Biddy, you might want to take back those words…

May 30, 2010

I know this is quite late, but I just had to point this out since no one else seems to have picked up on it ’round the blogs.

Something Chancellor Martin said at graduation has severely irked me. She made these comments at the L&S graduation ceremonies on Sunday:

We need you to help preserve the quality of this great university. You’ve already shown that you’re willing to contribute what you can. You are among the students who voted to raise your own tuition and I know that the families who are gathered here are really happy that you did.

I want to thank you for voting to raise you own tuition, because I congratulate you for taking the long view, and for caring not only about the value of your own degrees long term, but also about the welfare of future generations and the university as a whole. It’s taking the long view that we need another generation to seize hold of.

Was there a vote? Sure. From ASM. And Martin was very happy about that. But to say that the student body voted for that is appalling. I support the Madison Initiative and with the Herald Ed Board, put in my vote for it, certainly. But one of the things that North Park super-wonk Pat McEwan griped about when I saw him on the street last summer was that they tried to make it seem like campus assented to this. At the time, I half-heartedly agreed, thinking that democracy was never really on the table for such an increase — it’d be nice if it was, but ultimately, it would be up to the Board of Regents. If the students felt incredibly strong about this hike, they’d organize to stop it. That didn’t really happen, though many could argue that was due to the meeting being held out of town.

But for Chancellor Martin to come out and thank students for “voting” for the MIU is preposterous. I heard many students watching from the stands say, “We voted to raise our own tuition?” Yeah. That didn’t happen. If NatUP had passed, maybe she could have confused people with that statement and just seemed to be overzealous for cardio-training. Instead, she recast the MIU as a brave step of self-taxation for the greater good. Greater good, sure. But when you take into account that ASM’s own (albeit, rudimentary) surveys found that 20 percent of students supported it, 40 percent had no opinion and 40 percent opposed it, it’s hard to argue that UW’s student body approved the measure themselves. In addition, 30 percent of students had no idea what it was and another 30 percent were only “slightly” familiar with it. A later poll showed support for it, but only by a slim margin.

I mention the incident not because I think Biddy is wrong. That part is obvious enough. I mention it because it highlights an aspect of her tenure that unsettles me. I can’t quite pin it down. Part of me thinks its that she sails the waves of academic turbulence on her steady ship of self-assurance, which sometimes ignores subtle undercurrents. But so far it’s only seemed like minor things, such as recasting MIU as a student backed initiative, or initially supporting DeLuca’s grad school plan steadfastly before backtracking under pressure.

Mind you, this is much better than inaction and I prefer to have a chancellor that knows exactly what she’s doing, is sure of it and uses that confidence to guide her. But occasionally, it starts to manifest itself in little myths – the MIU is only one example. I wonder what will be said a year down the road about the second-term abortion vote or the Year of the Humanities. Think — what benefit would Chancellor Martin likely attribute to her decision to create a vice chancellor of university relations? They’ll all contain some amount of spin that needs to be corrected.

It’s nothing to be concerned about, really, but it does give some credence to taking a more cautious and critical stance with the chancellor. Martin is a likable chancellor and one of the more level-headed rational university heads we’ve had in some time. I like her. I think most students do. But her likability can make it easy to fall into lock step with her. And that’s something to keep an eye on, even when you agree with her.

The Watcher becomes the watched: What now?

May 22, 2010

As I’m sure was obvious to all who read this blog and most of those who know me, I recently jumped onboard as a conductor of the gravy train — I’m not only a representative of Student Services Finance Committee but I’m it’s Secretary, which entails such monumental tasks as posting minutes, agendas and producing open records requests. This certainly prompts a lot of questions as to what the role of this blog is and how I’ll function having switched (at least partially) from a member of the press to a member of ASM. So let’s answer them, while I’m on vacation and have the leisure to do so.

1: This blog will go on, hopefully, with some extra voices.

The whole purpose of ASM Watch was to keep people updated on ASM matters, point out examples of extreme incompetence or failure, encourage pragmatic action of the body and, most simply, post up-to-date information from all committees and SC. Since I now have access to the server, I think the last one of those will become extremely easy. However, the others may get tangled up with my own duties and seem more political than journalistic by their very source. (I will strive to observe political battles, but avoid them. After all, the position I’m in requires neutrality, albeit in a slightly different realm.)

So, that being said, I’m looking for non-affiliated writers. If anyone from the Herald or Cardinal wants to jump onboard, come on by. I know their time is limited though, so if anyone from the J-school (or outside) wants to join this ship and help cover ASM, university issues and any related madison or state issues that come up, please, don’t hesitate to ask. I promise, I won’t relegate you to restaurant reviews.

I’ll still liveblog SSFC meetings, but they’ll be strictly stenographers’ notes, no commentary in the midst of meetings. I may comment on SSFC as time goes on, but it is unlikely I’ll say anything about the groups’ applications or presentations — VPN is extremely important to me and I aim to keep it that way.

2: For the time being, I’m staying on SSFC – no other ASM involvement.

I know that there is an open seat on SC in the grad school category, but my focus should be on grad school, figuring out what research I’m going to focus on for my thesis, etc. Plus, my girlfriend was put through nearly a year and a half of me putting the Herald before her — her patience deserves some reward. So my present to her is keeping ASM out of her life.

I may help out with other ASMers if they absolutely need it and I’ll likely be around next year to step up a bit more before I leave, (or stay around longer for another reason.) but let’s just see how this year goes, OK?

3: This blog will not be limited to ASM, so perhaps the name will change. And maybe the blog, too.

I realized when this blog started that focusing on ASM would probably be limited enough to garner a smaller audience. Well, I grew out of that and I think it’s time this blog did too. I’ll have an end of the year wrap up of UW and other events, as well as a reflection on my time at the Herald to start this blog off on the right foot.

There’s more to discuss, but it’s nearly 3 a.m. in Naples, Fl right now. I think that’s all that’s required, for the time being.

SSFC – First Meeting – 5/6/2010

May 6, 2010

6:08-

Open Forum – Boan Sianpar, former SSFC member. Speaking against Matt Manes. Admitted himself that he does have good social communication skills. Felt that sometimes his comments were offensive. Hope you choose someone approachable and open.

Evan Hurley – VC of WISPIRG, have a lot of GSSF funding experience. WISPIRG doesn’t endorse any candidates. This is myself saying this. I endorse Jolie Lizotte. Her experience with GSSF groups outside of SSFC is critically important to what the committee does. Will bring integrity to the process. Also has a ton of GSSF experience, understands language of SSFC. Also will advocate for the statement to be read by the Romenesko from the WISPIRG Chair.

Leah Shlact (sp?) coordinator for ALPs – qualities we believe are important in the next chair. For the next coming chair, being willing to meet in person or e-mail or respond in person. Bridging the gap between the GSSF group and the SSFC. The chair is a good resource to bring those two groups together. Make sure there isn’t that barrier, I know we’ve used mixers, but I hope that the mixers are not in a place that is emotionally charged. Do it in a place that is neutral in both groups.

Tina Trevino-Murphy – speaking for herself, not CWC. I just want to speak to some of the qualities that GSSF groups need to have. Rep. Manes is planning on running for chair, the precedent has been set that you are not friendly to these groups. I really implore you to find someone that understands GSSF groups and can be approachable. I just think we can be open to having a chair that might have a little less of a technical experience. Also want to echo ALPs statements.

Carl Fergus – former chair of SSFC – first year in awhile that we’ve had a full committee. Want to speak quickly about what is important in leadership. It’s important for future leadership to have a wide vision, knowledge of SSFC and can already train others. Would like to speak on behalf of the former VC Michael Romenesko. He’s been a really hard worker during the eligibility session, would fully support Romenesko for VC.

Patrick McEwan – WSL president – talk to you on behalf of Matt Manes and Michael Romenesko. Biggest thing you look for is an expertise of the bylaws. The first person you seek to ask if the Chair or the VC. It’s nice, but if it’s misguided, that’s a problem and the biggest potential issue to consider. Didn’t know either of them this year. Are they harsh? Yes, sometimes, but it’s a reflection of the rules and they’ll separate out that technical expertise and knowledge. They’re not being mean to you when you do these certain things.

Kurt Gosselin – Congratulations – position of power and responsibility – charged with looking at the entire seg fee fund and decide how its going to impact all 42,000 students on campus. Chair Emeritus Fergus spoke to this stuff as well, but I want to talk about what’s valuable to have in your leadership. Trevino-Murphy spoke about this great right to the money. It’s not a right, it’s a responsibility. It’s a responsibility to all the students on campus. The reason I bring it up is that Manes has brought up this depth of vision and intellectual precision. A good ability to work with other committee members – this is critical to having a functional SSFC. Being able to look at this with different perspectives. The depth of experience that the chair role requires almost requires having served before. Williams, Fergus, etc. had served on the committee before and done a great job. I’m doing my thesis on the segregated fee system.

Michael Romenesko (WISPIRG Chair Scott Thompson) – I’m speaking as myself, and endorse Romenesko – wears a tie too much but is approachable and has an expansive knowledge.

Szarzynski – endorses Lizotte for chair. Having someone outside the committee would add a fresh perspective. Previous chair Alex Gallagher was elected without any previous experience and most people would agree his tenure was insturmental. Everyone who has had the experience of working with him has had nothing but good things to say about him. Often a tendency for new members to have issues when voting for leadership — please don’t abstain on the chair vote. For people who have followed the news, you will be aware that there is a lot of criticisms from marginalized groups. One that is more representative of the body on this group.

Nichols – What did you do for the committee in your leadership?

Szarzynski – The thing is I’m not running for leadership. If you want a private conversation, we can have that.

Alvarez – what marginalized groups?

Szar- MEChA, CWC, just to name a few.

Romenesko – Wasn’t it true that Gallagher on SSFC before?

Szar – You might have been right, he might have been on for a few meetings.

Nichols – When taking your ideas into account, I’d like to know what your vision for leadership would be.

Szar – The most important thing that a chair can bring to this committee, which is a skill anyone can bring up that’s competent, is to be able to approach groups and bring them into the GSSF world.

CJ-elect – Feifel(SP) – What I would expect to see from an SSFC member who is in front of the court. I would really hope the next chair would place a great emphasis on respect, professionalism. And you’ve got big shoes to fill.

Williams – Preposterous to give someone a seat who’s never sat on this committee before. To give a seat to someone who doesn’t know system policy, who doesn’t understand the process. I endorse Manes and Romenesko, they helped lead us through rough times. There is no trade-off for experience. Michael has done a great job as VC. Secretary position has been a jumping point for chair. Important to think about the secretary position. Absolutely imperative to elect someone with experience in leadership.

Darby makes a quick statement about professionalism in the chair.

Nick Novak is sworn in.

Nominations for Chair:

Manes and Lizotte are nominated.

Lizotte: Previous experience are with GSSF background. Worked with WISPIRG for two years and helping them put together their contract status. Background in GSSF group will help bring a new perspective to SSFC and help create a more positive experience between GSSF groups and SSFC. Help create a good atmosphere and operate as an effective committee.

Manes: Served on the student services finance committee for a year. Went through thousands of pages. Lots of committee members, familiar with SJ process, F50, helped craft ASM’s first comprehensive stipend bylaws. There’s been a lot of talk about making the GSSF process more approachable and open and talking with Tommy Hughes, the former SUFAC chair of UW-Milwaukee, and I’ve come up with a GSSF 4-point plan: Create a real appeals process, impact statements, create a rigorous accountability liaison, like an auditor. Focus a lot more on the non-allocables. Focus on the Union a lot.

I make a motion to extend that can’t be made. Whoops.

Q and A:

Plamann – anything else to say?

Manes: Want to start working with Union to try and get rid of the mandate that you can’t bring in outside food. Also, want to bring in the campus services fund. First of it’s kind that I’m aware of – identify a service we need and find a way to fund it.

Lizotte: Campus Services Fund – while I think it’s a really good idea, my issue is how do we deserve what services are missing. Who are we to decide what services are missing and how do we do that in a VPN manner. While I know it came about due to the lack of Tenant Services, we need boundaries on this. We also must give the right answer, not jump to the wrong one. Also, we must make sure that if there is something that comes up, that it is important to create a good appeals process to go through, which can also help groups that thought they had a VPN violation. That’s just some of the ideas I have had.

