For Immediate Release:

February 7, 2014

1,483 UW-MILWAUKEE STUDENTS DISENFRANCHISED BY EXTRALEGAL STUDENT ASSOCIATION CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENDUM

NUMBER OF STUDENTS DISENFRANCHISED IS OVER 6 TIMES MORE THAN THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS THAT VOTED FOR THE REFERENDUM; SHARED GOVERNANCE FIASCO CREATED BY UWM ADMINISTRATION CONTINUES

MILWAUKEE, WI: On January 30th, ASAP released a press release regarding the extralegal University
of WisconsinMilwaukee (UWM) Student Association Constitutional Referendum. The University of WisconsinMilwaukee Board of Trustees (BOT) d/b/a UWM Student Association (SA) released a summary of the results of the referendum that they put to students from January 22nd-26th, 2014. The referendum passed by an 80% margin. But public records requests showed that only 301 students out of the 24,298 students provided a ballot voted in the extralegal Student Association Constitutional Referendum, which equates to only 1.24% of students voting. Only 242 of those students voted yes on the referendum, meaning that approximately 0.9959667462% of the student population voted for the new Constitution. The Board of Trustees have stated that they indeed intend to recognize this vote as valid and the ratification of the new constitution will take effect May 1, 2014. REFERENDUM ISSUES: Based on the peculiar timing of the referendum before the end of the enrollment period, the ballot was sent out to 24,298 students. As of February 3rd, 2014, the end of enrollment, there was 25,781 students enrolled at UWM, as evidenced by the report from the UWM Office of Assessment and Institutional Research. Based on the discrepancy between the number of ballots sent out and the student headcount number at the end of enrollment, approximately 1483 students were seemingly disenfranchised of their statutory rights to govern themselves and select their representatives in a manner they determine under Wisconsin State Statute 36.09(5). The amount of students disenfranchised (1483) is over six (6) times more than the number of students that voted in the affirmative in the referendum. Considering that only 184 students, out of the 1843 that were disenfranchised, would have needed to vote in the negative for the referendum to fail based on the current numbers, can we really take this referendum as fair and legitimate? It is important to state that if the referendum had been held two weeks later, these 1843 students would have been able to vote. This is one of many, many concerning issues regarding the said constitutional referendum that could irreparably harm student shared governance at UWM. An email out to UWM Student Association Chief Justice Justin Welch seeks to address and answer many of the questions and issues of the referendum. UW SYSTEM STUDENT REPRESENTATIVES: TOMORROW February 8th, 2014, UW-Milwaukee will be hosting a meeting of the UW System Student Representatives, which consists of the leadership of each respective member-institutions student government association (SGA). The agenda includes items regarding the UWM Board of Trustees and responsible election practices. Due to UWM hosting the meeting, the discussion regarding the unlawful interference in student shared governance at UWM needs to be had. If infringements on, and interference in, student shared governance is allowed at UWM by UW System Student Representatives without being addressed, then the issues seen at UWM have the potential to spread UW System-wide. UW System Student Representatives should be taking action in support of true student rights and in support of a collaborative shared governance climate at each respective UW System institution. We respectfully submit two recommendations as legislation, attached and found here in document form, to be taken up by the UW System Student Representatives. The first regarding the unlawful administrative interference at UWM and the second addressing student segregated university fees (SUF) disputes that, many times, are the root of these issues between administrators and students. We call on the UW System Student Representatives to stand up for true shared governance.

PAGE | 1

For Immediate Release:

February 7, 2014

1,483 UW-MILWAUKEE STUDENTS DISENFRANCHISED BY EXTRALEGAL STUDENT ASSOCIATION CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENDUM

--

A summary of the concept of shared governance can be found at: http://asap-4-uwm.tumblr.com/sharedgovernance

Previous press releases regarding the ongoing issues at UWM can be found at: http://asap-4-uwm.tumblr.com/pressreleases An explanation of recent concerning events regarding shared governance at UWM can be found at: http://asap-4-uwm.tumblr.com/yourvoice
For any further information please contact ASAP at asap4uwm@gmail.com or visit: http://asap-4-uwm.tumblr.com/contactus

###

The ALLIANCE OF STUDENTS ACHIEVING PROGRESS (ASAP) is a movement, currently active in the UW-Milwaukee campus community. ASAP has had a long history as a party in UW-Milwaukee Student Association Elections and in student advocacy for 20+ years. Previously known as Achieving Student Action through Progress, the name may change but our progressive values and integrity in student and shared governance advocacy will not. We remain a united movement of like-minded individuals standing up to ensure everyone has a voice. We believe in a truly shared system where all governance groups under WI Stat. 36.09 work together to advance the goals of their respective Institution, the UW-System, higher education, and the Wisconsin Idea.

