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

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

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

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

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

Article II -- Meetings

Section 6 -- Emergency Senate Meetings (for those of you following with your own copy of the Senate Bylaws, it's the second Section 6 -- i.e. the one after the Section 6 dealing with the State of the Students Address)

a. Emergency Senate meetings shall be called by the Speaker of the Senate or by the request of 5 senators, in writing, to the Speaker.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Cute little detail about October 29 Senate Meeting

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

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

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

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.

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.

Student Association Emergency Meeting to seek legal counsel

For more on campus issues, see Well Armed Sheep.

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

Trying again

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

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

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

Come out, ye scurvy dogs!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just when you thought there was nothing there...

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

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

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

Vanishing Student Association

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

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

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