TTT is now tenacioustransparency.wordpress.com

Analysis on slates and Diversity Committee...

2010-05-03T10:28:00.001-07:00

See my new blog for an analysis.

RELAUNCH

2010-05-02T09:12:00.001-07:00

I have relaunched my blog here, on WordPress. Check it out for an impartial liveblog.

Wednesday, April 28th, 2010 Meeting

2010-04-28T19:24:00.000-07:00

Open Forum
Colin questions about creation of the agenda (prepared by Finance Chair, possible legality concerns) and nominations.

Tyler says the budget was passed responsibly: #1 best achievement. Says that council members need to keep divisions out of the council room.

Chair Reports

Legislation
Shared Gov. appointees are confirmed. Discussing operations grants. Here's an illustrious statement from Chair Beemsterboer:

"If we let every organization know there was additional funding it would have been a cluster-f@#$..."

IN a definitively improper process three student groups are allowed new appeals for funds to Finance Committee. If I were in a student organization who wasn't aware of the new appeals I would be furious.

M.E.Ch.A. legislation is postponed indefinitely.

Wrapping up...

2010-04-27T10:09:00.000-07:00

This will be one of a few last posts I will be posting on this blog. I will be making a relaunch to Word Press for the coming school year, I will be serving on student council until October. I have been appointed to the Campus Diversity and Climate Committee (CDCC) which will also be interesting. I will be blogging on the Word Press about student council and ASM issues (acting as an independent blogger) if I have the time.

I will also be posting my thoughts on this session and what I hope to see next session leadership wise etc.

My stipend suit against Tyler, Tom, Kurt, and Brandon will be heard on Friday at 5:00. Sorry for the formatting but here it is.

Hope you all are doing well. There will be a student council meeting tomorrow. Not sure what time, I'll try and get an agenda up. The first meeting of the new session will be on Sunday at 12:00 PM.

May Day rally in MKE on Saturday. Free bus. Let me know.

Bring you the true impartial live-blog on Wednesday, April 21st, 2010 from an impartial student

2010-04-21T16:38:00.000-07:00

Open Forum
Take Back the Night is next Thursday. Tina will be here to talk about the CWC operations grant. Steve Olikara is still in environmental mode. But he's talking about his vision for Diversity Committee and looking at it now. Someone from the National Society of Leadership was here to try and appeal their operation grant.

Chair Reports
Not missing much people.

Jason Smathers is doing a good enough job.

Wednesday, April 14th, 2010 Liveblog

2010-04-14T18:40:00.000-07:00

Here are the election results.

Open Forum
Colin Ingram suggests that the stipend legislation be sent to the students in the form of a constitutional amendment.

Chair Reports
Sorry, doing other things. I'm a horrible live-blogger.

New Business
Step Afrika! grant was approved.

Stipend Bylaws
Passed.

Rules Committee
Approved.

Whatever else?
Not sure.

New Blog at SGA Collaborative

2010-04-11T10:55:00.001-07:00

Here is my new post at the SGA Collaborative on the ASM Segregated Fee Sweep.

NatUP Blog

2010-04-08T17:11:00.001-07:00

Jason Smathers is live blogging at ASM Watch. I'll post my thoughts here as well.

Suits vs. Students

Your very own Peter Rickman (TAA co-President).

Initial thoughts:
NatUP: they're wearing suits; professional SWEET TALKERS! Working from paper prepared responses, probably by Rec Sports employees. Perhaps this is because NNSF wanted to make the process transparent and made the questions they wanted to ask available on their website before hand.
No New Seg Fees: they're students! Very presentable, working as a team, and have a friendly sounding presentation. Working together, in unison, doing a hell of a job speaking off the cuff.

Disclaimer: this will be biased, just saying; Introduction.
NatUP: we need the facility no matter how much students have to pay.
No New Seg Fees: this is setting precedent and we need to stop the slippery slope of building construction. The NatUP campaign is coercing students into voting and they have a much larger reach than any student group on campus.

Dealing with lack of space:

NatUP: organizations are being forced out of spaces and there needs to be more space. Indoor turf! Yes let's allow winter activities and organizations to practice inside.

No New Seg Fees: it's not necessarily about lack of space because it's about priorities. Are we going to say that we care more about working on recreational facilities in times of economic hardship and not working to better education.

Are we missing something in the educational setting?

NatUP: it doesn't matter that furloughs happened because that's a HR and state issue you shouldn't bring this to the debate. We're putting this to vote to the student body.

No New Seg Fees: already under 20% state funding (this is messed up by the way, we're not a public institution anymore folks). We are here to discuss faculty furloughs and lower class sizes because it's about trading off between a burrito and a ring. Not that NatUP is a ring; more a boxing ring. Oh and they're getting $30,000 from Rec Sports; not very democratic.

Is it our responsibility to ensure that new facilities are available?

NatUP: we've been working hard to inform students with out bias. It's not even that expensive to students?