Nichols – VPN is a complex conception – what does VPN mean to you and what has been your experience with it in the past?

Lizotte: You can’t take the viewpoint of the group into account when deciding funding. I want to obviously make sure other members of SSFC are conducting themselves in a VPN manner. It’s very important that we have good relationships with groups. When you come to this table, you should not take their views into consideration. It’s not about who they are or who they’re representing.

Manes: In short, VPN means your decisions have to be free of bias when deciding funding decisions. Came out of the Southworth case. Difficult to understand, trying to put this in layman’s terms. It’s important in terms of fairness and legality. Have some good experience with it.

Nichols: Some might struggle with certain aspects of the job, what are those weaknesses and how will you overcome that?

Manes: Some groups have the perception that I’m not approachable. If people feel you’re not approachable, then you’re not approachable. You’re here to make a lot of hard decisions. It has nothing to do with personal likings, it has to do with you being able to do your job. Have I burned bridges, perhaps. But I’ve outlined my plan on how to remedy these relations with the GSSF.

Lizotte: One thing I know coming in here is that, yes, I haven’t sat on that committee before, but I will spend my summer familiarizing the bylaws. Haven’t had time in the last three days to remember the bylaws.

Smathers: Direct services – how do you define that. (Obviously, I wasn’t really focusing on writing during that.)

Romenesko – experience with the auxillary units?

Manes: Worked with Dale Carruthers from Rec Sports, have some experience with this. Want more student input, not necessarily student control. Should be working together with this groups, not against them.

Lizotte: Have the ability to have a good conversation with them, but haven’t been in a capacity to need to do that. But one thing that we need to consider is working with Shared Governance. Has the potential to get students involved.

Romenesko – Roberts Rules familiarity?

Lizotte: Have some experience, was at a 9-hour meeting of SC last week.

Manes: I’ve been on SC for a year, I’ve been on SSFC and I’ve chaired an SC meeting. There’s a lot to learn, but I’m getting there.

Zhang asks a question about their strengths…sorry, I was trying to play catch up.

Manes: Has to do with your vision of the world, having a broadbased view.

Lizotte: Have a wide perspective, certainly approachable, have a lot of experience running meetings, know what an effective meeting looks like. Know how to strengthen relationships between members of the committee and holding them accountable.

Zhang: Long meetings, sometimes we just debate back and forth on one item or two, so how could you make the meetings more efficient?

Lizotte: Having some conversations outside of the meeting. A member should already come in knowing a lot. There will be some meetings where we NEED to meet six hours to get something done.  But we need to make sure we’re asking the right questions.

Manes: You’re running the meeting, not speaking in it. It’s the nature of the beast and there’s not much you can do to fix that.

Hughes : Have had a lot of discussion about how to reach out to others. That’s not really the point. It’s nice to read the bylaws, but this is an incredibly intricate process and what effects it might have on this committee.

Manes: F50 serves as a template for what we can and cannot fund. It’ll come in quite handy and only a few people will be familiar and say we can’t do that. Also familiar with G20, the governing document.

Lizotte: I’d like to point out that this is clearly a leading question. Most of my experience comes from the other side in working with contract status. So that’s where most of my experience comes from.

Alvarez asks a question on MCSC’s policy violation, done through a partner and Manes vote to sanction. Pretty soon I’m going to need to make a decision between rough transcriptions and listening.

CJ Darby asks a question about their familiarity with appeals.

Manes: Not much experience with actually defending an appeal.

Debate:

Smathers – I’ll be voting Manes due to experience being more important than an outside perspective.

Nichols – Y ou have to have a thorough understanding of what you’re working for. The diversity we have on here and the places were going is very exciting. You have to outreach to student groups. It’s not mainly the chair’s responsibility to outreach. Sometimes when you’re dealing with money, you make people angry. To me, it’s more important to have a thorough understanding of system policy and know what is going on. For that reason I’d support Rep. Manes.

Plamann: We should not consider experience with the committee (or lack thereof) as a bar. Lizotte shouldn’t be barred for that reason. Talked with Manes, he took a lot of suggestions I made and incorporated them in his plans, he does a good job of listening. Have to think about how I vote.

Debate is closed.

Vote is secret.

10-2-1 – Manes is chair.

Recess for five minutes.

7:41 – Resuming meeting.

Election of the VC.

Romenesko and Plamann

Candidate statements:

Romenesko: Served as VC of the Student Services Finance Committee – Twitter account, has updated the GSSF calendar – promote those. Bus Advisory Committee, would hopefully end with favorable results. Running meetings in the chair’s absence. Has a list of things he’d like to work on – alternative funding packet for denied GSSF groups. Examining criteria to determine if it should be developed. Would like to have more social mixers, go to the meetings.

Plamann – Law school rep for ASM. Extensive work with CWC looking at their bylaws. Worked with their strengths and weaknesses. Explaining that in a clear and cogent way. I would like to see the role as a liaison between GSSF groups and Manes. I could explain and help groups through the funding process. Explain the process clearly. Talked with chair Manes of where we want to go with SSFC. I would definitely cede transportation authority to Romenesko, to keep consistency. Currently sit on the ASM rules committee. One thing I really liked was the idea of having some accountability auditing position. Make sure their numbers are accurate. Fiscal responsibility means making sure that GSSF groups are using their money that would impact the most students on campus.

Q and A.

Nichols: Speak to what your ability to lead this meeting in the absence of the chair.

Plamann: There is going to be options for training over the summer. That being said, I also gained a decent amount of knowledge. Can help the legal counsel with any suits against SSFC.

Romenesko: Big difference between seeing Robert’s Rules and putting it into practice. I hope that I have expanded much further and gained a rather firm grasp of Robert’s Rules.

Nichols: Engaging in debate is something the chair can’t do, VC can. How does each candidate feel they’ll be able to make the split between those two roles if taking over the meeting.

Romenesko: You maintain the order, not bias the conversation.

Plamann: I can sit on my hands if I have to.

End Q and A.

Romenesko wins.

Secretary Vote:

Nichols – special leadership?

Alvarez- I’m a junior, so that can’t really happen. I’d like to, but it’s not a good possibility.

Smathers: I need to do a thesis and went about that the wrong way, so I’m here for awhile. I would keep that in mind.

Lizotte: Transparency?

(I’ll fill this in later. Debate is going on.)

Debate

Plamann: I’d like to speak to Smathers’ ability. He has a good ability in writing, open records requests.

Lizotte: I’d like to have someone in leadership that has a role in a GSSF group to provide some extra perspective.

Nichols: I see the benefit of having someone from a Puerto Rican background, but also someone who has a critique. One of the main points for me is having someone who is in a hopping point. The future success of boards. I’m glad we’re debating, because those are two of the things that we’re working between.

Lizotte: I’d like to speak on making our choices based on soley who will be around next year. There will be members of SSFC who will be around next year and leadership in the vicinity to help out. We should take into account both of their merits.

Plamann: Call the Question.

4-6-2 – Smathers is secretary.

Report of the Chair – Took a bit longer than expected.

Vice Chair – Bus Advisory Committee will have an update over the summer.

Student Council report – We have all leadership for SC now.

Summer Schedule  – June 12, July 17, Aug. 23 – Saturdays

Last year, we had SSFC meetings on Sundays. Summer meetings don’t count toward absences.

VPN training will be had near the end of summer.

VC Romenesko – Motion to adopt schedule.

Motion to adopt regular schedule – Monday and Thursdays at 6:30. Adopted.

We’re adjourned.

Student Council – The new class! – 5/2/10

May 2, 2010

Well, forget that. Cover It Live doesn’t work. We’ll just do it the old fashioned way instead.

12:25 – So to update you — the meeting hasn’t started. SJ still isn’t here. What a shock that SJ would screw up the first meeting.

12:38 – Chief Justice Tre Darby has finally arrived. Woo. I sure hope there is an explanation!

12:40 – Templeton and Gosselin are musing on how they will miss long winded filibuster attempts. Open forum has about nine names according to a few people.

Funny how boring this all is when nothing is happening.

12:42 – Called to order. At 12:41. Even thought its 12:43. But that tag said 12:42. Weird, man.

Roll Call – all 33 members are here. Last time that’ll happen.

They’re sworn in and done.

Open Forum (which Tre almost bypassed) – Heidi Allstop – Member from SPILL. Showing support for Matt Manes and Brandon Williams, passionate about the well being of the student body. Says that Williams and Manes were great mediators. Matt was a real great honest guy.

Sam Polstein – (one of the current Leg Affairs VC, city issues, running for Leg Affairs Chair) – speaks to his ability to run Leg Affairs.

Erik asked if anyone from the Press Office is here — No. Should I seize power? Well, I have a blog, that’s good enough, right?

Polstein is talking about lobbying the state on the upcoming biennial budget to make sure that student issues are heard in the budget and that UW is properly funded. He also wants to highlight the Big Ten Student Association. Traveled to DC to lobby on behalf of SAFRA and talk about a leg affairs arm of the Big Ten Student Association. Great opportunity to get 10ks of students to have their voices funneled in at the federal level.

Also need to have people working over the summer, etc. Passing around a copy of the e-mail in case they have any questions.

Ingrahm – You talked about working with ALDO, a couple of the committee members brought up the issue of whether repealing ALDO or keeping it in place with reforms would be the best route. There may be some concern that repeal of ALDO could have some unforseen consequences. There is a large portion of campus that REALLY wants it repealed, what is your position?

Polstein – Repeal is kind of impractical – some of the points of ALDO are really unfair to businesses and creates a house party atmosphere. But its impractical to think we’ll repeal ALDO right now. Really? I don’t think so. Businesses and students vs. Capitol Neighborhoods? Especially when Cap Neighborhoods isn’t even as gung ho about their alcohol issues? (effectively dropped some of them when it was listed around 18 or 19 on a list of 20 priorities.) Now, crime is still a huge issue, but it’s got a sunset clause, right? Wouldn’t this be the only that it would be practical to repeal it?)

Lizotte – how will you increase involvement?

Polstein – I really think it’s more of an image thing. We are working on state, federal and city level. It helps out that Johnson had a good year last year. Making sure that Leg Affairs actually does things goes a long way.

Kayla Lubenow – MPOWER member, Leg Affair member. Adam Johnson, Sam and Kyle had impeccable leadership – achievable wonderful victories — SAFRA, student appointment on ALRC, great job of forging really intimate relationships with city officials. Hopefully, that will expand. Gov. debate, etc. Sam is the most qualified person to take that position and continuity is helpful. Has shown extreme dedication. He also has extensive knowledge of the communication ties and he’s the only person who can use those to the fullest.

Theo Sharpe – Nominations Board – Advice for SC – if you are on SC to put forth your own agenda, you should walk out right now. So if you were here to make sure to make sure your resume looks flashy or to gain status, you are in the wrong space. If have any ulterior motive, walk out right now. It’s important to know that not everything you want to see happen will happen. There were a few reps who got frustrated that certain things didn’t go their way. The fact that they did not agree effected their relationship outside of the SC. So avoid that. Secondly, ASM is not a business.

Nominations Board stuff – Chair, VC and Sec were part of Noms Board – it helped a lot, but I’d say to avoid that this time. The Chair is supposed to be there, but avoid putting VC and Sec. They have a lot of other obligations and we have a very tight schedule. If we can’t meet quorum, that’s going to cause problems and I’d say to avoid that.

Decisions made should not be political. The fact that an applicant does not support your ideas does not mean those ideas are not worthy. It should be based on qualifications, not whether you personally like them.

Junger – let’s keep in mind, we have business to get to.

Matt Manes – speaking on behalf of Erik Paulson, he is in DC working on his own stuff. One of the most active members. Letter that most of you received – Endorsements – Williams, Johnson and TJ Madsen. I have no doubt that most will get a fair shake with Brandon Williams. He helped take the Tenant Support contract once he was appointed to Council. I also don’t have to constantly hassle him to get it done. He runs a meeting well. Johnson has done an amazing job transforming a joke into a legitimate committee. T.J. Madsen is going to drag ASM kicking and screaming into the 21st Century. You want him into a leadership position.

Jonah Zinn: Endorsing Academic Affairs Chair. He’s really committee and interested in continuing and expanding the work we did this year. We’ll talk more about that later. I hope that we can keep a positive tone and atmosphere and that’s all really important.

