Coming off the milk carton

SA Thanksgiving Photo


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

Rueden in Senate Appropriations?

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?

The Original Separation of Powers

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.

Fireworks at SA Senate meeting

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

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.

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.

Interesting Observation

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

AcerPrudens
is an anagram for
Rueden's crap

Need I say more?

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.

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

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.

Just when you thought there was nothing there...

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.