No New Seg Fees: yes it is, but it's irresponsible to add more money to our segregated fees. Students should have been given private donors with the money first. She's making it seem like it's NatUP v. Students and it's completely correct (Get IT! Jasmine). Where do the increases start?

Will this stop students from coming due to financial hardship?
NatUP: absolutely not. Oh by the way the Nat is a "dungeon", that's what "students" said.

No New Seg Fees: absolutely. $100 goes a long way, "tell me you all wouldn't want a hundred dollars". This is compromising education; de-facto privatization of education.

Should the votes of a few thousand determine the hike in segregated fees?

NatUP: we want to see people come out and vote (duh because you're misleading them!). It's a pure democratic process (italics denote my dripping sarcasm).

No New Seg Fees: accepts Ben's apology for cutting them off. What great people (yeah so I am very very very biased, so what)! Democracy doesn't consist of a simple yes, no. Democracy is deliberation and educating them about a vote that may be predetermined. The entire student population should be voting. The broadest discussion as all possible should be involved.

Unfortunately I'll be leaving early. Peace out everyone!

One down, three to go liveblog...

2010-04-07T16:39:00.003-07:00

Grab the agenda here.

Announcements
Melissa Hanley is speaking on Shared Gov. positions that are open.

Open Forum

Tina Trevino-Murphy is talking about the Bylaw committee. Talking about stipends and how it doesn't incentivize lobbying for lower tuition. Also announcing the SLAC rally.

Jonah is talking about the Seismic Rally to Drop Nike.

Adam Johnson is talking about the amendments he will be making to the stipend bylaw. They can be found here.

Chair Reports (I probably won't do these justice disclaimer)
Jonah discuss the textbook committee, FAFSA week, and coordinating volunteers through the Morgridge Center. Also working on a book-swap guide so the

"wheel doesn't have to be reinvented".

Steven Olikara is talking about following up on the diversity initiative and having talks with administration. Adam Johnson discusses Lollypalooza (SP?) and Melissa Hanley talks about Shared Gov. Applications. Tyler Junger talks about preliminary language on the Memo of Understanding and brining that to Council. Tom Templeton is talking about University Health Services and keeping segregated fees down.

Brandon Williams is talking about SSFC they continue to work on subcommittee work.

New Legislation
SACGB space allocations are being "forwarded". You can find the allocations on the blog.

Suites: Intervarsity, Vets for Vets, Wisconsin Student Lobby, Greek Life, WISPIRG
Large Offices: MEChA, SPILL, HOSA
Medium Offices: Wisconsin Singer, EDGE Project, WCSU, Student Transfer Association
Small Offices: all others.

Old Legislation
SSFC Stipend Changes: no more than 15% of previous year stipend (already in bylaws), if the increase is greater than 5% Student Council must vote 2/3, would have to submit stipend reports rather than just chair reports and will forfeit 20% of their stipend if they don't get chair reports submitted.

There's someone mysteriously knocking on our door. The mystery ASM-hater? New language proposed by TJ Madsen that would put the stipend reports (including hours worked and description of duties performed to be put online) online. Call for the two questions... and it passes. Question called and it passes. Acclamation is called for. They pass.

Matt Beemsterboer says that we approve the Move If You Want It for $8,000.

"We barely talked about approving $20,000 why not $8,000"?

Kurt says we are not approving this because they already have been promised the money, rather there are no issues with the grant. Adam Johnson raises the point we don't need to call to question because if there is no one on the speakers list it automatically moves.

SJ Chief Justice is talking about their bylaws.

The door was doing it by itself. Mystery solved, maybe?

Postponing Bylaw stuff. So postponed. Chair Junger is talking about Rules/Bylaws committee. Chair of this Rules Committee would serve as ASM Parliamentarian. Question called.

Spring Break

2010-04-01T15:20:00.000-07:00

I hope y'all are enjoying your Spring Break. I'm at Portland State with my sister checking it out. It's got a rad campus downtown Portland and some great things to offer students (including child care). Seems like there's a lot going on here student government related and I stopped by their office to introduce myself and chat. Pictures of DREAM Act and other important initiatives were up around the walls and there was a wonderful activist feel to the office.

Highlights included a "food pantry" where students donated food and other students stopped by to pick it up if they were feeling hungry and didn't have money to buy something; all based on a respectful "we don't judge you" sentiment.

I have another post up on the SGA Collaborative; hoping you all check that out! We'll be returning to local and campus elections after break. I'll be sure to update this with who I support and what, before Monday.

SGA Collaborative

2010-03-30T05:56:00.001-07:00

I've got my first blog post up on the SGA Collaborative.

formspring.me

2010-03-29T21:46:00.001-07:00

Ask me anything http://formspring.me/maxwelllove

Student Council Opinions and Commentary

2010-03-25T08:26:00.000-07:00

(Editor's note: the formatting on Blogger is horrible which is why I'll be relaunching to WordPress in the near future)

Hello all! Hope you are doing well. I'm going to comment on the increasing stipends, the bylaw committee, the Auxiliary Raid (see other posts for background), and some of the general sentiments on ASM.