Colin Ingrahm: Meeting schedule for the summer. Having this meeting today was a really big stretch for me. I know not everybody may have this case, but for me Sunday is a day for my family. I’m here today, but I ask that as we go through and schedule meetings for the summer, but hopefully we can try not to have these meetings on Sunday. Just so that we can allow everybody to come. Let’s avoid to do that.

Dan Pasca: member of  Board of Directors for UC, Leg Affairs arm, speaking out on behalf of Williams and Johnson. Williams organized the committee meeting completely impartially. He’s done the same with Council. He is never a BS’er, and it’s a real pleasure to see him work. Adam Johnson has been really impressive. Adam is really well thought of around the UW system. One of the main jobs of VC is to be the external person of Madison. I’ve seen him do that very effectively and it will help with Student Reps meetings. No one was there to represent Madison, which was a point of much discussion. Tom, what’s the deal? He has argued in favor of legislation that he didn’t necessarily support that was supported by the whole body.

Martin Uraga (butchered by Darby) – Member of SSFC, SACGB and Diversity Committee. Has been trying to work with Olikara and Max Love to improve Diversity on this campus. Just want to introduce myself to those I didn’t get a chance to introduce for this meeting. I made the decision a little late, but I think I’d be a great chair for the committee.

Steven Olikara: Outgoing Diversity Chair. Gave my closing remarks as chair. I talked to Max Love, he didn’t want to run for it. So, I’ll speak to Martin. (Gives him some support.)

Also would like to speak to slates. When you talk about tuition, financial aid, diversity, etc, that’s a common ground interest for all students. Don’t try to politicize those issues. I encourage yourself to open yourself to new perspectives, don’t blind yourself through your slate.

Scott Thompson – WISPIRG Chair, sexy man (according to sex out loud). WISPIRG can’t endorse candidates, we’re non-partisan. But let me give you some background on Jolie Lizotte. Jolie has an incredible amount of experience, coordinate a press conference with Herb Kohl, with the 200 person WISPIRG kick off that didn’t lose a bunch of people and didn’t need food. Went to a bunch of cities talking about high-speed rail and it was a huge success. She has done a lot of cool things and she would be cool to hang out with. I worked out with Matt Manes a lot on SSFC and I think he brings a lot to the table.

Rashi Malik (SP? Sorry.) – WISPIRG Sec. – speaking out on Jolie. Her experience would really help on ASM. She has definitely helped our recruitment drive, find people who are passionate about the issues. So that would help with ASM recruitment drive as well. Has worked as coalition coordinator for WISPIRG, coordinated two campaigns with the New Voter Project, and Credit Card campaign, which is something that ASM could work on too. Her experience with those as well as coordinating and training interns would help.

1:27 - Chair vote…

Ingrahm – Rules committee and appointment of Chair to rules committee has been left off the agenda.

Nominations process.

Fergus nominates Zinn.

Johnson nominates Williams.

Zinn speaks: There’s a lot of people who say they want to make ASM relevant to students, I want to make it seem like a more effective, efficient and powerful group. We should try to focus on the things we have in common and the issues and goals we can all agree on. And keeping in mind that we have a lot of common points. I think I understand parli pro, can get meetings moving. I have a few issues in mind that we can get moving on. Vote 2010, lobbying for higher ed, campus safety, we can all work together on.

Williams: I tried to meet with everyone, didn’t get to. Sorry to those of you I missed. I want to touch on a few things that I agree with on Zinn and reflect on my track record. Worked my ways through the trials of viewpoint neutrality. Worked out parli pro and an ability to be impartial as chair. When someone came and asked them with questions, I didn’t tell them how to vote but how to get through that vote. SSFC is almost entirely reactionary,but I tried to reach out. I tried to bridge the gap between GSSF groups and SSFC. I created an intern program to have an impartial mediator. I am also working on the Tenant Support services. When working on that, I also worked with Leg Affairs chair Adam Johnson to get in contact with Bryon Eagon to make it work. And I think this is indicative of how I like to work.

Question and Answer

Matt Manes: You both mentioned you want to do active outreach. Aside from the e-mails I have seen, what have you already done to practically disseminate your info?

Williams: Established two blogs, tried to turn the writing into Vlogs and they don’t have to read a thousand word essay. Yeah, but then they have to just watch you in a boring background. Talking heads aren’t that fun, or else there would be higher ratings for Meet the Press.

Zinn: Mentioned my work on Academic Affairs and SLAC. We work with a lot of student orgs to make sure the campaigns move forward. And with Ac Affairs to increase our capacity to work on issues. What it’s going to take in the next session is that it’s going to take some effort to seek out alternative ideas on campus. These campaigns are really important because it will allow us to do as much outreach as possible. It will take reaching out to these orgs and being open to new ideas. In terms of outreach to reps, I’ve tried to meet with as many people as I could. And I’d like to set up regular meetings with them and seeking out different ideas and approaches. So that way, we’re debating larger issues IN SC rather than the smaller points in the bulk of meetings.

Matt Manes: Familiarity with moderating through Parli Pro?

Zinn: Didn’t use it so much in Ac. Affairs, but I’ve seen it work a lot in SC and I have been reading up on it a lot. And hopefully the result should be more effective meetings.

Williams: Being on SSFC is probably the best way to learn and you get a full understanding of SSFC. Operating under Roberts Rules is so different than running Robert’s Rules. But after a year of doing that, I’ve done that quite well.

Fergus: What is your personal leadership style?

Williams: I am the spoke on the bicycle wheel. I like to drive people to go after telling them how to get there.

Zinn: I like to be as open and accessible to everyone as possible. That being said, I also am very passionate about things I’m working on and working with people to find the best solution to move forward.

Vandenlangenberg: I’d like to hear your strategies for building alliances with a group that has so many different ideologies.

Zinn: What is comes down to is cross-community collaboration, and working on the issues we can all support. I think that if you have different perspectives from different committees.

Williams: If you just look at someone on SC and never talk to them, you never develop a good professional relationship. But we really need to develop some outside social activities. A little pick-up game on Fridays. Helps with building personal relationships.

Hanley: We used this question in Shared Gov, we use this question.  Sorry if it seems ridiculous. Please walk me through the process of how you would determine the number of golf balls that would fit.

Williams: Not only do I not have a 747, but I don’t think dumping golf balls works. But I would get schematics on a 747 – dimensions, size, etc. Then get the schematics of the golf ball. Consult with Mathematician.

Zinn: I would want to find out as much info on golf balls and 747’s, then get a team together that would be able to work on this, talk to designers of the 747, try and go forward and find a detailed solution.

Hmm. OK. I would have started out by asking why we want to know this. But that’s not the point, I know.

Volrath: Commitments? (sorry, I missed most of the question.)

Zinn: I’m very heavily involved in other student orgs, but I’ll be as involved in this as I can. I’m also a student and took a tough course load this semester and have some slightly easier classes next semester.

Williams: Only think I’ll be doing over the summer is taking LSAT classes. Initially, the way I work my course load, I try and put a good balance between that and given the fact that I think SSFC chair is harder than ASM chair, I think I can get this done.

Junger: Can you think of a time when you worked effectively on an issue you don’t necessarily agree with?

Williams: Had a hard time presenting a budget from SSFC (internal), when I was on SC and could have advocated for whatever way I wanted, but I stayed to what my committee wanted. The same thing took place with the Chancellor’s Report.

Zinn: Textbook afforability committee with Shared Gov. I would have liked a more radical approach to these problems, but I worked to come up with a more universal approach. But I usually don’t have to represent a lot of interests I don’t agree with. But I think I can do this.

Junger: When is it, if ever, appropriate for the chair to influence SC.

Zinn: I think that comes when they have all the ideas and voices brought in from the student body, then they can synthesize those voices and try and chart a course forward. I don’t think its the role of the chair to be silent and it is the role of them to see that opportunity when it comes.

Williams: You can be that center force that keeps the organization moving. The worse outcome is doing nothing. That overarching of where the org is headed, but to be that center for direction.

Cale Plamann: Lot of concern over divestment being brought to ASM. I don’t think that’s appropriate: Would you keep that off the agenda?

Williams: Certain things we want to keep out of SC. If we keep a mindset of the goals we have on SC that benefit all students, we’ll avoid that.

Zinn: I think controversial issues present themselves and are often relevant to students. On the specific issue of divestment, I wouldn’t take my personal position into account. If SC decides they want to tackle it, I’ll work as hard as possible to address it.

Beemsterboer: Role of ASM?

Zinn: Voice of the student body. To best represent students in as many realms as possible.

Williams: Difficult question to answer. I’ve been in ASM two years and it underlies everything I do. Mentions 36 0. 9 (5), etc.

Beemsterboer: Role of SC?

Williams: We have the octopus chart pointing in different directions. And SC was the central tenant. I think SSFC is on equal pegging. It can be slow (SC, he means), it can be hectic, but the overall goal of SC is to keep the org functioning and moving forward. We need to keep that in mind.

Zinn: Ultimately, SC is the arena of debate on student issues. Any focusing on student issues should be brought up here. Making sure the org is functioning efficiently or whatever. Moving forward.

Manes: We don’t often talk about the rules that govern this body. I want to know the specifics of the rules that govern this body and says what we can and can’t do. I want SYSTEM policy. Things above this org.

Zinn: 36.0.9(5) I think that’s a pretty big one. And I think there’s other court decisions that supercedes other functions that determines how we can proceed and move forward.

Just like to say, I think that’s a bit of a trap. Oh! Williams just said it was too.

Williams: UW System policy regulates seg fee policy, but again, seems to be a trap of sort.

Manes: You both served on SC and have spoken a lot about mediating and such. In this past year, how have you have engaged your opposition to reach compromise.

Williams: Stipend bylaws – it’s always contentious. So I opened myself to sit down with people who had questions about it. Helped chart compromise.

Zinn: Helped work some compromise on the Seg Fee sweep, other than that, I think I’ve generally had a way of being open, but didn’t feel that everyone was open to talking to me. Shared Gov. and Academic Affairs, encouraged an….(I’m sorry, I can’t hear him.)

Fergus: How are you dealing with administration?

Zinn: There are times when administration is doing things working contrary to student interests. We need to know when they’re a powerful ally and when they are a powerful enemy. I think that asserting independence is important, but not being disrespectful as well.

Williams:  Usually our most powerful ally. Student Tenant Contract speaks to that. But there are times when you have to be able to take a stand. Pointing to one of those issues: Discussions over Seg Fee allocations. Administration told us we had advisory authority, we asserted our right to dole out those funds.

Fergus: What specifically have you done to build relationships with administration.

Williams: Built relationships with Bazell, Berquam, Biddy, etc. The relationships we have are instrumental in negotiating interests.

Zinn: Worked a lot with Aaron Brower on textbook issues. Also had some experience on LLPC, with Dawn Crim, the Chancellor. Lots of professors and academic staff that sit on powerful decision making bodies.

Vandenlangenberg: You have this team of people – five people with different perspectives, to ask whether to recommend Process A or B. You know it’s B, they say it’s A. How do you handle that?

Zinn: If the committee decides its A, you go with A. In that position, it’s necessarily the worst thing to inject your perspective, but it’s important to represent the interests of that body.

Williams: I think going back to Fergus, in regards to specific instances with a team that is saying incredibly different things.  If I have a team of specialists, I want to have a discussion of why it’s like this, just so I can appreciate the reasoning or convince them that their reasoning is not correct.

Vandenlangenberg: I’d reask, because I’m not satisfy. The specialists only know so much about their subset. I’m trying to figure out whether or not you would side with the perspectives, or would you go with your gut?

Williams: If I know the objective answer, then I should guide people to the right answer. By coordinating the specialties, I can come to the right answer.

Zinn: I think what it comes down to is the role of the leader of an org is to be synthesize the information we’re presented with. I guess I was a little confused, I was thinking of it as a theoretical example of ASM.

Rep. Kuo: How would you respond to negative press about you?

Zinn: Being able to respond and that discussion will be important. It’s important to be really active on issues on campus and interacting with the press and students, etc. Hopefully, the response to criticisms will be evident in our actions. As long as the information is out there and presented well. Make sure our Press Office is working at full capacity. If no one knew about the book swap, then that’s it.

Williams: All you have to do is pick up a campus newspaper and see the criticism on Friday’s and Tuesdays. If we weren’t operating without those criticisms, we wouldn’t be help accountable. We also have to be able to move forward as well.

