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.
April 20, 2010 at 12:58 pm |
What about Melissa Hanley for Chair?
Also Max Love is an idiot; that resolution just breaths violation of VPN.
April 20, 2010 at 1:18 pm |
I’ll be willing to chat with her, but the problem I have there is that there isn’t much indication as to what she has done on Shared Governance committee. For as long as I have been aware of it, SG has focused most of its attention on appointing students to committees and keeping them there. I understand that’s a hard enough task as it is, but when you look at her mid-year stipend report to Chair Junger, she made it very clear that she didn’t really have many plans for the rest of the year:
“I’ll be honest, I don’t have a “project plan” for the semester other than to make it through all of the important things that need to happen on Shared Gov. With that, I will detail what those “events” are and the steps I plan to take to meet them. I hope this is sufficient.”
The then said he duties for the rest of the year included appointing people to committees and building an institutional memory, which is part of reason for the new SG deputies. That will help, certainly, but I’d need to know a bit more about what she plans on doing for SC if she runs for a Chair, VC or Secretary spot. I’m not entirely opposed, but I’m curious to hear the arguments for Hanley in that role. Can anyone speak to that?
April 20, 2010 at 10:58 pm
She seems to be the only one that can bridge the gaps between the slates. Why did I make that plural? Because suits & co. are truly a slate, they are just strategic in not announcing so.
She is a strong leader and people do not give her enough credit. I would love to see a TJ Madsen/Melissa Hanley combination. A Jonah Zinn/Melissa Hanley combination would also be great. We need leaders who are strong but can bridge the gaps.
April 21, 2010 at 12:55 am
Mr. Impartial Student,
Wasn’t the gap created when MPOWER said “we’re a slate, this is what we stand for and this is what we are going to do” ?
When MPOWER took this stance they clearly endorsed the US v. THEM mentality for Council. If there is any gap, this is an MPOWER-manufactured division established on clear lines of not wanting to serve students but wanting to serve their party.
And bridging gaps? Jonah? Are you fucking serious? He wouldn’t compromise on anything this past session! Impartial Student, you are clearly a partisan hack within MPOWER attempting to mask yourself behind a false facade.
April 21, 2010 at 12:00 am |
Since I apparently can’t reply to the last post:
You think Hanley isn’t connected to “suits and co?” I certainly saw her hit the bars with Templeton and Johnson the other night, so I find that assertion to be hilarious.
Also, if she is a strong leader, please tell me what she’s done to earn that title. That’s a serious question: I just don’t know enough to agree or disagree with that assessment.
April 21, 2010 at 12:16 am |
Ahem. BTW — your IP address is quite amusing. You might want to come out of the closet there, friend.
April 21, 2010 at 7:26 am
Unless you reveal me, my friend, let’s keep the secret between us. I find the cover of an alias much more useful for discussing things like this.
Anyways asmwatch: Melissa has the potential to be a respectful leader, not afraid to have honest discussions that incorporate all students on student council. It’s about respect. I believe that Jonah and TJ also are respectful, although Jonah does have strong ideals, most everyone does.
BtTP: You’re right. MPOWER did come out and decide to run as a “slate”. Can’t argue with you there. It’s just council aligns itself already more than you let on. I would like to get your honest opinion on who would be good leaders for student council. I want to see fresh ideas as well so that there is some actual debate when the time comes.
April 21, 2010 at 1:58 pm
Mr. “Impartial,”
I think asmwatch is likely concerned about your alias, because you are attempting to mask yourself as “impartial” when you are not. It was not difficult for me to figure out who you are. Your rhetoric, online mannerisms and style give you away (at least to the somewhat observant eye).
As for good leaders, there are a few standout choices, but I don’t want to speculate until potential chairs announce. As I responded to your question earlier, I think Tom is a likely candidate (he has been VC for the year and understands the organization well). Also, Jonah seems to be the only choice for MPOWER – but I do not believe he would be a good choice for ASM.