Increasing Stipends

There are some very strong words I could use to describe the way that current members of council and SSFC are attempting to raise stipends for positions of power.

I shouldn't do this but I'm going to give my opinion first:

Student Council is doing the students a major disservice if this passes. There should be no stipend increases this year (unfortunately they're already in the budget, but with the requirement that if a member voted for them this session they can't get more than 15% of the raise/possibly can't take the position at all because there are some conflicting bylaws) and if for some reason this does have to pass because Student Council feels it's so imperative to make more money this is how it should be done:

Specific language that would prohibit any member of ASM currently from taking more than a 15% pay raise (I think it should personally be more like 5%) so that we alleviate concerns of authorizing our own raises.
If not that language, than the proposal that this wouldn't take effect until 18th session, or not next year but the year after, so the 15% rule would stay in place (or the other rule which I'm not sure about).
Knock 5% of the tuition % off every chair position but leave the secretaries the way they are.

Editor's note: one thing I may have over-looked is how this might open up the position to someone who might not have the ability to complete the job, and may love it, because they have to work two jobs to stay in school. Although I still feel the stipends are too high; there is definitely some validity to the fact that working students may not be able to find the time between jobs and school to be on ASM.

Here is the language for the proposal:

Title: SSFC Stipend Recommendation (Manes)

Historically, stipends in the ASM have been decided on a year by year basis for the following term; this has lead to a lot of unpredictable variability over the years, with some sessions slashing stipends by thousands and other sessions adding them right back in (Editor's note: true). Additionally, ASM student leaders have been chronically underpaid relative to the amount of work they put in (Editor's note: not sure, there is really no break down of the work members have put in and this is one of the issues with accountability). In order to remedy this, the SSFC this year made the attempt to create a self adjusting metric that would be solidified in our own bylaws, thereby alleviating concerns that students would simply vote themselves more money in a given year and ensuring that the stipend amounts would not be arbitrary (Editor's note: the percentages seem awfully arbitrary to me; what says that the Vice-Chair deserves 20% less than the Chair?) and instead more reflective of the work involved.

The reason that the student leadership within the ASM is paid via stipends and not by an hourly wage is twofold: first, students tend to put in many more hours than would be feasible to pay hourly, and second the stipends are seen as mitigations of opportunity cost, not payment for services rendered. The opportunity cost to the student in filling many of these positions is significant, and in some cases it is completely unrealistic to expect an individual to be able to fill that role, attend classes, and have a job (or several) on top of that and not have all of them suffer unduly. Because it is an opportunity cost, it was decided that the amounts the metric would be based on would be that of tuition (Editor's note: in state, out of state, graduate... what tuition and where does it solidify that? I missed it; 1.01(4)(a)?), and that each position would be set at a percentage of tuition for that following year. Thus, as the cost of attending here rises and the opportunity cost of not working rises as well, the stipends themselves would automatically adjust proportional to those increases (Editor's note: meaning it would be harder to stop an increase in the future, possibly).

The actual amounts the positions were set at took into account the amount of work that is ascribed (administrative duties) vs. potential (campaigning and personal initiative), the nature of that work, the potential for disruption of the organization if that position sees high turnover or remains unfilled, the reasonability of working a job in addition to the position, and the total cost of attending UW-Madison, as well as expectations of $5,500 in Federal Stafford Loans and $4,000 expected family contribution. The final hope is the stipends are set at a level such that the students in these positions are compensated enough for their time that the position itself becomes available to the majority of students on this campus should they want to pursue it. With that, the SSFC arrived at totals as follows:

	Approved FY09	Approved FY10	Proposed FY11	% of tuition
ASM Chair	$4,800.00	$8,000.00	$9,330.00	100%
ASM Vice Chair	$4,100.00	$6,500.00	$7,470.00	80%
ASM Secretary	$1,100.00	$2,000.00	$2,000.00	25%
FC Chair	$3,600.00	$6,000.00	$7,000.00	75%
SACGB Chair	$5,300.00	$5,300.00	$6,530.00	70%
Shared Governance Chair	$3,100.00	$5,300.00	$6,530.00	70%
Diversity Chair	$3,100.00	$5,300.00	$5,130.00	55%
Nominations Chair	$3,100.00	$5,300.00	$5,130.00	55%
Leg. Affairs Chair	$3,100.00	$5,300.00	$5,130.00	55%
Academic Affairs Chair	$3,100.00	$5,300.00	$5,130.00	55%

SSFC Chair	$5,330.77	$6,800.00	$8,400.00	90%
SSFC Vice Chair	$1,591.70	$4,000.00	$7,000.00	75%
SSFC Secretary	$876.89	$2,000.00	$2,800.00	30%