PAGE | 2

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

STANCE ON ADMINISTRATIVE INTERFERENCE IN STUDENT GOVERNANCE AT UW-MILWAUKEE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
WHEREAS; Students at UW-Milwaukee (UWM) and all University of Wisconsin (UW) campuses are vested the right to organize themselves and select their representatives as they see fit under Wisconsin State Statute 36.09(5); and, WHEREAS; Multiple Wisconsin Court decisions and UW Administrative policies declare elections are key to selecting representatives of the student electorate, and to affirming the singular legitimacy of the Student Association Constitution, such as the elections held annually at UWM; and, WHEREAS; No provision in the UWM Student Association (SA) Constitution allows the executive, legislative, or judicial branch to unilaterally reject the Constitutions relevancy and completely dissolve or usurp the authority of the Student Association, or suspend said Constitution; and, WHEREAS; No clause in any administrative policy or state law supports the unprecedented May 3, 2013 letter from UWM Chancellor Michael Lovell to not recognize the 2013-2014 UWM Student Association Elections, or how his allegations of election flaws would justify authoritarian de-recognition of an elected body. The Chancellor of a UW institution does not have the authority to not recognize the elections of any shared governance body, and allowing such actions sets dangerous precedent that affects all shared governance bodies; and, WHEREAS; If allegations of election flaws were legitimate and not merely excuses for a flagrant power grab by UWM Administration, the UWM Student Association Independent Elections Commission and UWM University Student Court possessed authority and appropriate mechanisms to resolve any problems in a legitimate and legal manner; and, WHEREAS; Any proper reorganization to shift lawful authority from one governmental structure to another or amendment or adoption of a new Constitution, according to the student-recognized UWM Student Association Constitution, must first obtain a petition of 5% of the UWM student body and then a majority vote in the affirmative in subsequent referendum; and, WHEREAS; The UWM Board of Trustees (BOT) d/b/a UWM Student Association put forward an extralegal UWM Student Association Constitution to a referendum of the students, without the legal authority to do so. The only legitimate, legal avenues to propose an amendment of the UWM SA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

Constitution is by a 2/3rd majority vote of the (now defunct) SA Senate or a 5% petition of the students, neither was done in this instance; and, WHEREAS; UWM Administrators exposed their self-interest in these actions by pushing a weakened constitution onto students the second day of the Spring 2014 semester. Timing of the emailed referendum seemed designed to minimize open debate of its merits and to minimize student participation. Spring 2014 students were not all enrolled until Feb 3, almost two weeks after the referendum began and just over a week after it ended. The same parties who proclaim election fraud as justification for their coup have no problem with the referendum emails subject line, which begins with Vote Yes UWM! Approximately 1.24% of the student body (301) voted in that referendum, compared with almost 13% of students voting in the not-recognized 2013-2014 Student Association Elections; and, WHEREAS; Due to the timing of the referendum occurring before the end of the enrollment period for the Spring 2014 semester, 1,483 UWM students were disenfranchised and unable to vote in the constitutional referendum. This is over six (6) times the number of students that voted in the affirmative for the referendum and if these students had been allowed to vote it most certainly could have changed the results of the referendum; and, WHEREAS; Lawful spending and policy decisions by the UWM SA in 2012 and 2013 are being ignored by the UWM Division For Student Affairs, such as cutting approximately $230,000 in student segregated university fees (SUF) (based on Fall 2013 and Spring 2014 FTE) that had let the Student Association Professional Staff office abuse its authority and attempt to control the student voice. The entire office was zero-funded by the proper student governance body during the Spring 2013 semester and their decision is now being extralegally ignored. Allocable SUF continues to pay SAPS today to do the same thing; and, WHEREAS; Control of segregated fees appears to be the motive for unwelcome and possibly unlawful control of the student role in shared governance, as promised by Wisconsin State Statute 36.09(5). During 2012 and 2013 the UWM Student Association Commission on the Implementation of Wisconsin State Statute 36.09(5) pursued student control over more fees and proposed a more collaborative shared governance climate/process; and, WHEREAS; Assertive and determined leaders made more spending cuts than previous student leaders and were expanding their authority to meet requirements of Wisconsin State Statute 36.09(5) for possibly the very first time. The UWM SA was setting an example for actual fee management at the same time that the Associated Students of Madison (ASM) was considering legal action against the UW-Madison Chancellor over inappropriate fee increases; and, WHEREAS; UW-Madison Administrators rejection of good faith negotiations with ASM, and subsequent pressure and unprofessionalism is the primary example of harsh tactics that are now being employed statewide and are creating a negative climate in shared governance that eschews collaboration, as can be seen at UW-Milwaukee; and, WHEREAS; Acceptance of the usurpation of student rights imposed by UW Milwaukee Chancellor Lovell and his cohorts will further signal to administrators and the Board of Regents that very few students care about the statutory rights and responsibilities in Wisconsin State Statute 36.09(5); and, BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED THAT; UW System Student Representatives condemns the May 3, 2013 attack on student rights at UW-Milwaukee and rejects the legitimacy of the recent constitutional referendum. We, assembled statewide student shared governance leaders, request that any future referendum: be held in a way that allows for collaboration and input of the students, be held at a time after the registration deadline (to ensure that all students can vote on the document that represents them), is

