What are you guarding?

I am taking a bit of a leave from my standard fare to explore part of the philosophy of Well Armed Sheep and my take on it. It deals with what I consider the role of this weblog to be. I will begin, though, with a few hypothetical situations.

Suppose you are trying desperately to get one of the new video game systems out there (you know, whatever the hot new thing is out there that they only make about 100,000 of even though about 100 times as many people will want it as soon as it comes out and you get people willing to pay 5-10 times retail for it on Ebay). You have a friend who works in a store that's selling them. Do you ask your friend to hold one for you? If the friend offers to hold one for you, do you accept? What if the friend asks for money to hold it for you?

You are trying to get a law passed. Everything is written, passed, goes through the proper channels and spurs a lively debate on the floor, but it is destined to fail for lack of support. Does this bolster your confidence in the government or undermine it? What if a key opponent offers to let it through in exchange for something else?

I could bring up more of these, but the point I am trying to make here is one of choices that we all must make from time to time. I see many decisions as being made based on one is a guardian of results or of process. I believe that there are times when being a guardian of results is the best course of action, whereas other times being a guardian of process is correct, but the overall balance for me weighs in favor of process. And that is what this weblog is geared toward: guarding the process of student government from abuse by those who are too focused on results.

A person who acts as mostly a guardian of results often appears to me to be one who lacks conviction and principles. I see it as a willingness to change the rules to suit one's own desires at the time. When a group gains power by challenging the corruption of others but tolerates the same or worse among its own members, I see them as guarding results over process, and that frightens me.

This means that, in most cases, I believe a good process is better than a favorable result. If the process is upheld but the particular decision goes against me, so be it. Now there are times when the process itself is bad, and as such, bypassing it may be for the best for everyone. I don't have a problem with that, so long as this becomes a catalyst for fixing the process. Without that balance, the possibility of abuse and favoritism is too great, and everything falls apart.

With that in mind, let me make it clear that I don't believe that student government should be abolished. Rather, the processes that are being abused need to be fixed, and those who are abusing them need to be taken to task for them. I don't mind rules that create restrictions, as long as they apply to everyone; for if the rules prove too abusive, the fact that they are universally applied will cause them to become unpopular and thus worthy of change.

I am starting to hear more people who agree with this concept. Welcome aboard!

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.

"Wigg-ing Out" -- A response

James Wigderson's blog quoted my article in the University Standard and used it as more evidence of his position that student government should be abolished. I would like to respond to the comments made there.

I do not believe that we should abolish student governance in the current environment. So long as the U.S. Supreme Court affirms the legality of student segregated fees, and the University of Wisconsin System campuses keep charging them, a student body on these campuses to administer the use of these funds is necessary. The exact form and scope of the body is up for debate, but failing to provide for such an administrative body devolves the practice into taxation without representation, and this nation's founding fathers fought a war to oppose that.

I realize that such a body is prone to corruption. Student politicians, like other politicians, have a hard time keeping their hands out of a money bag that appears to be lying unnoticed in front of them. The only check on corrupt officials in any governmental institution, though, is a vigilant and informed public. Vigilance has been lacking for quite some time, but until recently, the information has been there for those of us who have been around enough to know where to find it.

The discontent and the outrage over issues are both greater now than in the past. This is because the most recent incarnations of UWM's student government have become more outrageous by dropping all pretenses of propriety. The end of the 2004-2005 school year saw the SA senate paralyzed by enough factions boycotting the proceedings at key times that quorum could never be achieved. In the 2005-2006 school year, the primary tool for stagnating the process was the depletion of the Student Court. At the conclusion of the election that created the student government for that year, the following was posted in the Student Activities Office newsletter:

STUDENT COURT APPLICATIONS

If anyone is interested in filling the current Court vacancy, please submit a resume, cover letter, and two recommendations to the Student Activities Office c/o Student Court by Tuesday, March 29, 2005 at noon. For the two recommendations, include one personal recommendation from someone that knows you well and one from a legal scholar that can attest to you knowledge of the legal field. These recommendations are to be sealed in an envelope with the signature of the author of the recommendation across the seal.

In addition, you must also respond to all of the requirements outlined below. The interview stage will consist of a presentation and questioning period. You must make a presentation on the following topic: "The role of the judiciary in a three branch government." The presentation should last no less than 10 minutes and no more than 20 minutes. Following the presentation, a standard question and answer period will take place. All candidates must be available on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 from 3:00PM until 9:00PM for their presentation and interview. Questions: email chief@uwm.edu.