SJ Chief Justice	$3,500.00	$5,300.00	$6,070.00	65%
SJ Vice Chief Justice	$2,200.00	$3,000.00	$2,800.00	30%

Finally, in implementing this system 3 considerations needed to be made. 1.01(4)(g) and the amended 2.02(1) are exemptions that will allow this system to be implemented for 17th session. The compensation bylaws currently in place do not take into account the possibility of switching to a permanent system, and these exemptions will only have a meaningful effect during the transition period. Additionally, the language also takes into account the new Shared Governance Directors and Chief of Staff positions, allowing them to be filled by qualified people for next year. The 3rd consideration is in 1.01(4)(f) and adds a stipulation ensuring, in the case that tuition rises by more than 15% (Editor's note: should be nothing over 2% increases, but council will probably settle with 5% if this passes) that if the administration doesn’t manage to keep their costs down we are still being responsible with our budgets. This is a percentage that was generated from the bylaws currently in place; a stronger safeguard is definitely a viable option and one worth discussing.

Be it resolved:

The ASM Student Council does hereby:  
Rename Section 1.01 to read:
1.01 – Compensation within the ASM

Create the new bylaws:
1.01(4) Chair Stipends
1.01(4)(a) The stipend amounts to be awarded and placed into the internal and administrative budgets for the following fiscal year shall be calculated as a percentage of the summation of both fall and spring tuition for the current school year, with any additional known increases for the following school year. The tuition amounts consulted will be that of an in-state undergraduate, not including any additional fees or charges that may result from attendance in a particular college or program.

1.01(4)(b) - Internal Budget Stipends

For the Internal Budget, the stipend amounts shall be calculated and awarded as follows:

-The Chair of the ASM shall receive a stipend valued at 100% of tuition

-The Vice Chair of the ASM shall receive a stipend valued at 80% of tuition

-The Secretary of the ASM shall receive a stipend valued at 25% of tuition

-The Finance Chair shall receive a stipend valued at 75% of tuition

-The Shared Governance Chair shall receive a stipend valued at 70% of tuition

-The Diversity Chair shall receive a stipend valued at 55% of tuition

-The Nominations Board Chair shall receive a stipend valued at 55% of tuition

-The Legislative Affairs Chair shall receive a stipend valued at 55% of tuition

-The Academic Affairs Chair shall receive a stipend valued at 55% of tuition

1.01(4)(c) – SSFC Stipends

For the SSFC Budget, the stipend amounts shall be calculated and awarded as follows:

-The Chair of the SSFC shall receive a stipend valued at 90% of tuition

-The Vice Chair of the SSFC shall receive a stipend valued at 75% of tuition

-The Secretary of the SSFC shall receive a stipend valued at 30% of tuition

1.01(4)(d) – SACGB Stipends

For the SACGB Budget, the stipend amount shall be calculated and awarded as follows:

-The SACGB Chair shall receive a stipend valued at 70% of tuition

1.01(4)(e) – Student Judiciary Stipends

For the Student Judiciary Budget, the stipend amounts shall be calculated and awarded as follows:

-The Chief Justice shall receive a stipend valued at 65% of tuition

-The Vice Chief Justice shall receive a stipend valued at 30% of tuition

1.01(4)(f)

Beginning for Fiscal Year 12, none of the stipends mentioned in this subsection may exceed an increase of more than 15%.

This is messed up:

1.01(4)(g)

An exemption will be made to subsections 1.01(1) and 1.01(2) to all members holding positions within the ASM in the 16th session

Amend Bylaw 2.02(1) to read:

2.02(1)-

Any member that votes in favor of a salary increase may not receive the increased salary amount if elected or appointed into the position in following years. This bylaw shall not apply to subsection 1.01(4).

Questions:

How does this incentivize trying to lower tuition?
Isn't this biased against out of state students if we're talking opportunity cost?
The way the bylaws read it just says tuition, not undergrad in-state, out-of-state, or graduate; could this be interrupted wrong?

I missed it. It's in 1.01(4)(a).

Bylaw Committee
I brought this up at council: should include different student populations such as equal numbers of; current ASM representatives, student organization representatives, women, people of color, etc. this is a good chance for people outside of ASM to learn about bylaws and be involved with the process. It also is a defense so that students can't say that these committees are made up of the same people over and over again.

Auxiliary Raid
There is no reason the administration is taking $180,000 of student allocable segregated fees. They should redistribute this to Housing or FP&M (Transportation) because at the time when the bill was sent out to the different auxiliaries (unfortunately ASM among them even though it isn't an auxiliary) there was approximately $7,000,000 in the housing account and approximately $3,500,000 in FP&M. Perhaps I'll upload the documents later to prove this. I can't believe people have said that redistributing the bill that will be paid by allocable segregated fees would create

"unnecessary burdens on other accounts".

Anyways, plain and simple; ASM leadership needs to put pressure on the administration because they messed up. Let's hope a lawyer comes through quickly.