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

administered in the most neutral way possible, and follows its set timeline and the student-recognized Student Association Constitution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT; UW System Student Representatives rejects the legitimacy of the UWM Board of Trustees and endorse a course of action that calls for new UWM Student Association Elections for the 2014-2015 academic year that is open to all students and would take place in April 2014, that would be held under the student-recognized current UWM Student Association Constitution and administered by a neutral third party in a transparent manner; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT; UW System Student Representatives is greatly disappointed and discouraged given the constant violation of student rights and Wisconsin State Statute 36.09(5) at many UW campuses. UW System Student Representatives supports assertive, righteous and independent leadership by students over all budgetary and policy development, as well as in the decision making of staff whose primary purpose is to support student life, services and interests. Furthermore, UW System Student Representatives support a positive climate of collaboration between shared governance bodies at each respective institution; and, BE IT ADDITIONALLY RESOLVED THAT; The UW System Student Representatives expresses hope for a new collaborative beginning across the State of Wisconsin, in shared governance, in the UW System; and, THEREFORE BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED; Upon passage, this resolution will be sent by the chairperson to all members of the UW Board of Regents and all Chancellors, Deans of Students and Vice Chancellors for Student Affairs of each respective institution.

AYE:________

NAY:________

____________________________ Tony Sumnicht Chair

_______________ Date

____________________________ Juliana Lucchesi Vice Chair

_______________ Date

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F-50 RESTART TASK FORCE RESOLUTION

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
WHEREAS; Students at all University of Wisconsin (UW) campuses are vested the right and responsibility of the disposition of student fees, which constitute substantial support for campus student activities under Wisconsin State Statute 36.09(5); and, WHEREAS; Wisconsin State Statute 36.09(5) does not distinguish between allocable and nonallocable segregated fees; and, WHEREAS; Segregated Fees at all UW campuses total $162 million for the 2013-2014 school year, and approximately 90 percent of those fees are non-allocable dispositions. WHEREAS; UW System Financial Administration Policy 50, III(a) states: The chancellor of each institution is primarily responsible for the development of the non-allocable Segregated University Fee budget...,; and, WHEREAS; Wisconsin State Statute 36.09(5) clearly recognizes student authority over those same funds, and states, in relevant part: Students in consultation with the chancellor and subject to the final confirmation of the board shall have the responsibility for the disposition of those student fees which constitute substantial support for campus student activities. Wisconsin State Statutes carry more force than administrative codes or UW policies, Wis. Stats. 227.10(2) states: "No agency may promulgate a rule which conflicts with state law."; and, WHEREAS; Concern by students, parents and legislators led the UW Board of Regents to request an audit, completed in April 2006 by the UW System Office of Operations Review and Audit (www.uwsa.edu/audit/segfees.pdf), which concluded fees are rising because students are suddenly expected to pay for major construction and other expenses. Findings on its Enhancements section remain true today: At some UW institutions, a SUFAC (Segregated University Fee Allocation Committee) receives the nonallocable budgets in February or March. At this point, the budgets are usually set. While SUFAC members have been able to ask questions and program staff have made themselves available to answer questions, the end result, according to some SUFAC chairs, is that the SUFAC mainly has an opportunity to rubber stamp these budgets. Some student leaders also expressed concern about fee proposals, especially for some major capital projects, being presented as absolutely necessary.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