Nichols: Nobody expects leadership in ASM to be perfect. Admitting you’ve done something wrong.

Williams: One of the things that I’ve done wrong was at the beginning of the session. I didn’t do the best that I could to make sure the process was as clear as possible. Did that to make sure the next SSFC Chair is established. Have a discusion about the typical problems GSSF leaders have. That’s what I’ve done wrong.

Zinn: I have a big issue with delegation. Working on the bookswap and everything else, I felt isolated, but toward the second semester I looked at the ability to divy that task up.

Love: How are you in touch with the general student body.

Zinn: I’m involved in a lot of issues on campus, have worked with a lot of students in and out of student organizations. So I have a lot of experience interacting. But part of the role is not being able to know every person on campus, but being able to synthesize information from students on campus. I obviously don’t have the expert knowledge of the Business School as Beemsterboer, but I can work with him to learn those issues.

Williams: So, I know that this sounds dorky. I actually do have conversations about ASM with other people and my friends tell me to shut up or I hand other people business cards asking what I can do for them. I know, personally, being a poli sci and econ major, I need to sit down with grad students to get perspective on something I seriously had no knowledge about. Full spectrum analysis.

Ademaj: Weaknesses?

Williams: I have a problem delegating authority. It also comes down to whether you are delegating correctly.

Zinn: Delegating is another problem. Also, getting overly focused on one campaign but not another. So, I think that by having a diverse group of people around you and being able to draw on those people it gives you some balance.

Rep. Schmul (sp?) – What do you think are the two or three most important issues for the student body.

Zinn: Affordability of higher education. Financial Aid, investment in higher education, textbook costs, etc. Secondly, Campus Safety. Third. Campus unity and equality.

Williams: Pocketbook. Every single student has some vested interest in the money they’re spending. So we have to be the uniter on issues like that. The most detached student can feel application to that.

Lizotte: Do you see the role of the chair having to tackle the issue of leadership development, and if so, how would you improve that.

I think the answer she is looking for: Campaigns and Intern program improvement.

Williams: The best leaders are the ones that inspire other leaders. I don’t want to go into specifics.

Zinn: I think it’s about being a role model, but also helping reps. But its about having reps come forward and just individual members. Means focusing on volunteers and campaigns and giving students an ability to speak at ASM. Seen that a lot in the intern program.

Move to close speakers list.

Junger: Do you feel you’ve had an unmitigated success in ASM this year.

Zinn: I don’t think anybody has had unmitigated success. But I think I’ve accomplished a lot and done a great deal of things.

Williams: For the most part, yes (Sorry, abbreviated.)

Junger: My big issue is student housing. Lots of shitholes around here, problems with landlords. I know its not just an undergrad issues, but grad issue. What can ASM do to help improve housing situations.

Williams: Tenant Support services contracts. Educating students about their rights. Specifically target those most used to be being abused. Transfer and freshman students. Some people aren’t even friends with the people they room with. Madison property ratings site. Rate my professor for landlords. This has been going on for AWHILE now. Hopefully it gets up in the next year? Gosselin? This is partially your deal with Spirn, what’s the deal? Also talks about the lease date being moved back.

Zinn: Focusing on this lease date push back, already in the works. Rep. Johnson has been working on this since it began. We need to be able to have a strong voice when dealing with property management companies. It’s important to represent the student voice in any body that represents the student voice. Also deals with these prop management companies.

Move to debate

Matt Manes: I think Williams is far and away the more qualified candidate. Has addressed the issues with Tenant Support contract, experience with SSFC, clear choice. Also want to limit debate to 20 minutes.

Carries.

Rep. Love – I personally would like to hear how many people were lobbied by constituents. Personally, I have my own choice and I think it comes down to setting the ideological approach. I think everyone knows who I support and I support that candidate 100 percent.

Transparency, please. Come on, don’t dance.

Rep. Huang – Jonah Zinn is very inclusive and takes everyone into consideration. We’ve done a lot with student outreach and being very accountable to what students think.

Rep. Fergus – I’ve worked very closely with both candidates. I’m going to keep my vote secret, so I won’t say who I endorse, but I think we really showed here that we can stay impartial and I hope we can continue that course.

Rep. Nichols – I’ve been contacted and received a few e-mails. Fully support Brandon for a few reasons. I think one of the things that helps is serving under the person on that committee. I was so blown away by how good of a committee chair he was. It was the first time I’ve come onto a council and wanted to do a good job because I want to do a good job for the chair, as well. I can’t tell you what an amazing experience that was. He would also not give me his own opinion until he knew I had an opinion first off. I think he’d be a very very good chair.

Johnson – Williams has done a great job figuring out what we want this Tenant Support proposal looks like. Impossible not to find a common ground with this guy. Can hopefully make 17th session a turning point.

Volrath – I’ve been in ASM for a long time now, I have had the privilege of working with Zinn and Williams. So much respect for Rep. Williams

Stevenson – Both these candidates are really great, really fair, have a great deal of ability of keeping their opinions to themselves. What I want to see is an attitude of approaching ASM. The problem is that they haven’t really found a connection to students. It doesn’t significantly affect students. I think that it comes down to the attitude and being connected to campus. You can’t just sit here and blog and have office hours, but it’s not a very proactive way to know other students. This campus has a bunch of different organizations. What I’d really like to see is to organize students. I support Jonah because I know him personally, he’s a very strong, hard working leader. He really does take account of everyone’s views. He’s very good at getting people to express themselves. He also has an attitude about the student body and wants to get them and organize them. I don’t think its sufficient to play student government, you have to reach out.

Rep. Ziebell – . She supports Williams, but she sounds like she’s reading from a speech. Whatever.

Rep. Plamann - I really think that either one of them would be a good choice. The tone that ASM really wants to set with administration. For better or worse, we have spent a lot of time being kicked around by administration. And while I know both will do a lot of work to prevent it from happening, Jonah’s history with SLAC is the deciding factor. I’d be happy to work with both of them.

Beemsterboer – Rep. Zinn’s work with SLAC has been very anti-administration. It’s hard to do that and work with admin. I think you have to build work with adminsitration and there are times when it is definitely needed. Brandon Williams is the best candidate to enact positive change.

Lizotte: Some GSSF leaders had trouble working with Brandon, others have not. Just wanted to point out that.

Junger: This is the first time I’ve heard of those interactions, but I think he’s taken steps to work with them.

Saw Templeton making a “grasping for straws” gesture. In relation to Lizotte.

Manes: I’ve gotten those complaints, but I don’t know that Williams has. That seems unfounded.

Debate closed: Secret Ballot.

Erik: There was no vote on it, Chair made the unilateral decision.

Brandon Williams wins – 20-12-1.

Resumes at 3:30

Appointment of VC.

Nomination of Johnson and Lizotte.

Johnson: Biggest priorities will be the biennium budget, UW System outreach (to other UW schools) and Campus outreach. Connecting them to the process, getting them to places they want to go.

Lizotte: Continue to increase their leadership development, become a more positive thing on campus. Experience on WISPIRG, forming coalitions with other groups. It’s important to do that with other members of ASM. Help working with decision makers on other student issues.

Limiting Q and A to 45 minutes.

Rep. Love – Speak to how you’ve mobilized students on Leg. issues.

Johnson – I had no infrastructure to work off of. Everything I had came from the top of my head. Biggest victory I had was when in Nov. the ALRC was considering adding a voting member to the committee.

Lizotte: Got students out to support the RTA Board for the Dane County Board meeting. Also worked on mobilizing students to get out the vote. Very important. Also making sure you’re keeping in contact with students.

Love – Work in getting legislators to come to campus.

Lizotte: Worked with Sen. Kohl to come to campus and talk about his credit card legislation. I’ve also worked with Legislators to come out and talk about high speed rail – included local and federal legislators. Also worked in local elections in Spring 2007 in getting the two Dane County Sup people.

Hold up. That was a Roosevelt Institute debate, wasn’t it? Did WISPIRG help with that? I don’t remember.

Johnson: I’m going to talk about working to organize a Gubernatorial Debate. We’ve been in the process of talking with Channel 3000 to have students submit questions, stream it live. We’ve been in contact with the Mark Neumann, he’s expressed interest, and that’s surprising to me. They want to come to Madison. They know that’s where the power is, so to speak. Like Jolie said, we’re getting to that point where Legislators see that and can come talk to us.

(I didn’t hear Fergus’ question, because my computer is starting to shudder every 3 minutes. Bare with me.)

While I’m ignoring this question, just a little thought: If the last vote was as lopsided as it was, how big will this one be? I assume it could just go the same way, along party lines, but Johnson I think has far more credentials here than Lizotte. WISPIRG is great and all, but I gotta say, Lizotte is kind of stumbling through these questions. I am also confused as to why Q and A is limited to 45 minutes. This is far less contentious. Unless you all know something I don’t.

Fergus: What should be ASM’s role in United Council and other statewide or national student orgs?

Lizotte: We should always have a strong voice here. We should be figuring it out on behalf of students, not going through a backdoor for something we don’t understand. Should be working across the nation and state to figure this out.

Johnson: We have a “maditude” problem of thinking we’re more important than everyone else. Working toward a balance of being important, but taking the whole range of other school concerns into account.

Zinn: Outreach to involve people in the legislative process and what you plan to do next semester.

I’m going to power down, so I won’t cover this question. The computer needs a restart, fast, as it’s struggling.

Alright. I’m back, but these guys are still going on and on. Unless there is something that comes up that is truly significant, I’ll post it.

Lizotte claims that it’s not hard to get students involved and implies that Johnson is not putting in the effort. Ugh. OK. Sure. Here’s the deal — WISPIRG and CFACT get a lot of people involved, but what does it come to if they’re just hanging on for credit or resume boosting? ASM has the same problem, of course, but I’ll ask what’s more important — Getting a lot of people involved who may or may not be invested or getting a core of dedicated individuals involved? Certainly, cast a wide net, but its quantity, not quality.

Zinn: Should ASM endorse candidates?

Lizotte: Candidates no. Issues, yes.

Johnson: Ditto.

Junger: How do you measure your success as VC at the end of the year?

(Johnson is talking about outreach being hard to quantify, bunch of asides on Shared Gov….rambling so far.)

Lizotte is answering the question a bit more directly, trying to approach it on a plan ahead of time and how you adhere to the plan. Still boring.

I’m sorry, but this has got to be boring people to tears. What could possibly be said in the next 6 questions that haven’t been said already?

Alright. I’ll jump back into this in the next question. When I haven’t had my lunch, I get cranky.

Plamann: We should all invest in word economy – we can make these points without going on as long as we have. I have a test. Question about Johnson: someone possibly running for Chief of Staff -Templeton.

Johnson: I plan on having this run through Nominations Board. And not getting involved here.

Ziebell – What city issues have you worked on that impacted the lives of students.

Lizotte: Have worked on creating an RTA for Dane County and creating other transportation options.

Johnson: Leg Affairs has been locally focused, etc. ALRC appointment, superceded Tavern League, etc.

Debate – 20 minutes.

Rep. Manes – Adam’s work on Leg Affairs speaks for itself. Working knowledge of the organization is a criteria I look for. Can’t spend time learning how things work in a leadership role.

Rep. Love – Might be better to have not as much experience in ASM. Because ASM watch doesn’t think I’m being transparent enough, I’ll say what my vote is: I am voting for Lizotte. Johnson is really a great leader for the committee and has shown a great model for committee chairship. But Lizotte has done a lot in terms of recruitment, and WISPIRG has had some great stuff there. It’s about a lot more things than Leg. Affairs, but I think Lizotte brings a lot more to the table on other points on the job description. I remember that I was asked to go to the capitol, and that was some of the first contact I had with Jolie and there she was — being the only person talking about financial education on credit cards. Jolie brings a lot to the table and new ideas, mostly.  I hope people will give her a worthy fair chance.

Junger: Supporting Johnson. Which is largely speaking to his ability to resurrect Leg. Affairs.  Want to speak to Love — when there’s a discussion about new ideas to SC, we need to realize we’re not doing that. We’re bringing WISPIRG ideas to SC. There’s a place for that – WISPIRG. And some of those are not student issues. Rep. Lizotte has done some great things from recruitment, but that’s not the sole role of the VC.