General Comments
What is this feud that is going on between Student Judiciary and Student Council leaders. No where in the bylaws does it say who is supposed to redistribute seats. SJ did it by population of the schools and even if we can't get graduate students to run for council doesn't mean we should reapportion the seats; it's based on a formula. For people that are so concerned with having a formula for stipends; I can't believe that they would want to just say

"well looks like we're not gonna get a graduate student so lets reapportion the seats to somewhere where more people are willing to serve".

It just doesn't make sense. On top of this, Theo Sharpe, chair of Nominations Board was grilled quite publicly about his committee last night. It my opinion, whether or not he has been completing his job duties should not be brought up in the council meeting until people have spoken with him privately. It's just rude. And on top of this; it's not just his responsibility alone to see things get done, it's the collective responsibility of his committee and Student Council as a whole.

Feel free to disagree with me,
Maxwell Love

Wednesday March 24th, 2010 Student Council Liveblog

2010-03-24T17:11:00.000-07:00

Open Forum
Danielle and Daylon from MCSC talking about stipend increases and how the math should be broken down into numbers. Beautifully well said; it's about seeing what and how the time is being spent not necessarily what chairs are doing in summary. (Editor's note: it's obvious who wants these stipend changes to pass).

I should know his name (Charlie) but a hip-hop artist here is talking about a hip-hop conference.

Jarius King here talking about Breaking the Law and Katrina Flores is up as well.

Jonah is talking about the petition to get faculty signed on to the textbook committee.

Eric Heywood talks about the ambiguity of the bylaws related to appointees to student council.

Colin Ingram thinks that the stipends shouldn't be labeled as "not arbitrary".

Tina is talking about U.S.S.A. and SAFRA. As well as "Take Back the Night".

Agenda Rearranging
Breaking the Law is moving to the front, as well as the Diversity Line item for a budget transfer.

Chair Reports
Jonah (Academic Affairs) talks about FAFSA week. Steven (Diversity) is working on compiling a report about the diversity dialogue (Editor's note: I was there) that happened last Thursday. This list isn't complete, I decided not to get Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.

Student Print Budget
2/3 invoked so that we could approve the budget. The budget is approved.

Spring Student Org Fair Transfer
Approved.

Bylaw Committee
Tyler wants to create a (in Kurt's words) "technocratic committee" to evaluate the bylaws.

Breakin' the Law
Event grant passes at approximately $20,000.

Diversity Transfer
It's like $20 they want to put in the diversity account to pay for food for the dialogue.

Here's the ticket item:
Putting Stipends into Bylaws
Manes bylaws are in and they basically say we can increase our own stipends and then take the stipends if someone takes the position next year.

"What matters is what we do on behalf of the students, you can judge a government that is doing its job right if the governed don't care... it doesn't matter to me..."

This is postponed until next week. I've got a few cards to play here.

SSFC Intern
Carl Fergus is talking about having an intern support SSFC (Student Service Finance Committee) in talking to GSSFs (General Student Service Fund). SSFC gets an intern.

Textbook Committee
Jonah Zinn and the Academic Affairs committee is looking at creating a Shared Gov. Committee and Melissa Hanley agrees with the intent!

Student Judiciary Bylaws
Postponed until next week.

Adjourned.

Big announcement tomorrow.

2010-03-23T10:38:00.001-07:00

Get ready people.

MPOWER. Check it out on Facebook, the petition, or the website.

On a separate note, I'll be attempting to live-blog council tonight. We'll see how that goes!

Updates. Updates. Updates.

2010-03-18T22:40:00.000-07:00

Lots of things going on.

Union Naming
All four names were placed on the ballot look to yesterday's post for a recap. I will be voting for Union South (or writing in W.A.S.T.E. as a protest vote).

Criticism
The Badger Herald has got this to say about me. I commented with why I don't think those things are true or at least misconstrued.

"It’s hard for me to find fully tangible things that we’ve done this year as a student council that benefit the student body,” Rep. Max Love told me at the beginning of his interview. “Student Council has been really administrative this year, and that’s been a problem.”"

"Unfortunately, Love then went on to tell the chair to ignore the bylaws when it comes to budget deadlines, end a Student Council meeting by walking out due to agenda confusion and oppose an internal budget based on a last minute addition he actually thought was a good idea. If you want to fight a slew of insignificant battles, you’re welcome to do so."

Ah the things the media say.

I have also been criticized for creating this group on Facebook. Although I believe it is useful to question the administration on their policies, I have been told that now is not the right time as we continue discussion and negotiation on the MOU (which I can't necessarily talk about as it was discussed in closed session for strategy reasons; in my opinion the administration should already know our stance but that's just me).

Auxiliary Enterprise Sweep
Little disappointed but at least we are looking into legal counsel to determine if the University's transfer of $981,000 worth of student segregated fees was legal.