1. List all of the powers of the University Student Court.
2. Explain the importance of the University Student Court in terms of Student Organizations.
3. Explain in detail any legal experience you may have.
4. Is a court justice ever required to recuse themselves? Please describe each instance.
5. What importance do you place on precedent?
6. Please rephrase the entire Section 10 of the University Student Court Bylaws in terms of a timeline.
7. Does the University Student Court have the power to affect the election? Elaborate on all of the powers of the court in this instance.
8. Please review the Bush v. Gore opinions from the High Court at http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html and prepare briefs of the following opinions:
-Opinion
-Concurrence (C.J. Rehnquist)
-Dissent (Stevens)
-Dissent (Souter)
-Dissent (Ginsburg)
-Dissent (Breyer)

You must have six separate briefs, one for each of the opinions above. Each one must be 3/4 of a page at 12 pt font, 1 inch margins, double spaced. Responses to these eight requirements must be attached to your resume and cover letter. All submissions must be in print format

I understand the desire to make sure that qualified people are applying, but the requirements here made sure that practically no one could meet them. This year's requirements are at least as strict, and as such, Samantha Prahl can claim that she is sending up for appointment the only two applicants for the Court position, even though there are five openings. This dearth of Court members has led to situations where people can't get the relief to which they are entitled, simply because there is no one to grant it.

So what do we do? The same thing any other group must do if it wants to fix a dysfunctional governmental system:

1. Fix the problems that are present in the current system. This means that either amendments to the SA Constitution need to be made to prevent the strangling of the inherent checks and balances system, or a new one must be built from the ground up that prevents the problem from occurring to begin with.

2. Truly keep the electorate informed. Part of the problem is that there is a large section of the electorate that doesn't get involved until large checks are cut in apparent embezzlement schemes. But there are enough leader types who can keep track of the byzantine workings of student government if they know what to look for.

3. Work with those who can enforce the mandates. In this case, I'm referring to the administration. There won't be any issue of having fewer than the three justices required to conduct any business on the Student Court if the Constitution states that the entire Student Government is dissolved if the number of justices remains below five for more than 14 days. The failure of the Union Policy board to meet once this school year would be less of a problem if that failure gave the Union Director license to act independently until its next scheduled meeting. By using either the power or the threat of administration takeover, the student government becomes more motivated to act responsibly.

There have been past failures in reforming the system, but the need to have some system of student input into fees that are being charged for student activities remains. As such, the reformation efforts continue until something works.

Articles From University Standard newspaper

At the request of the University Standard newspaper on campus, I posted a history (warning, it's long) of events of the last few months.

Also, Drew Baryenbruch has added his commentaries:
Democracy Now an Illusion at UWM
Let's See What Happens

The letter that triggered the lockdown

In addition to Interim Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs James Hill's letter informing Student Association of their denial of service, a copy of the e-mail that Samantha sent to the Director of UWM's Internal Audit Deparment was posted as well:

Date: October 18, 2006
To: Paul W. Rediske (Director, Internal Audit Department)
CC: Sherwood G. Wilson (Vice Chancellor, Finance & Administrative Affairs)
Sub: Student Association Audit

Director Rediske,

I would like to make the position of the Student Association clear; it is my intention, and the intention of the Student Association, to work with the university administration to conduct an audit of our financial accounts that is both just and preserves the integrity of an independent association. A very dangerous precedent is set when an independent association is subject to unbridled intervention by a co-equal in university governance. As such, it is our hope to continue the discussion to find an amenable solution that preserves the legitimacy of our independent association.

I ask that you please work with me to develop the most appropriate solution to this situation that will satisfy both parties.

In service,

Samantha Prahl
President
Student Association

Every Student Association I have witnessed has had delusions of grandeur, but calling itself a "co-equal in university governance" is a bit much. And if they are a co-equal, how can they be an independent association?

It also seems clear to me from the tone of this e-mail that Ms. Prahl was made aware that consequences would be forthcoming before sending it. If there is a working arrangement, or if there is progress being made toward one, there is no need for such language as "it is our hope to continue the discussion" or "I ask that you please work with me". These are the words that come a person who has been clearly told that her position is unacceptable and her refusal is about to get her in trouble.

If my supposition is correct, then President Prahl had one to two days notice that something along the lines of the lockdown was about to take place. Who else knew, and what did anyone do about it? She spoke at the meeting in the garage about how much harm is being done to students by the SA office being locked down. If she could have prevented the lockdown but failed to act, isn't part of the blame for that harm on her?

Haven't we seen this before?

Despite the referendum to expand the number of Student Court justices, we once again have too few available to do anything. Amazing how this happens just as there is a serious challenge to the power of a student governmental body that needs the Court attention. There are plans to deal with this crisis; more as they unfold.