Woolwich: Voting for Johnson and I want to speak to why. I had no idea the committee had been dead, he gave students the ability to have a voice, great ideas, he’ll be a great VC. And I think he would create the right atmosphere for discussions.

Zinn: The claim that Chair and VC need knowledge of ASM is not really that strong. It’s something that you can learn and pick up. They can pick it up quickly when they need to. Jolie has demonstrated the ability to work on student issues, but to call WISPIRG anything but a student org is offensive. They’ve shown they can work very strong on student issues and have shown that. Let’s not just do away with the idea that hearing someone new is a bad thing. Having Jolie come in with new ideas helps it be more accessible and open. When you start recycling people through ASM…well, we need a broad range of students.

Beemsterboer: I think we need to realize that Johnson has done amazing things in ASM Leg. Affairs. Big Ten platform can be used in national legislative scene with his leadership. Has worked well with UC and Fergus, has done a great job reaching out to other schools.

Ace Hillard: Will be working with Lizotte. The comment that WISPIRG ideas wouldn’t apply here is like saying that if your student org has ideas, they should stay there. And that’s untrue. Just because we belong to different student orgs, doesn’t mean we don’t represent the whole of the student body.

Plamann: Voting for Jolie. Work on state level is more important in terms of the biennial budget.

Nichols: I’ll be voting for Johnson. While it’s fine not to have ASM experience, it’s more helpful to connect all the dots.

Call to question: Fails.

Rep. Love – If we value someone coming in with no prior experience, then why don’t we want Jolie? Tyler Junger sat on SSFC and came in as Chair and did a somewhat good job. I would hope people understand that. One thing I want to say is that Jolie WAS here and no one else who wasn’t on council before can say that.

Ballot vote: supported overwhelmingly.

While they’re voting, let’s just pat ourselves on the back – I’ve surpassed 1,000 views for this live blog, and am well on the way to breaking the daily record of 1,031. I’m sure that’s because you’re all refreshing, but nevertheless — whoopee.

20-12-1 – Johnson is elected VC. Hey. Tell that SJ member to move aside. Get up there Johnson!

Madsen nominated for Secretary and speaks to it: Want to be able to display agendas a little more, be a little more of a leader by example of what we expect the webmaster, secretary and press office to do.

Q and A limited to 10 minutes.

Fergus – I know you’re here half the year, so what would you do to train your successor.

Madsen – Sustainability means a lot to me, but my hope is that I’ll be able to put some of these practices in place.

Ingrahm – Had some problems getting attendance and role call votes updated. Will you do that?

Madsen – Not only that, but I’ll make sure attendance is up to date and that the legislation is pretty up to date and commented on.

Ingrahm – Expand the role of the secretary?

Madsen – we need to very clearly lay out who is responsible for what things. Secretary is responsible for taking the notes and minutes, the secretary may not be responsible for posting. That should be press office or webmaster.

Debate

Love – I support Madsen. He’ll do what he says.

Madsen is voted in. New secretary.

RECESS. I’ll be back a bit later. I need food as well.

OK. I’m back. They’re on to the summer meeting schedule. Already approved weekly schedule. Postponing that to next.

Now – on to to SC appointments for committees.

Nominations – Beembsterboer.

Rep. Love – Isn’t it true an SC member has to serve on one committee.

Williams: Yes, that’s true.

Nominations closed. Beemsterboer is the only nom.

Johnson – Call the question.

Beemsterboer is on Finance Committee. Wee. VPN Warning for Beemsterboer that is apparently standard.

SSFC is next.

Manes nominated, accepts.

Rep. Plamann, accepts.

Rep. Peters, accepts.

Rep. Lizotte, accepts.

Rep. Kuo, declines.

Motion to close nominations. Fails.

Rep. Volrath, accepts.

Rep. Childers, accepts

Statements:

Manes: Just want to continue my work.

Plamann: Think that I could help clarify the bylaws and rules. Know VPN.

Peters: I just want to continue my work.

Lizotte: I have some experience working with VPN and WISPIRG’s budget.

Volrath: Chaired the SACGB committee, want to take a crack at SSFC.

Childers: I think I have the ability to make VPN decision. That’s the only qualification I have.

Williams: You can vote for three people, it will be a ballot vote.

Junger: You can distribute your votes as you wish.

Peters: Rescinds nominations due to freshman term.

Q AND A

Junger: What have you done to prepare for this?

Manes: Have been involved in Campus Services Fund, have gone through all SSFC meetings, have helped write the report to the Chancellor.

Plamann: Have had experience with this through CWC, have no life and like procedural wonderment.

Lizotte: Helped WISPIRG put together their budget, have spent a lot of time looking into VPN.

Volrath: Special student, only taking one class, working the rest. Easy for me to take off every Monday and Thursday for SSFC. Well aware of how to make VPN decisions.

Childers: Have read the handbooks and bylaws. I think I can make VPN decisions.

DEBATE

Manes: meeting with plenty of student groups outside of meetings, incredibly time committment. Hope everyone is up for it.

Junger: Time commitment is a huge amount. It’s not something that you can just jump into. Especially with five new members jumping into this.

Beemsterboer speaks to Manes and Volrath.

Call to question.

SSFC seats go to: Manes, Lizotte, Plamann and Volrath.

Nominations Board – Beemsterboer, Nichols, Deichl, Love, Savoy, Fergus, Woolwich, Zinn, Junger (removes himself, nominated back), Hanley, Fergus (This apparently includes Williams.)

Beemsterboer – Helped Theo Sharpe formulate the right people for SSFC. I have a good grasp on what qualifications we need for those.

Hanley – I’m interested specifically because of my interest on of conducting interviews and being interviewed, know what to look for in good candidates.

Nichols – Very excited about Noms board and new ideas I’d want to bring to noms board. I think its important to give them an idea of what they have access to and the information they need to succeed. I know they’ve not followed up with applications, and I want to make sure they follow up.

Junger – I’d love to serve, I just wanted to make sure these people could get their seats, but the numbers weren’t working in my head. Whatever. I have a broad knowledge base of what’s going on in ASM.

Zinn – A lot of experience in ASM and I’d like to see the Press Office go in a different direction.

Fergus – Other than Rep. Volrath, I’m the longest serving member around here, right now. I’ve worked with many open committees, Academic Affairs, etc. I know what it takes to drive on these committees and the amount of information going in. I’d nominate people with many different perspectives. People on nominations board have a good understanding of what’s going on in ASM.

Savoy – Very excited about this, very well equipped, good judge of character.

Woolwich – have been involved in the non-voting ALRC member, had some experience interning in an HR department.

Deichl (not here) -I think it’s crucial to appoint the right individuals and orient them. Have a lot of experience with the student retail assoc. and experience in retail management.

Beemsterboer needs a 2/3 vote to let him proceed.

16 in favor, 6 against. Exemption is passed.

Also need 2/3 vote to exceed nine members?

Nichols is elected to SSFC, so she wouldn’t need a 2/3 vote.

Beemsterboer removes himself from nominations.

Q and A

Volrath: How many spots do we have?

Beemsterboer: Can’t we just vote for who doesn’t get on?

Williams: No.

DEBATE

Call the Question.

Secret Ballot vote.

Vote results: Deichl didn’t get it.

Zinn motions to adjourn at 6:30 – Motion Fails.

Nominations for Rules Committee – Ingrahm, Plamann, Junger, Johnson, Ziebell, Madsen, Beemsterboer (between 3-9 spots. Nice specificity for a FUCKING RULES COMMITTEE.)

Going straight to vote. Unanimous Consent. Appointed.

SAC Governing Board – Ziebell nominated.

Unanimous Consent – She is appointed.

ASM Foundation Hiring Committee. Three Seats.

Nominations: Rep. Love.

Unanimous Consent.

Shared Governance (Five members) – Bemis, Schmul, Huang, Vandenlangenberg, Theobald, Kuo, Stevenson, Hanley (declines)

Noms Board Chair:

Savoy – Because I’m not as familiar with the people on ASM, I feel like have an ability to judge them appropriately. I think it’d be appointing people who are qualified, not just people I think are qualified. (Sorry, I missed a lot of this, I’ll try and listen a bit harder next time.)

Nichols - Very excited about noms board and I’d like to take a new direction and vision. Make sure I ask question to ensure I appoint competent people to those seats. I see nominations board as a very important board. Attend a lot of philanthropies, in contact with a lot of new and different people.

Fading fast …this computer is starting to heave again.

Manes: Knowledge of ASM committees right now, given the 3 days they have to hire candidates.

Nichols: Will be looking for someone who can be VPN credentials for SSFC, finance, SAC GB, want to make sure they’re able to dedicate the time.

Savoy: Looking for someone who is dedicated and are competent. I wouldn’ be able to tell you what actually goes on in SSFC and that’s why I didn’t try to be on FC and SSFC and I would expect the people who would be on it to be knowledgable on those committees.

Manes: How can you appoint people with those characteristics if you don’t know anything about those committees?

Fergus: Not germane to the chair role.

Manes: Commitments?’

Savoy: I have planned in advance to fit this into my schedule. I’m going to stick with this no matter what.

Nichols: I’ve been an intern, worked on SSFC for a year, I think I have made a space to fit it into my schedule.

Close to Q and A.

DEBATE

Love: I would like to see the Nominations Chair in a leadership positions out there in new and fresh ways.  I think it’s going to take a new style to get more people to apply. I am also unsure about the prospective chair that knows the bylaws. That’s not the way to bring people from campus to ASM. I think they need good leadership skills and Jasmine’s skills allow me to support her.

Zinn: I am just a little bit hesitant to put someone from SSFC or Finance here. I’d just like to limit debate to 10 minutes.

Approved.

Rep. Volrath – she became our intern last year on SAC Governing Board, and while she was working on that I saw her really throw herself into SSFC. I think she would do an excellent job as nominations chair.

Beemsterboer – Andrea went above and beyond the call of duty to do her due dilligence to make sure the ASM staff position wasn’t really necessary. She checked with everyone before hand and that made it clear about her ability to seek out the right decision. If we were to choose anyone but Andrea it’d be a grave mistake.

Junger: Speaks to Nichols vision for following up with appointees.

Plamann: Speaks to Zinn’s uncomfort with Nichols on SSFC and Noms.

Call the question.

15- 11-1 : Nichols wins.

Move to postpone everything other than choosing the next meeting.

Fergus wants them to get moving through Rules committee.

Junger wants to get moving through that stuff as well.

Call the Question.

Beemsterboer – moves to postpone a few others…

Hey, maybe we’ll spend more time on deciding what to postpone!

Rules committee: Junger and Plamann.

Junger: rules committee was my idea.

Plamann: I spend a lot of time pouring over the rules and statutes due to Law School issues. I did a lot of CWC and SACGB and found some problems there too. Feel like I could coordinate with a lot of other chairs to figure out that everyone is on the same page and moving forward.

Johnson: Support Junger for this. I think he’s got a pretty good grasp of how this works. The chair of this will also be the parliamentarian. Tyler being the outgoing chair, he’s got a pretty good handle on there. It can bring forward recommendations, but no actual power.

Lizotte: Very happy that Junger helped to create this committee, but I think we should seriously consider a candidate who has a lot of professional experience with bylaws, which is something that a law student needs to work on.

Vote: 12-10-3 – Junger wins.

Also, Vandenlangenberg is the Shared Gov chair.

Diversity – Ace Hillard and Martin Uraga.

Have to duck out for a second, need to conduct an interview for a paper.

Martin Uraga wins 13-11-1. Sorry for ducking out. Ethics paper to work on.

Leg Affairs – Polstein and Tina Trevino-Murphy

Tina: Involved in SC, Diversity, Shared Gov, worked with Academic Affairs. One of the co-founders of External Affairs. Involved in Vote Coalition. Some of the national legislation, such as SAFRA, Health Care legislation. I’m here every week. Some upcoming national issues such as the DREAM Act. Got 7 out of 10 of United Council’s victories.

Fergus: Top victory and top weakness.

Tina: Catching up on local, city issues have finally seen the students care. I’m blown away there. In terms of weakness, that outreach and information out there.

Polstein – Restructuring the actual committee has been the biggest victory. Outreach was one of our biggest weaknesses, Tina was right. We need to work more with College Dems and Reps to make sure it’s not just Leg Affairs lobbying.

I’ve not been keeping up with a lot of this, but this is noteworthy:

Junger: Reads an e-mail from Dan Pasca from United Council, who has called Tina unreliable and said that many board members were happy to see her go. Would undo most of Leg Affairs work.