March 4th
Still upset nothing happened, another great article in the Herald can be found here.

Diversity Dialogue
In my opinion was a great success it seemed like people really came with an open mind. Another article from the Herald can be found here.

Please contact me with news and questions.

March 17th, 2010 Meeting

2010-03-16T20:59:00.001-07:00

Agenda can be found here. Do we have quorum, it appears so but just barely. Hopefully we're not making too many controversial decisions.

Announcements
There will be a debate between County Board candidates next Monday at 7:00 PM. Please attend.

Open Forum
Colin thinks that amendments shouldn't be debated outside the meeting and voting decisions should be made in the meeting. (Editor's note: we should be knowledgeable but open to debate)

Jonah Zinn and Peter Lorenz are talking about getting a Textbook committee set up. Hoping for student council members to petition faculty and professors.

Brandon Williams is discussing the Tenant Support Services.

Carl Fergus talks about the removal of Union South from the naming list.

Agenda
Beemsterboer adds something to the agenda. Erik will probably be mad I didn't know that there wasn't a vote and should have questioned this. Maybe it's not such a big deal because of the legislative reading bylaw that requires student council to read legislation into the record before voting.

Chair Reports
Lots of stuff happening. Chair Zinn talks about Academic Affair issues (working with RSOs and textbook issues)l Steve Olikara discusses the Diversity Dialogue for student leaders tomorrow; Adam Johnson wrote up a comprehensive report from his committee on his trip to D.C., the debate on Monday, and the ARLC; Matt Beemsterboer is doing operations grants and has a few large books; Melissa Hanley is talking about the removal of members from Shared Gov. committees, she's encouraging people to have conversations about getting better information out on referendum; and Tyler Junger included his report in the student council packet, he thinks we shouldn't put W.A.S.T.E. on the ballot and thinks we should remove Union South (Editor's note: Tyler claims that this is because it's a terrible name and no one supported it but Alumni at the meeting, but I'm super confused because it will go to THE STUDENT VOTE), and we're going into closed session around 11:30. Wow there's something interesting going on here. Melissa and Tyler are debating about the process of selecting the names.

And Chair Junger says:

"I would prefer to not have it on the ballot for my own reasons; I think it's a bad name..."

Reading Legislation
Brandon Williams is discussing the tying of SSFC stipends to tuition. Chair Williams is discussing the SSFC intern legislation. Jonah Zinn is discussing legislation for creating a Textbook Affordability Committee Shared Governance Standing Committee.

Agenda legislation to move chair reports up to the front, Kurt says it was switched to the way it is now back a few years, and Eric Heywood believes that since we didn't legislate any penalty for not writing the chair reports that we shouldn't move it up to the front. (Editor's note: I can't agree more, Eric, why didn't I meet you earlier)?

Matt is introducing event grants including $8,000 for Move If You Want It and $20,232 for Breakin' The Law.

Old Business
Union Naming is on the docket. We're moving into debate. Carl Fergus moves to add Varsity Union, Randall Union, and Discovery Union to the ballot. I'm confused as to why he just doesn't leave it as it is if he wants Union South to be on the ballot but he says he will address it in a future amendment. Amendment fails. Motion passes to have ALL FOUR NAMES on the ballot.

Allocable Segregated Fee Sweep Negotiation legislation is being debated. I want it amended so that we speak with legal counsel to see if there was a violation. Adam Johnson motions to reword so that it says "explore the possibility of seeking free legal counsel". I motion to reword to "ASM Student Council discusses with legal counsel the legality of the Auxiliary Fund Transfer".

This passes. All remaining language was stricken.

Jonah makes a "supercilious" amendment that would say "students don't support the raid on segregated fees". (Editor's note: a perfectly reasonable bit of language that Brandon Williams feels isn't necessary). It fails.

Seat Allocation is being discussed. Matt Beemsterboer says:

"Graduate students don't care what goes on at the undergraduate level..."

Or in other words, we can't fill the graduate students so we shouldn't allocate to them despite the allocation process. Kurt thinks the Student Council should apportion the seats and not the Student Judiciary.

Closed session.

formspring.me

2010-03-15T23:29:00.001-07:00

Ask me anything http://formspring.me/maxwelllove

More Budget Reduction Information

2010-03-15T21:03:00.000-07:00

Please reference Erik Paulson's blog, I will be referencing it in my next post. On a somewhat separate note, I have had a lot of negative response to the Facebook group I created to raise awareness/pressure about the Auxiliary Enterprise Transfer issue. I will also be addressing this.

Erik had the time to talk to me about some of the problems it presents, and although I am still not 100% convinced it will have serious repercussions on negotiations, I have considered at the very least changing some of the wording and probably taking it down altogether (although it took me forever to draft up).

*Update: My records request came through from the VCAs office and I'll be commenting on a few things from that as well.

Operation Welcome Home

2010-03-12T10:25:00.001-08:00

People are doing good things in the community to fight injustice. Just thought I should let you all know!

