, but they may have balanced out.

The brief survey I did this year indicates that, as far as I saw, each person had only one door this time. But just think about how dull this work is! Sitting at a table (if you're lucky), watching one door and counting off the people as they enter is not my idea of work that inspires mental acuity. Don't we see movies and commercials about people who count sheep to fall asleep??? After about an hour of this, I'd be ready to confess to crimes I never committed, if it meant not having to fill the remaining seven hours of drudgery awaiting me.

Oh, just because these people are being paid minimum wage doesn't mean that UWM is getting them cheap. These workers are being hired through an agency that charges far more than the minimum wage and keeps the difference. If this work is really that necessary, isn't it cheaper to find a few students who have nothing better to do and pay them a decent wage for a few hours to get it done? This would waste less, and if the shifts were small enough, might actually yield better results.

We need to count at UWM, not be counted.

Make the Chancellor Listen!

2005-11-15T21:38:00.000-06:00

There is talk that the Chancellor may not fill the position formerly held by Mary Roggeman, Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs. In fact, the entire department may be phased out. This is unfortunate, as this department is the most direct link between students and the administration.

The Student Association, in Union 363, is organizing a petition demanding that the Chancellor retain this vital department. We encourage everyone to sign up.

Big Changes Ahead? Only if we don't stop them!

2005-11-15T14:46:00.000-06:00

It has come to the attention of the Well Armed Sheep that there is dissatisfaction among the administration types over the functioning of certain Union entities, such as Reservations & Event Planning. Apparently, the idea of the Student Union building providing free rooms for Registered Student Organizations is too much for these "profit before people" hacks to handle. So the goal is to eventually eliminate this service. Of course, considering that the going rate for even the smallest of these conference rooms is $130.00 per day, this would effectively drive registered student organizations out of the Union that is paid for with their own segregated fees. This is the first of many examples of the shepherds of this university failing to protect us.

What is Well Armed Sheep?

2005-11-15T14:27:00.000-06:00

Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on dinner. Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting the result.

The Well Armed Sheep is your one-stop center for news about how the liberties of the students at UW-Milwaukee are eroding before our eyes. We encourage our readers to fight these abuses in any legal way they can. Give us your reports and your success stories.