Ouch.

I really can’t do this anymore. I’ll leave after this vote, but I seriously don’t have the energy for it anymore.

Chair Williams a possibility, no Chair Templeton. Not even Rep. Templeton.

April 22, 2010

Well, as you can see on facebook if you’re part of the ASM inner circle (or part of the regular student body that the inner circle wishes to connect to), Brandon Williams is officially running for ASM Chair. He announced it tonight at SSFC. No shock there, as he’s been setting himself up for this for a bit now.

Here’s what IS shocking – Templeton isn’t just not running for chair, he’s not going to be running for anything. He won’t even be voting.

According to the updated election results on the ASM page: Templeton has dropped out of the Student Council seat he won. Still not sure why he’s done this, but Junger told BH College Editor Adelaide Blanchard that part of the reason was that he didn’t wanted to work elsewhere in the ASM framework, but not in SC.

The fallout? Adam Johnson now gets a seat on SC, which he narrowly lost to his Leg Affairs Vice Chair, Kyle Woolwich.

More analysis on this later, but one has to wonder — if this sets up a Zinn v. Williams chair battle, how will the CWC saga play out at Council? Will it?

[UPDATE] – Williams has also taken to announcing his candidacy via a new blog and unveiling one of the new policies he would champion – “The Open Door.” No, he’s not looking for ASM to open up trade in East Asia (Sorry, I have to have some way to show off that I got a degree in history, seeing as its useless in every other context), it’s about him being as available as possible, not having closed door meetings and reaching out to students, going to events, etc.

Modest goal, but hopefully it happens. Remember, Junger actually said he wanted to hold the first meeting of the regular session in open air in Library Mall. That didn’t exactly happen, did it?

Student Council 4/21/2010 live blog

April 21, 2010

Alright, we are a bit delayed here, but we’ll get started shortly.

Apparently, we’re going to be looking at the Operations budget from Finance Committee because Campus Women’s Center’s $33K grant might get cut? That’s the word on the street. Who knows for what reason.

6:37 – Started!

This is the last meeting of the session. By the way, this is really sparse today. No grad reps are here, Zinn is not here, Love is the only freshman rep…I guess no reason to come. But Kudos to those that did show up. [EDIT] Jamie Bemis is actually here. She’s a freshman rep. Thanks Max.

6:40 – Tina Trevino-Murphy – talking about CWC’s grant and asking that it not be amended.

6:42 – Olikara is up – He’s not running again for Diversity Chair for the next session. He wants to share his grand vision over his term. Printed out his original proposal when he ran as a first-semester freshman. Very indicative of that, he says. But a few things to note:

-Diversity commitee goals need to be aligned with ASM, shouldn’t be simply another detached program.

-When he started off, he held some listening sessions to find out the vision that students had. Your perspective is inherently not broad enough and you have to listen to those voices. Lived on the MLC at the time, but had those conversations with those not originally part of those organizations. Had been dictated by those who knew a lot about it and lived it at the time. We had to pretty fundamentally change course from the Plan 2008 context. I was lucky because Plan 2008 WAS Plan 2008 and we were concluding and deciding how to move forward. He was intrigued by my approach and invited me to speak in front of over 200 members of administration. Also invited to start working at the UW System level with Inclusive Excellence. Need to move it from a peripheral concern to a core policy.

Our approach has to fundamentally include every single student. If you’re excluding students, you’re having a very adverse effect on campus climate. So I became a full-time consultant and went around to all these campus units and making change. We established the diversity committee (non-existent from dormancy when he started), collaborated with MCSC with events in the Spring. It was a very important time to engage constituencies such as students and faculty. When I was deciding whether or not to continue in that role, I asked myself if there was anything else I could contribute. If I were to step down, that conversation would largely dissolve. We had to create some of the institutional structure to capitalize on this movement. I decided to continue on this campaign and make some of these really important structural changes on campus. Collaborated with a lot of Shared Gov appointees. We had some really serious conversations with them and we initiated a relaunch process for some administration approaches. Will relaunch in Fall 2010. The second side was students. We needed to find a new model that was sustainable that would help with these conversations. It resulted in the student leaders dialogue. You should read Jason Smathers‘ editorial to get some perspective on that, it brought a lot of people together to discuss these things seriously.

We were also talking about having things like this at SOAR. We’re creating a list of why these things worked so well. We finished the student side as well. And finally a feel a sense of conclusion to this whole campaign. It finally started happening. They are actually approaching these diversity issues differently at all kinds of campus units.

Admissions director search is also forcing us to have these conversations too. Gained a committment from every single candidate so far to fundamentally change the process to engaging student leaders in the student leaders in recruitment, changing the brand of the university, communicating the diversity of ideas here. From admissions to working with Vince Sweeney, we’re got a new approach to talking about these issues.

Max Love or Martin Uraga would be good for the Diversity Chair role.

Claps for Olikara.

6:58 - Andrea Nichols – Operations Grants – its a lot of money, I hope you’re taking a clear look at everything. I’m on SSFC, so I hope you take a long look at it all.

6:59 – Jen Kaiser – National Society of Leadership and Successwants to appeal for $2800 membership dues which were not covered, because otherwise, they can’t stay as a chapter. Without these funds, they’d be deactivated. Members have already paid a one-time 75 dollar fee, so the 2800 is an additional fee needed to supply certain services for the group.

Bemis- How many members are there?

Kaiser – 756.

Madsen – what constitutes an active member?

Have to attend certain speaker events and activities, there are likely 300 or so active members.

Manes – Why did you miss your appeal?

Kaiser – We just missed it, its are first year.

Ziebell – Could you still be an RSO on campus?

Kaiser – We could do some bare bones things, but we’d lose access to the website to see goals.

Bemis – How was the 2800 funded this year?

Kaiser – When you start the chapter, they waive the fee.

Madsen – Are you aware of other chapters at other universities and how they do that?

Kaiser – they do this sort of thing.

Hanley – You mention that in addition to materials and speakers, what other benefits does this provide?

Kaiser – The website provides speaker videos, a job listing site.

Hanley – So, only active members who pay their dues can get to the website?

Kaiser – They already can get it.

Gosselin – How much money did get from finance?

Kaiser – We got 300.

Gosselin – and you requested?

Kaiser – 3,000.

7:08 – Adoption of Agenda.

Chair Reports

Work-Study – Fergus is absent.

Academic Affairs – Zinn is absent

Diversity – Olikara said everything already.

Finance – Beemsterboer – most of this will be done later. Going to have feedback sessions, etc.

Leg. Affairs – Thanks for all the memories, look forward to working with you.

Nominations Board – Chair Sharpe – Needs time.

Shared Gov. – Hanley – Finished up interviews for appointments to Shared Gov. committees. Anyone who interviewed should be recieving that in the next day or two. Next Shared Gov. Chair will have to deal with duties. Didn’t have a meeting last week because of interviews.

Student Print – Had a meeting today, but because I wasn’t notified about it, I don’t know what happened. No report.

SACGB – Last meeting on Sunday. Some cleaning uptodo. New space app and space eval form. Those have to be finalized and we have to pass those on to the next governing board. We’ll look at those again. We also have bylaw changes, but those will have to wait until next session.

Nominations Board – As I informed you guys, we were in the process of making some of the interview questions make sense. Some of the descriptions are posted, the rest will be posted later. Will be on the server soon. I’ve advertised those positions for 17th Session. Those applications will be due April 28. I understand there might not be a meeting on May 1st because of Mifflin. If there is a meeting, I might extend those applications to give more people a chance to apply. I’ve been advertising it with one e-mail per week, I’ll talk to Ken about it too.

Ziebell – is there anything on the website?

Sharpe – Link on main page links to openings.

Chair Report – Junger – Negotiations on Fund 128 – Pretty good meeting. We’re going to be looking at that language and Williams can talk about it a little further. The next session will be approving the memo of understanding, unless we end up having another meeting next week.

Madsen – Could you say more about that?

Junger – I don’t want to say too much, but we started off in a strong position, maintained it, actually got language closer to the rights embodied in state statute 36.0.9(5)

Templeton is talking about plans for high speed rail, university recruitment efforts and other things. Had to lean over to talk with reporter. Sorry.

Student Judiciary – First meeting of the next session could be Sunday at Noon. Might not happen if the Vice Chief Justice says it can’t be at that time.

SSFC – We revised the member position description, worked on the MOU with Bazell, worked on RFP for Tenant Services contract. Making sure its abiding by all the legal administrative jargon. When that RFP is out, we have to assemble a pyramid committee to rate proposals, and it would likely be set in effect in September, which is great because its right in rental season (What?). Contract advisory committee will hopefully finish with their recommendations to Biddy before the end of the Fiscal Year.

7:25 – MEChA resolution – Wrote this after realizing MEChA could lose the space they’re occupying since 1972 (not could, WILL.), and there hasn’t been enough communication between UW and MEChA and I thought this would be something important to bring to the awareness of student council. And generally, the only way to have discussion on SC is to do it this way and figure out what to do when their ability to give their direct service is limited. I know there were some concerns that it might not be VPN. I think its our duty, however, to make sure their service can be provided if its been funded.

Templeton: Did you talk to anyone about this lack of communication?

Love: Looked at the DC article, talked to MEChA and they said this.

Templeton: Are you aware that they’ve been talking to MEChA about this for FOUR YEARS?

Love: That might be true, but they’ve not released any press release about this or what’s going on.

Williams: What will this legislation accomplish?

Love: I guess, since this is the last session, this won’t do anything. But I think it raises the discussion on this.

Templeton: Are you aware they have office space at the SAC?

Love: Yes, I’ve been told that, but I’ve been told it limits their ability to aid in their direct service.

Olikara: How would their direct services be limited?

Love: Cultural Arts are limited, archives need to be housed somewhere. They can’t do a lot of these things in the SAC.

Manes: Did you ask if they had alternatives?

Love: Didn’t really discuss that.

Templeton: Do you know if they’re aware about the multipurpose room in the SAC?

Love: Yes, I knew it, but they can do this right now at any point in the day. SAC isn’t open 24-7, MEChA is.

7:33- Operations Grants Approval

Beemsterboer – 91 applications or so, so it’s hard to present this. This is what we got after 16 appeals from student orgs. Final award amount of $145,000.

Gosselin – Could you rehash how Finance Committee made its decisions?

Beemsterboer – We took into consideration – what are the basic operational costs for student orgs. Every student org is going to require membership advertising of sort. The things we generally funded were ads and supplies for fliers, etc. Then we valued was membership dues – are there membership dues they have to pay, and if there are, what costs will members incur, and what is reasonable for the student body to pay. It was based on what the total cost would be per member.

Junger – Remember – this has to be VPN.

Gosselin – Largest five grants?

CWC – 33,100

Bline – 8,000

Pi Kappa Alpha – 4,780

WUD Publications – 5,000

CALS Student Council – 3,900

Gosselin – In the list of orgs that you listed off, can you explain the rationale behind CWC’s budget being five times the size?

Beemsterboer – It’s four times the amount. btw.

Manes – Was there any discussion had on the large number of supply line items for CWC?

Beemsterboer – No.

Manes – One of the things they did not talk about was capital equipment purchases, do you fund the supplies for those?

Beemsterboer – yes.

Debate

Gosselin – First point of information – When Council is looking at this, is it up-down, are there line items, orgs as a whole, etc.

Junger – Can amend by line with majority.

Gosselin – I move to strike 6,050 for printing, 10,000 from supplies, strike 4,393 dollars from ads, 6,000 from equipment from CWC.

Manes seconds.

Gosselin – The numbers as presented: Finance committee went through. There are around 90 or so orgs that recieved funds. Most fell between 500-1200, one reaching as high as 8,000 and then this 33,000 budget. I fear that it appears that Finance Committee may have deviated from the way it approached other groups. 1/4 of ops grant are being doled out to one group. And Op grants are supposed to fund the basics of daily operations. for a group. I have copies for the CWC budget request. I cut printing down to 3,000. The highest printing line item was from bline. Their organization essentially prints a magazine and that’s their cost. So, its clearly the fundamental essence for that organization. I left in all their fliers, but cut their magazine circulation.

Supplies, I cut it down to a level that was still double the nearest group’s line items. Some of these supplies can be conceivably funded by events grants.

