Wondering about Senate Agenda

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.

Dilatory motion detected

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

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.

More on October 29 Senate Agenda

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.