As for those with considerable ASM experience who could also run, the list is extensive: Beemsterboer, Fergus, Hanley, Johnson, Junger, Manes, Nichols, Williams, Ziebell
April 21, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Thank you Kurt. I was waiting for your opinion.
April 20, 2010 at 2:04 pm |
Just wanted to point out that while the MECHA resolution doesn’t seem to provide anything on the surface, it might actually help.
Some people on ASM think, “Why would we need a resolution to support something with such an open ended goal? Of course there should be open discussion, but we don’t need a resolution to SAY there should be!”
Such a thought might make sense if ASM leadership would ACTUALLY talk with the Chancellor and ODOS about student issues. Tyler Junger has done a TERRIBLE job of this all year long. I cannot even count the number of times Jonah has asked Tyler, “so, did you talk to the Chancellor at the last meeting about the AFSCME resolution we passed?” only for Tyler to respond that he forgot and will do it next time. I cannot count how many times Max Love asked “did you find out more from the chancellor or ODOS about the seg fee sweep?” or “did you look into getting legal council?” or even “did you make your report on the sweep yet?” only for him to respond, “we will do it next time.”
Tyler Junger has done a terrible job of using his meeting with the administration to proactively deal with student issues. The thought is that by passing these resolutions – he may actually do so (although his record doesn’t provide much hope).
April 20, 2010 at 2:17 pm |
While we’re at it…
http://www.dailycardinal.com/opinion/asm-representatives-only-exist-on-paper-1.1372171
As for Junger, I would agree that he didn’t turn out to be as effective as I would have hoped. I think he had priorities focused on a lot of the MIU stuff as well as internal regulations. And as for the seg fee sweep, I’m starting to swing toward legal counsel on that one, but I’ve yet to judge the situation as a whole.
But I want to see the next chair be a bit more visible and proactive. I think everyone does.
April 20, 2010 at 3:40 pm |
“his 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?”
It’s my primary concern right now. And I hope Leg. Affairs takes it up next year as well (we damn well better…).
As for our position, we are far from adamantly against it. There is a TON of merit to the legislation and it has worked well although not without imperfections. We are working towards rubbing out and amending these imperfections to create an ordinance that is good for the city, and good for student interests.
April 20, 2010 at 7:33 pm |
I’m mostly a Yahara Station fan, and I don’t think a Monona Terrace Stop or Kohl Center would work logistically. (There’s an interesting email floating around wondering about train length, and if it will fit on the proposed spot for Yahara Station without spilling out onto either Johnson or E Washington, especially in the future when train length might grow longer – the suggestion is to consider a station just up a bit on the other side of Johnson in the train yard. I’m not a train expert so I don’t know how serious of an issue this really is)
The Mayor has/had some idea about a stop a few blocks over at like First and Atwood, which is effectively the same spot from an economic development standpoint but might have fit in better with some of the ideas for possible commuter rail. Either site, along with Central Park, and perhaps some smart use of TIF/Brown Field remediation funds ought to jump start the Capitol Gateway plans on E Washington Ave.
In the past, I was an airport site fan, but that was only because I thought a Monona Terrace/Kohl Center stop would be too far off the main tracks to ever be feasible, or that pushing for anything other than the airport would jeopardize our chances of getting the green light.
What I really want to see happen is for the DOT to come out and say “If you put it here, it will cost $N1 dollars and X1,Y1,and Z1 will happen, if you put it there it will cost $N2 dollars and X2, Y2, and Z2 will happen”, let it go back to the city/RTA/MPO/county so we can weigh in on how it fits in with our local plans, and then go back to DOT with our recommendation. That’s essentially what we’re getting, but I don’t know that there’s been anything from the DOT that compares the different sites.
Finally, I’m sick of people complaining that it’s going to lose money. The day I-90 turns a profit is the day I’ll give a shit what the train brings in from ticket sales.
April 20, 2010 at 9:23 pm |
Erik,
I was watching one of the local access TV shows a couple weeks ago. They had a guy who had been with the state rail authority for like 40 years. He was arguing for a Monona Terrace (or some downtown) location. He claimed (from his extensive rail experience) that these locations were logistically feasible.