UWM SA Election Report Redacted

Because the papers came out more than six weeks late, one could assume that the
entire process should have been backed up for a comparable amount of time in order for individuals to register their party and to participate in the elections. If that had occurred, the People of Change Party (which the Senate approved on March 3, 2013) would have been eligible to appear on the ballot. However, as stated by SA would have had to amend their own constitution to move back the election date as it was a constitutional hard deadline within which they had to work. Moreover, according to the reason the nomination papers were not available as stipulated by the Bylaws was because the court was not on their game. Furthermore, when asked why didnt hold them responsible, stated that with the separation of powers within SA, we stay out of the courts business. An opposing perspective regarding the accountability for oversight within SA was mentioned by when asked why nomination papers werent out in the timeframe stipulated by the Bylaws: Oversight should be the senate . . . they should have asked why werent these papers done. It didnt happen. Lastly, through the interview of , the question was posed to as to whether or not felt the election was a fair process given the infraction of not following stipulated Bylaws. response was no. More specifically, stated that inclusivity is something that is preached, but not practiced. further stated that I believe it does not lend itself to the democratic process to have one party on a ballot at the arbitrary exclusion of one or more other parties. o because o told the Investigating Team that this did not occur did not have the time to do it this year.
Article 2, Section D. iii. states The Commission shall, after successfully receiving the required validated signatures, place all qualified candidate names in full, according to the office sought, on the online ballot. This clause is thus in conflict with the interpretation of any other section which would remove a candidate who had the required signatures. Article IV, Section 1.C. states that The IEC shall facilitate at least one public and open debate consisting of every presidential nominee whose signatures have been confirmed. As signatures were confirmed, per the Bylaws, should have been included in a debate. The section goes on to state that In the case that there is only one presidential nominee a public forum will be facilitated with the date agreed by the IEC and the nominee. No such public forum was sponsored by SA or the IEC. A forum was sponsored by another entity and that event was disrupted by and Article IV, Section 3.F. states that Parties must be Registered Student Organizations. Without further clarification, it is reasonable to believe that this means registered solely through the Student Involvement Center.
The People of Change party was denied a spot on the ballot in part because they had not been approved by the Student Association. This approval process was on the Senate agenda for the February 17, 2013 meeting but the meeting did not achieve quorum. Given that , the allegations that this was done purposely to deny the recognition of People of Change seem plausible.
Lack of record-keeping and tracking of legislation has left many questions. The idea that proposed legislation is first passed through SORC seems an obstacle to fair and open government. That body (appointed by the party in power) may simply choose to let oppositional legislation die there. The legislation regarding proposed by Senator is an example of such. The section of the Bylaws relating to election violations prohibits very little and provides scant direction to ensure a fair election free from undue influence. explained the history of this when said the old rules were: something like 17 or 20 pages long with all these different rules. And if you notice now, there arent any rules. The reason there arent any rules is because we had rules and those rules were deliberately then used to kick people off the ballot. So we just got rid of the rules so we couldnt have people just kicking people off the ballot. And then we have this requirement we only have four things that you cant do. And then we have the requirement of beyond a reasonable doubt. You have to prove that the party or the individual did this beyond a reasonable doubt, which is really hard to prove unless you get a video of them posting something up or of them doing something in violation of the four things. informed the Investigating Team that legislation had been passed requiring any communication with the advisor to go through the Executive Committee. If true, this seems to be in direct conflict with the purposes of an advisor, as well as the expressed interest of some students to have a closer and more involved relationship with the SA advisor. Several students expressed concern with their perception that meetings with the Vice Chancellor have been cancelled or ceased this semester. The Investigating Team is unclear as to how many meetings have been scheduled and/or canceled. Nonetheless, it is clear that the interpretation of this by SA members is, much like legislation prohibiting interaction with the SA advisor, an impediment to healthy student-administration relationships.
Recommendations Many of the issues presented to the Investigating Team lie outside of the narrow scope of the investigation into the election. However, it is recommended that further work be done with the following: o o o o o a common understanding of shared governance a shared understanding of the role of the SA Advisor methods to make operations of the Student Association more transparent review of the ability of the current structure of the Student Association to police itself and insure fair governance accountability for accurate records of Student Association actions and meetings

UWM SA Election Report Redacted

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UWM SA Election Report Redacted

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

UWM SA Election Report Redacted

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Because the papers came out more than six weeks late, one could assume that the

You might also like