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.

Looking into the jaws of the SFC Bylaws tiger

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.