FAP F37 already requires specific action by the SUFAC on capital projects being presented to the Board of Regents for approval. However, the SUFACs at some institutions do not review all of the non-allocable budgets.; and, WHEREAS; In an August 20, 2012 press release, Associated Students of Madison (ASM) Chair Andrew Bulovsky applauded a vote to notify the Wisconsin Department of Justice students planned to sue over improper administrative control. The problems predate F50, he explained: For over 40 years, students at UW- Madison and across the state have been robbed of their statutory right to oversee their student fees. ASM has exhausted all options available to it, including administrative discussions and appeal processes, and filing a notice of claim is the next logical step. And continuing: If the administration chooses not to negotiate in good faith, then we will have no other choice but to initiate a legal action. The Associated Students of Madison is 100% committed to defending the rights of students here in Madison, as well as at our 25 sister campuses.; and, WHEREAS; In an October 30, 2011 letter printed in the Badger Herald, then-SUFAC Chair and current Associated Students of Madison Shared Governance Chair Sarah Neibart wrote, in part: What we are asking is not for students to be the sole reviser of F50, but for the Board of Regents to form a committee with student involvement, and to hold a comprehensive review of F50 that would clarify these many contradictions and which would then be promulgated under UW System Administrative code. The administrative rule-making process is the only means that the System may use to reinterpret a Wisconsin State Statute. This process is clearly laid out in state statute 227.01(13). The reinterpretation of F50 first took place in 1978 when university administration made the distinction between allocable and non-allocable student fees. This was a unilateral decision by university administration that was eventually made into an overarching System policy in the 1980s. It is clear that now is the time for another reinterpretation. There is true need for this review, the major reason being that it is inconsistent with most other practices we operate under. Recently, U.S. Federal District Judge Lynn Adelman wrote in an opinion concerning UW that decision makers have had trouble determining what Policy F50 means, Policy F50 [is] not a model of clear draftsmanship and even Chancellor Martin has expressed dissatisfaction with Policy F50.; and, WHEREAS; In 2013, The UW Board of Regents voted twice to reject requests to discuss segregated fee control and Financial Policy F50, and to ignore the notice of claim of ASMs impending lawsuit; and, WHEREAS; Extreme pressure from administrators, which some would characterize as interference and even intimidation, discouraged leaders of the F50 campaign, and ASM let its one-year window to sue elapse in August 2013. In addition, United Council no longer claims to champion segregated fee control by elected student leaders. As of recent, segregated fee reform is rarely discussed; and, WHEREAS; The cost of education in the UW system is higher than ever; part of this has to do with fees rising out of control. Direct responsibility over fees and budgets offers unprecedented responsibilities and educational opportunities for students. Checks and balances between shared governance groups in the immediate governance of their respective institution promotes transparency and discourages what could be characterized as taxation without representation for students; and, BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED THAT; UW Student Representatives asks Board of Regents President Michael Falbo to create an ad hoc committee composed of two students from each campus (selected by the student body president) and supported by two auditors from the Office of Operations Review and Audit. Before and during the annual segregated fee approval process, this committee will

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

compare actual fee management with the authority outlined in each campus Implementation Plan (required by F50 to be on file for each campus). Furthermore, the two students of each respective campus will compare the SUF dispositions forwarded by the Chancellors to the Board of Regents with those set and finalized by the campus SUFAC body. Any and all discrepancies between the dispositions shall be documented and returned to the campus from which it was conceived. This SUF review process will continue until the SUF allocations forwarded from the Chancellor to the Board of Regets are the same as the disposition set by the students of each respective campus. The first annual reports will include specific instructions for reform to implement Wisconsin State Statute 36.09(5)s specific promise of substantial responsibility; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT; UW System Student Representatives recommends that each student government reach out to its campus business professors to offer students the opportunity to take an independent study course in order to potentially receive college credit for thoroughly examining all budgets funded with segregated fees. The student would compare student life programming costs against national standards and make specific proposals to the SUFAC for cuts. Class credit would also be given for specific proposals on how the campus SGA can enhance the authority of SUFAC and meet requirements of both F50 and Wisconsin State Statute 36.09(5); and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT; Each campus SUFAC is urged to immediately begin review of budget proposals before final figures are set. Each SUFAC is further urged to shift its timeline so students can examine early budget and fee proposals in October rather than February or March. The detailed timeline established by the SGA President and Chancellor of UW-SP is praised as an example of assertive student leadership; and, BE IT ADDITIONALLY RESOLVED THAT; Each SUFAC is encouraged to cut $1 from the salary of the highest-paid manager/administrator paid in SUF. The authority of students to manage student fees will be asserted with this $1 cut. Salaries are not debt payments and cannot be considered non-allocables. The UW System Student Representatives rejects the differentiation between allocable and nonallocable student segregated fees and asserts that all student segregated university fees are the primary responsibility of the students of each respective institution ; and, THEREFORE BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED; The UW System Student Representatives reminds student leaders from all institutions how paramount the disposition of segregated fees is, with respect to both: following the legislative intent of Wis. Stats. 36.09(5), and executing the complete and proper roles of the student governments of each respective institution. Budget decisions affect all students and boost the relevance of elected student governments. In many cases, the interest of students may differ from the interest of the administrators. It is for this reason that the proper assertion of Wis. Stats. 36.09(5) is necessary for the shared governance model of the State of Wisconsin to have any legitimate relevance in the governance of the UW-System.

AYE:________

NAY:________

____________________________ Tony Sumnicht Chair ____________________________ Juliana Lucchesi Vice Chair

_______________ Date

_______________ Date 3