Advertising struck to 1607 level – that’s how much homecoming committee received. Still substantial, the largest of any of these organizations.

Equipment – 6,000 was for space rental and phone. I cut it because I don’t know how comfortable I am to pay for space. We pay hundreds of thousands for the SAC, and we were going to fund this?

Basically: This could be a prima facie VPN violation by treating this group differently.

Hanley – What is there total left over? 6,607.

Junger – Please, stay VPN.

Madsen – If we wanted to solicit info from a CWC member, how do we do that while being VPN?

Junger – Can yield the floor to Tina.

Manes – Having dealt quite extensively with CWC, I think this was the result of emotional lobbying, not criteria. I don’t see why this group would have to deal this amount of money. I pulled up the financial policies and proceedures – Mission Statements of Operations Grant – Provides money for routine operations of the student group. We’re not funding centers, etc. We’re funding student organizations. We’re funding what is needed for that student org to exist.

Operations grants won’t be used to fund event oriented funding, major equipment, etc. Events are pertinent here. A lot of the supplies seem to be for more event oriented funding. Its 10,000 condoms to hand out at events. That’s probably something that should go through event grants. A lot of it does seem to fall outside of the daily purview of a student org. Not sure what he’s getting at by emphasizing “Student” organizations. I don’t think this is the place for this discussion, it should go back to finance, seeing as the debate lasted about 15 minutes.

Junger – Rationale for vote needs to be stated.

Madsen – pass.

Max Love – I’m surprised, because the rationale isn’t rationale. I’m surprised you mentioned this, because I’m not sure you witnessed the finance committee debate. Finance Committee did their job and it was passed. So everytime that you’ve said that SSFC should have their autonomy, I can’t believe you come up with your argument. It’s astounding that this is being done right now. The accusations of this VPN, its strange, because lobbying finance committee members can’t happen. Its misleading members of this committee. Try and see this rationally. See where it’s coming from.

Madsen – I’d like to ask the Council for approval for Tina to speak about their supplied. And how it relates to the core of their organizations.

Love – Suspend the rules to ask questions.

Tina – Most of our supplies are condoms, but its our biggest draw to get people to come in. Almost all of the male students that have come in have done so for safe sex supplies. Goes to the direct mission of CWC. Our primary service is resource advising. Most of our things are open to all students on campus. (I’m still in GSSF mode) As for rent and phone – we decided that we cannot do that in the SAC, because of the anonymity of some of our services. Most of the offices and suites have glass windows and we could cover them, but it doesn’t really work.

The printing of our zine, its part of our outreach to the artistic community. Whole subgroup of the campus women’s center. I feel super unprepared. I feel like I was blindsided.

Manes: Would you support an alternative hearing?

Tina: I would say sure, but I think we’re being singled out in a  non-VPN way.

Hanley: When it comes to printing, is that a (the magazine, I assume) service to students to all students directly? Is that available to all students directly?

Tina: Yeah, that’s really a part of our community.

Just a note: I tend to agree with Manes – this isn’t the place to be doing this. Send it back to finance committee.

Hanley: What’s the purpose of the ads, national pen?

Tina: National Pen produces our promotional materials, and the Herald and Cardinal would be advertising the center as a whole.

Ziebell: I know you said that you work with other departments for the Redzine. Uh….Pass on that. Netflix subscription?

Tina: Yeah, we don’t have it right now, but we thought it’d be good for our discussions and we wouldn’t have to pay 1,000 a time to show something.

Ziebell: On the other question – Do the other groups get funding from ASM to print those redzines?

Tina: Don’t really know, we have co-sponsorships, CWC contributes a certain amount of money.

Beemsterboer: Why not SAC space?

Tina: More anonymous. Sure, other similar groups are here, but there’s a need for a separate center for this.

I don’t know if the Memorial Union space was that more anonymous. I mean, it was a clear line of sight to the door. The SAC space does have odd angles and corners and a myriad more locations that one could duck into. Certainly, you could argue the windows are a problem, but you can fix that.

Tina: It’s a safe bet. We’re a former GSSF group. This is less than a 1/3 of our former budget.

Martenzie Johnson: If you don’t get the space funding, would you cease to exist.

Tina: I don’t want to misrepresent them.

Love: Do you know if they lobbied Finance?

Tina: No.

Love: Why not?

Tina: We were told it was frowned upon, or illegal. I don’t quite know.

Madsen: Is the ad budget used for events?

Tina: It used to be when we had a bigger budget, but it might do so with our kickoff meetings, etc.

Madsen: Do your funds actually go to events, or services, etc.

Tina: I can speak to this, all the event line items were stripped for this budget. Most of the supplies were the bare basics. We have a lot of active members, so that’s why there is so much.

Gosselin: Pass.

Manes: No other student orgs that we fund here put on services. These are funds for the student orgs to exist. No other groups were funded for rent.

Madsen: POI – weren’t some other groups given funds for rent?

Beemsterboer: That was for Badger Ballroom, rental funds for dancing space.

Manes: Can you segregate your student org from the services you provide?

Tina: What is an organization for? Just to exist and talk? These services are what we do to exist! Can you give an example of an org that exist but doesn’t do anything?

Manes: Well, it’s not often that this happens. CFACT lost their GSSF status. They do internships, they do campaigning, they did other direct services…but they were able to separate the cost associated from those services from those to just run the organizations.

Tina: So, separate the costs of operating from these services? The mission IS our services. If we cut all the services, we would still be doing resource advising. We give them stuff, we get people who call the phone line when they’re in crisis. I don’t think I can answer this question. and also, it’s really hard to do this on the fly. I’m only in charge of about a 1/9 of the org.

Manes: You said that none of the CWC members have lobbied Finance Committee members. You personally lobbied with Tim Fund during GSSF funds.

Tina: Yeah! For GSSF!

Manes: Yes, but it was Tim Fung who moved to fund… (Laughter from Max Love.)

Tina: I’m sorry, I should have clarified.

Manes: But how can you say you didn’t lobby when you did lobby for a Finance Committee member?

Tina: I’m sure anyone who was on both committees would have a different understanding. How can we be punished for doing what we were supposed to SSFC and Finance? If it’s allowed in the bylaws, its allowed in the bylaws.

Bemis: Can you give an estimate to how many students use the support groups?

Tina: We don’t take names, obviously.

Junger: Motion to close the speakers list for questions. No objection (Max objects but not loud enough. Moving on.)

Olikara: Did CWC engage in the rearrangement process for Red Gym? Did anyone look into that?

Tina: I personally don’t know.

(Sorry, missed a bit fielding e-mails about interviews and controversial ads. HOW FUN!)

Madsen: This is an all student group, right?

Tina: Yes, it’s all student run, no professional staff or advisers.

Move more to debate, back in rules.

Beemsterboer: Motion to add 562 to printing, 863 to supplies, 1,374 to ads, and 400 to equipment rental.

Templeton: Lobbying needs to be public, right?

Junger: Yes.

Templeton: Make that clear to Bemis,then, who’s talking to Tina.

Beemsterboer: Nobody has asked if I was comfortable with the Finance Committee debate, I was not, I think it was a prima facie violation as Kurt said. There are a lot of justifiable items in this original grant, but not to the level we funded.

(Speaks to rationale for why he wants to increase grants from Kurt’s number. Says a lot of the supplies are unnecessary, the space IS necessary, given the SAC space allocation having passed.)

Williams – If you have lobbied with any orgs, even in small amounts, please fill out the forms, because otherwise you can be removed.

Madsen: Speaking to the second – I think its important respect his opinion and information as to how he acts. I think its important to have the space. If for nothing else, the support groups. Condoms are necessary to draw people in. Might be worth still talking about where the supplies money should be.

Love: I just want to say, I don’t support the amendment because just because a group is getting an atypical amount doesn’t mean its a violation. I can’t find one thing that is being funded here that it can’t be funded. Says event oriented funding  isn’t being funded. I can’t see why we won’t fund CWC to the request they ask. For us not to ask that about every single group, we’re violating VPN then. And this isn’t a VPN hearing. If people have concerns about this being too large, you can’t argue that. That’s not logical reasoning. I’ve disagreed with both the amendments.

Can’t is a lot different from “should” based on what is fiscally responsible and necessary for the group. I wrote an article about this once, and I think Love is taking that position, but I’ve changed my mind on that since then. I’ll post it if I find it.

Gosselin: I’m not sure if you need to read an Econ book or Southworth first. The idea that there’s a scarcity of resources aside, the reason I moved to look at this is because it is substantially greater. I think that might be a sign of VPN violation.

Willing to concede certain points, might have to pull a Wiley on the space funding, but some of this is fiscal insanity.

Manes: Really agree with Gosselin. We don’t have the expertise to go through this line by line. We are here to be a check on Finance Committee. We sit here for a reason, so that those things don’t just happen as an anomaly. There seems to be lobbying here and they happened to get the largest operations grant in history. But looking through the changes that Beemsterboer made, they’re reasonable. It’s difficult to separate an organization from its services, but its something that has to be done. And they no longer have privileges that a GSSF group would enjoy. I support these cuts at these levels. Call the question.

Amendment to amendment (Beemsterboer’s) – New total 14,806 dollars.

Carries.

Templeton: Call the question on original amendment.

Defeated. Return to speakers list.

Manes: supports rent increase. Chancellor Wiley, when dealing with WISPIRG, granted them an exemption for one year to continue to receive funding (Remember to fill out that lobbying form, Max. I saw that.) I feel the same way about CWC. They’re going to have to provide alternatives next time they come before SSFC.

Ziebell: Speaks to support of this. (Max Love just showed me his form. Thank you. Puts my mind at ease)

Bemis: Don’t support change in supply line for change after lobbying. Looking at the CWC website, there are certain things that happen too regularly to get event grants.

Love: I’d like to address, Kurt – just because they’re receiving 1/4 of the operations grant doesn’t mean its wrong. I looked at different orgs receiving rental funding -

Risk Management and Insurance Society – 1,000 for room rentals

Wisconsin Singers – nothing. whoops.

Hoofers Riding Club – Porta Potty rental, 1750 for entire space rental.

Yoga – 300 equipment rental.

Kappa Alpha Psi  – 400 for campus events

UW Kennel Club is getting nothing.

Decca is getting something…

This, so far, is mostly equipment and rental space for events. CWC wants permanent housing.

Gymnastics Club – money for workout environment.

Hypnotic – dance studio rental.

Habitat for Humanity – West High School rental space.

(Tell you what, I’m going to cut this off here and post all the details of his rent comparisons here tomorrow.)

Motion to yield remaining time to CWC to explain the rent necessity. Fails.

Madsen – There needs to be a good conversation about scarcity of resources, and for that to come back to council and have that happen, that’s not unreasonable. I’m going to make a motion to increase the supplies line for 1,740 for 3,000 packs of whistles and lube, which, of course, goes hand in hand with condoms

I disagree, actually – doesn’t lube break down the effectiveness of condoms? Still, whatever. It’s in the supply pack, right? Doesn’t make sense to short people their lube. That’s inequity, fools.

Call to question on amendment to amendment.

Fails.

9:06 – Beemsterboer – All of the space equipment rentals are for temporary uses of space, except for Hoofers Riding Club. Only got funded half of what they requested.

I could point out half of these line items and why they are not needed for basic operations. If you have events, ask for events grants, not backdoor through the ops grant. Because they claim tooffer a service shouldn’t be taken into considerations. We’re not talking about funding their services.

We just heard from one organization at the beginning of the meeting that can’t function with 2,800, and are now debating one that claims the amount given isn’t enough to do all their programs. Call the question.

CWC passes at 15k or so.

Back on total ops grant.

Gosselin: Maybe we should give the money back to finance, but I don’t want to let that 10k just sit idle.

Beemsterboer – Motion to add 2,800 in membership dues for National Society of Leadership and Success.

I understand the appeals process may be rather difficult. I can sympathize with their appeal.

Ziebell – If they can’t function, that’ll be open SAC space, and given our problems with allocation, that’ll cause problems.

Call to question: Passes.

Beemsterboer: Refer the rest of the ops grants left over (about 14.5 k) [EDIT] Finance committee, as long as it cannot go to CWC.

Gosselin – Extend prohibition to the other group we just gave funds to.

Call to questions. All pass.

Motion to adjourn.

We’re done at 9:17!

