Restructuring the Division of Student Affairs?

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.

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

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.

SA press release leaves much to be desired

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

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

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

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

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.

The letter that triggered the lockdown

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...

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.