Chair of ASM's "Fund 128 Sweep" Report

2010-03-11T19:13:00.001-08:00

Can be found here. I'll be posting my reactions later.

March 10th, 2010 Student Council Liveblog

2010-03-10T16:40:00.001-08:00

Hello all. So it begins. Once again, not complete and by no means a perfect representation of what happened, events as I perceived them people!

Open Forum
Peter Lorenz and co. are presenting on the intern project (rather, I'd say defending).

Meeting Agenda
Motion to move the Chair Report to New Items. Motion to adopt the agenda. Passes.

New Items
Tyler is giving his chair report.

"Love: So if something is being done that’s wrong this year, we’re just gonna let it happen because we didn’t fight it early enough?

Junger: No. But in this situation, the money would come from somewhere and students are going to be harmed somehow."

Wow I did a horrible job blogging this. Maybe I'll start talking again...

Written Responsibility Act
So, it seems like the chairs have some objection to this legislation because it would remove their stipend if they didn't turn in a report. Chair Zinn motions to 20%. That passes, main motion.

Auxiliary Transfer

2010-03-09T21:49:00.001-08:00

Please refer to my legislation below for more information. Before I go into detail about it, I would like to address other items on the agenda.

Quick links for Student Council:
1. Appropriation 128
2. Program and Sub-Program Codes
3. Student Services (0)
4. Auxiliary Enterprise (8)
5. F42 System Policy

"Statutory reference is made to auxiliary enterprises in section 20.285(1)(h) Wis. Stats. The UW-System (UWS) and the Department of Administration (DOA) have established a funding designation (Fund 128), and an activity designation (08) for budget development and control purposes. Appendix 1 identifies programs assigned to Fund 128, makes distinctions between auxiliary and non-auxiliary programs within Fund 128, and explains the reasons for those distinctions."

Editor's note: skip to argument below (subheading) unless you are interested in reading my opinion on some legislation for tomorrow.

The Academic Affairs intern project is up for review again. This is the same project that was separated out of the Omnibus last meeting. Some members voiced support for cutting the project then and there but thankfully they postponed (I was out of the room attempting to break quorum at this point). I'm not quite sure why people have a problem with this project. It beats me really; first we advocate for leadership to be developed through these intern projects and how can that happen if we delegate off what we want them to do. Also, I can't foresee this project having little impact on the Madison campus. From everything I understand the project would be in identifying gaps in Morgridge center service. I could be wrong about that but that was the last I heard.

There is also an interesting piece of legislation from Rep. Paulson (who is in D.C.) that would force chairs to file their written reports or not receive their stipends. I am in huge support of this. There is no reason why chairs cannot get this done, and if they are not held accountable they do not deserve their money. Plain and simple. Thanks Paulson.

There is also the referenda on the Union Naming on the agenda.

And then there is the legislation I have drafted supported by Chair Jonah Zinn to continue the investigation on the Auxiliary Transfer:

Background

There has been much information presented on the Auxiliary Enterprise Transfer. Please refer to the Allocable Segregated Fee Sweep Negotiation legislation for a more complete background.

Argument

The State Budget (Wisconsin Act 28) mandated that money be transferred from Auxiliary Enterprise accounts to fund student aid. It explicitly says “Auxiliary Enterprise”. There is a distinction between Fund 128 accounts (Auxiliary vs. Non-Auxiliary). UW-Madison administration was given the task of dividing up where the money would be transferred. Instead of transferring money from only Auxiliary Enterprise accounts, reserve accounts (such as UHS, Recreational Sports, and the ASM Internal) have been handed a bill to provide money for the transfer. These accounts are not Auxiliary Enterprise accounts and thus should not be touched by the administration.

Goals

Many people question what the goal of this inquiry is. At the very least, this process needs to be completed correctly. Keeping student interests in mind is essential in this inquiry but if the UW-Madison administration is violating the law that is also another facet. If everything works out perfectly, the accounts that were not meant to be touched would not be, and there would be no adverse effect on the student body or student fees.

Conclusion

I hope everyone has seriously thought about this issue. I would like to say thank you to all those who have discussed this with me and provided insight. I would also like to thank our staff for providing the documents I requested. I would like to apologize if the legislation I drafted seems confrontational, I did not intend it to be so, but impact is just as important. I feel that it is essential we further this investigation by contacting some sort of legal counsel beyond the resources immediately available to ASM. I do disagree with the drafting of an MOU at this time, as there is still an investigation that could be continued.

Watching Occupation

2010-03-09T14:10:00.000-08:00

Hello all. If anyone cares to join us we're screening "Occupation" in Bascom Hall.

Agenda for March 10th, 2010 Meeting

2010-03-09T13:31:00.001-08:00

Can be found here I'll comment on some items later today.