A note to anonymous/aliased commenters

April 21, 2010

As you can see in the wonderful cluster of problems that was yesterday’s commenting thread, “Impartial Student” is not who he seems to be and  would like you to believe that. While I usually enjoy the free and anonymous trade of ideas, I don’t appreciate it when people try to play clever games with me or the audience. So when I found out who this comment was attributed to, I was rather miffed:

What about Melissa Hanley for Chair?

Also Max Love is an idiot; that resolution just breaths violation of VPN.

I’m miffed because the person who left that comment WAS Max Love, apparently trying to convince us that he’s not him. What better way than to insult himself!

Well, the IP address accords in the rest of his comments (not the initial one), as does his e-mail address, which I found linked (through a google search) to  a forum for an online military combat game that he must have played back in 2006. I won’t link to it, because there’s no need to actually reveal what e-mail he was using, but the point of this revelation is this:

If you choose to be anonymous on this blog, do not attempt to convince people you are not who you are. Do not misrepresent someone else. Don’t fool my audience.

And if you do — use an e-mail that I can’t trace back to you. Biased Student certainly caught on.

Max, if transparency is paramount to you, then you should either post with your own name or try not to point the finger first.

In other news, I may attend Student Council tonight — I have the night off and I haven’t been able to go in awhile. Live blog time?

ASM/UW Roundup

April 20, 2010

Let’s start off on the right foot:

-Gosselin has an election wrap-up and needless number crunching, as he was happy to point out in the comments. As stated before, the turnout was huge, but so was the incumbency factor — Junger, Williams (although he was appointed before, not elected), Manes, Ziebell, Zinn, Templeton, Hanley (also appointed), Beemsterboer, Ingrahm (assuming he accepts), Madsen, Deichl (appointed as well, right?).  I’m not sure if that will matter in the end, but it certainly is interesting.

As for chair and vice chair — the obvious choices are Templeton and Zinn for chair. Williams might also be an option given his stewardship of SSFC and greater involvement in the tenant resources contract, as well as ASM issues in general. Templeton would hardly be objectionable as chair (as I think he did a lot of the behind the scenes grunt work, such as his work with the UC/Student Reps merger), but Williams might have his detractors because of everything that surrounded the CWC saga and disgruntlement with the strict nature of SSFC in general.

Zinn makes sense on paper (Academic Affairs is going swimmingly for the most part), but he’s seen as fairly stubborn on Student Council. For what it’s worth, in an interview before the elections, he said he thought his objections were principled stands against what he saw as self-serving SC measures such as increasing the stipends for the chairs. He likely doesn’t have the votes to make that work, though.

Whatever happens, let’s make it clear: This is not a Junger/Benford situation where neither had direct experience on SC — We have three incumbents with very clearly outlined resumes and methods. Williams vs. Zinn might be a bit closer, but Templeton vs. Zinn would seem to be heavily in Templeton’s favor. Furthermore, MPOWER doesn’t have the votes to simply give it to Zinn. 11 MPOWER members on paper, perhaps one or two more in the grad school. On a body of 33, 12-13 isn’t going to cut it. The only reason is did last year was because key votes didn’t show up until later — I think it was a 13-13 deadlocked vote? And I’d be surprised if ANYONE misses the first meeting. If they are, I’ll be sure to call them out.

-MEChA is still having problems with their space. Obviously, they wanted a suite in the SAC, but that didn’t end up happening. I’ll be trying to follow up on this more after talking to some people from UW and MEChA, but there has to be a place for them. The story says they were offered space in the Red Gym, but turned it down. Max Love has a resolution he’s bringing up at Student Council to…well…I’m not really sure what this is supposed to do other than offer support.

In the discussion over the proposed site for the new UW-Madison Music School, the University has largely ignored the student organization Movimiento Estudiantil Chican@ de Aztlan.

There has been no initiative to compensate the organization with an autonomous space much like the space it occupies now. The organization has been in this space since 1972. The university has not been in contact with the organization throughout the public property debate and anything they know regarding their office location’s status is through word of mouth.

Because the location serves as a direct dispenser of M.E.Ch.A’s direct service, and because relocating to the SAC would limit M.E.Ch.A’s ability to provide CulturArte, Student Council has an obligation to raise questions about the fate of M.E.Ch.A’s space.

Be it resolved, that ASM Student Council supports truthful discussions about the future of an autonomous space for M.E.Ch.A. so they can distribute their direct service.

Listen, I find it hard to believe that they weren’t told anything before a last minute “By the way, you’re out” but I agree with Love that it’s worth looking into. I’m just wondering how a SC resolution will solve this. It should say something about how SC resolves to help MEChA find space so it can continue providing services, not that it supports a discussion. With SAC space, obviously, you can’t go out of your way to give them space because it wouldn’t be VPN (although, they’re going to appeal their space decision given the small amount), but there should be some way of finding them extra space for their archives and CulturArte program. I’ll let you know what else I find out.

-Leg Affairs drops plans to bring Gov. candidates here this semester, and talks the Yahara/Monona Terrace/Dane County Airport/Kohl Center possibilities for High Speed rail. We’ve seen Johnson and Williams’ thoughts on this, I only ask — where you at Paulson? Thoughts? FYI: They also discussed what to do with our lovely Alcohol License Density Ordinance once the sunset provision kicks in. This should be ASM’s prime concern on a city level when it comes up — they were very much against it back in 06, will they be as adamant this time around? I’m sure the city will trot out some crime statistics to back up ALDO, but I wonder what the economic impacts are?

-And once again, for those who missed it in the last post — Final numbers from NatUP campaign: 39,000 – 30,700 on the website, renderings, powerpoint and another 8,000 or so on shirts, banners, etc. How fun! The Ed Board doesn’t like it.

NatUP’s “sour grapes”

April 20, 2010

I received this letter last week from someone. I can’t say who they are because they refused to let them use their name, but I also refused to let them have the letter printed in the Herald. I wasn’t going to print it here, but then I saw they published the entire letter as a rambling blog post on Muckrakers (people still use that thing?) so all bets are off.

Let me just acknowledge that I am incredibly impressed with the voter turnout, despite the outcome. Not to mention I do pay for my education.

Earlier this week, the students had a chance to improve The University of Wisconsin-Madison’s recreational facilities for future generations, and it failed. Why you ask? Because of our biased media, student government and the lies going around from No New Seg Fees. Every other election, the Herald has published side by side opinion articles (and stated facts), except for this campaign. Students were not well informed about this issue. If they would have known the Nat WILL NOT be built without an increase in segregated fees, and construction costs are at an all time low making it a better investment for our future, the outcome would have been different.

I think the majority of students understood that was a possibility. Yes, the student body may not get a shiny new facility without increasing segregated fees, but its a matter of whether they willfully want to raise their segregated fees or that of their future classmates.

I watched the No New Seg Fee’s immature tactics first hand. STUDENTS: we let a bunch of TA’s tell us how to vote and ignored a decade worth of complaints. In a recent article No New Seg Fees representative Peter Rickman said “the allegations sound like “sour grapes.” He said No New Seg Fees did not need to resort to lies to perpetuate their message and NatUP 2010 never confronted the group with those allegations.” Is this a joke? It’s quite funny because I watched your group mess with NatUp signs and chalking, not to mention I had to correct many people in my classes about the lies coming from your group. How does it feel to win because of the lies you told? You should be humiliated knowing how far behind you just put our campus, its going to cost students a lot more in the future.

I’m sorry, but this is a university, not a high school. When you put kids in K-12, you give them physical education because it’s been decided over time that you’re not just teaching them the basic academics, but trying to make them a well-rounded individual. Once you get to college, that’s your responsibility. Because of that, it’s the student’s responsibility to decide their exercise patterns, workout routines and emphasis on that sort of physical self-education.

Guess what? They either don’t want to do that or don’t need a shiny new building to accomplish that. This is only going to cost students more if they assume this project will happen on the backs of students regardless. And if you think they’re going to approve this after the massive failure of NatUP and the multiple blitz campaigns of the Wisconsin Union, you’re misjudging the dissatisfaction with even modest increases in tuition and fees.

If more students went to the debate, you would have seen how professional NatUp was. No New Seg Fees were clearly unprepared and showed disrespect during the entire debate and even quoting movie lines as a joke. Also if you would have been at this debate you would have known, the University can not and will not fund this project.

Let’s be fair — No New Seg Fees didn’t run a very well informed campaign. The letters written on behalf of the group to the Herald (Frank Honts comes to mind) missed certain key facts and that annoyed me a bit. It also annoyed me at the debate that one of the members didn’t really seem to be taking it all too seriously. For what its worth, Rickman and others in the TAA should be mildly ashamed for not making sure their facts were airtight.

That being said, I don’t think the news section got anything wrong. Yeah, they probably didn’t like the article on their spending of 30,000, but hey, neither did the rest of the campus when they saw it. Oh, and by the way, courtesy of an open records request from Kevin Bargnes, the actual total is about $39,000, itemized here.

No New Seg Fees asks: how can we spend money on a new gym when education funding is limited? This question is just a scare tactic, and our education funding is an entirely separate issue (which was also explained during the debate). Segregated fees and an increase in tuition are two separate arguments, but No New Seg Fees ensured this distinction was blury. NatUp was created to improve our facilities by the students for the students, not involving the University’s educational funding at all. But No New Seg Fees made a lot of people think otherwise.

A Herald reporter finally got it right, Kevin Bargnes said, “By the mid 2020s, students could be paying well over $220 a year for exercise facilities — probably more like $300-$400 given the fact that the SERF won’t be cheap.” If an article like this would have been published before the vote, maybe students would have a better opinion, instead the Herald stuck to negative, biased opinion articles. The Herald should be ashamed of the way they presented this campaigns information, and now students have to pay for it and they will for many years to come. Bargnes calls himself a “muckraker” even when his articles are corrected by truthful comments, and then he uses those comments in other articles, way to do your research buddy, you really messed up this time.

Uh. Here’s the deal, NatUP — just because they are segregated fees, doesn’t mean the money for a new Nat and tuition don’t come from the same pocket. As for the Bargnes critique — I’d like to point out that NatUP members tried to claim that nothing is being done to the SERF after the Nat — which is just not true. So, while we’re talking about lies, let’s keep that in mind.

Why didn’t No New Seg Fees propose an alternative funding option? They certainly failed to tell people NatUp was seeking private donations, and would have continued to if the referendum passed. Did your group not understand that it would be a MAXIMUM of $54 per semester, because alternative options were still being looked at. To make it clear, the state can only contribute to the educational purposes of the Nat, but No New Seg Fees failed again to get that message across.

Let this be known, our $60 million building today will cost over $100 million in the future because construction costs will continue to rise. Not to mention, we all pay $53 in segregated fees for an ASM bus pass that a lot of us don’t use. Also, there’s going to be new Lakeshore dorms going up. State of the art facilities keeps Madison on top, and will make us look much better as alumni. Next time you go and visit another university (especially those in state) make sure to check out their recreational facilities, and you just might vote differently next time. Lets just go back to avoiding our recreational facilities when tours are given for potential incoming students, we’re all embarrassed.

I don’t really have any breath left to address them. I’m just surprised the author of that comment wouldn’t allow her comment to be published. I sent an e-mail asking why she wanted to be anonymous. The answer?:

Hi Jason, thank you for your response. I just want to fun [sic] my letter to the editor, not start any controversy with TA’s, however I was one of many students who received a lecture from their TA’s before class. Not to mention my friend has over 9 e-mails from her TA telling their class to vote NO. How are we suppose to stand up to that? I’d rather protect my grade. I have no problem discussing the letter to the editor with you on the phone. Thank you.

My number is in the signature, but I never got a call. Oh well.

NatDOWN, MPOWER gets 10 seats, Union South is Union South

April 14, 2010

Amazing really. The turnout was 34.5 percent of campus. That’s by far the largest turnout ever. The referendums on Union South went into about 18 percent or so before being invalidated, but the only one after that was last year’s ASM Constitution referendum. That was 15 percent.

Frankly, the repudiation of NatUP is stunning.  8,354 to 5311, essentially 60-40. No worry about that.

In addition, Adam Johnson and Tina Trevino-Murphy did not make the cut. Very surprising, but I guess someone has to miss the mark. Zinn makes it as does Johnson’s deputy Woolwich.

More on this as I get time to write.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.