Country Board Supervisor Five Seat

2010-03-08T11:48:00.001-08:00

There will be a debate between the candidates on March 16th at 7pm in 1121 Humanities expecting around 100 people but hopefully there will be more. This is an exciting opportunity to take part in local politics. Please notify people to come especially in District Five which encompasses the Lake Shore.

Valid Criticism

2010-03-07T23:59:00.000-08:00

Check out this article.

Perhaps my actions were petty (specifically contacting a Badger Herald reporter to insure that quorum had been broken Editor's note: I considered myself an acquaintance with said reporter over this professional relationship that the article deems more important, I definitely see the point because technically she was acting in both capacities). But I can't agree with the Badger Herald. I don't believe the end result was petty. The fact that council was debating items on the agenda that weren't supposed to be there, and the fact that this meeting was attended by barely more than 1/2 of council because it was assumed we wouldn't discuss this information, is disturbing.

Questions:
1. Why doesn't the article mention how I attempted to break quorum when we were voting on Intern projects?
2. Why doesn't it recognize how many members were absent, and why they were absent?
3. ... nor that Tom Templeton had left the meeting earlier (obviously not out of frustration though).
4. And oh, what is the worst thing about contacting a reporter to inquire on how many members remained? Is this just common sense, I can see it both ways in all honestly.

You may say what you want about me and I welcome criticism but it surprises me that you decide to write about this and not the back-door dealings, the discretionary spending, and the general mayhem that has plagued student council this year. On that note, I do appreciate the fact that the Editor has been willing to discuss these issues with me, that is more than most have. If anyone would like to contact me personally to discuss my actions, feel free at mlove@wisc.edu or 608 318 3629.

Allocable Segregated Fee Sweep Negotiation

2010-03-07T19:01:00.000-08:00

Here is the legislation that I drafted on the "segregated fee sweep". It's a bit lengthy and detailed with referencing the budget and UW System policy. This relates to the $180,000 (this money could be used for one time RSO purchases and other student activities) that is being swept from the ASM reserve that is accumulated from segregated fees (as part of a larger $2.1 million from UW-Madison and $25 million from all UW schools being swept to fund financial aid).

In the 2003-2005 Wisconsin state budget there was a legislative mandate that money be transferred from the UW System auxiliary accounts to make up for holes in the state budget. They specifically prohibited money coming from segregated fees.

The same auxiliary transfer was included in the Wisconsin Act requesting approximately $25 million. There was no distinction on whether the money could come from segregated fee funded accounts.

Although much effort was put into researching and fighting this vagrant violation of student rights by ASM leadership in summer, new information has surfaced that would provide legal backing.

This information is based on several levels:

I. F50 interpretation of Allocable Segregated Fees

II. UW System definition of Auxiliary Enterprise Accounts

III. The manner in which the legislature mandated the transfer

a. …from Auxiliary Enterprise Accounts

IV. The way the ASM internal account is defined

a. Reserve Account (not Auxiliary Enterprise)

V. Legislative intent

F50 "sets forth legal and policy principles applicable to the administration of student fees (referred to in this policy as "segregated university fees" or "SUF")." From this website.

Allocable SUF are those SUF that provide substantial support for campus student activities and services as outlined in Section I.(B)(6)(a) and that are allocated by students, in consultation with the chancellor and subject to the final confirmation of the Board of Regents, in accordance with s. 36.09(5), Wis. Stats. The student group organized at each UW institution for the purpose of engaging in the allocation process under s. 36.09(5), Wis. Stats., is referred to in this policy as the Student University Fee Allocation Committee or "SUFAC."

Because students are not allocating the allocable fees that are being swept from the reserve account it is in direct violation of F50, which is a system governance policy that sets forth policy and legal principle.

The major foundation of the legal argument lies in the following:

1. UW System Policy: Auxiliary Enterprises Support Services Chargeback (F42) (Taken from: http://www.uwsa.edu/fadmin/fppp/fppp42.htm#appendix%201) defines Non-auxiliaries as: differing in purpose, policy and (for the most part) funding source from auxiliaries. For example, segregated fee programs receive a budget allocation, are not self-supporting operations that charge a fee directly related to the cost of goods or services provided, and are often instructional and/or student service in purpose. Non-auxiliaries, for purposes of this paper, are defined as programs more appropriately assigned to other activities (e.g., student services, instruction, and academic support); or programs created to improve cost efficiencies, service and accountability (e.g., service organizations such as copy centers).

Furthermore: NACUBO defines student services to include: "...cultural events, student newspapers, intramural athletics, student organizations, intercollegiate athletics (if the program is operated as an integral part of the department of physical education and not as an essentially self-supporting activity), counseling and career guidance..., student aid administration, and student health service (if not operated as an essentially self-supporting activity)."   The student service programs described below are assigned to the non-auxiliaries. 

These definitions can be interpreted in UW System appendix to include allocable segregated fee funded activities. The very activities that are funded by allocable segregated fees that require student oversight in administration. The most convincing thing is the way the Legislature legislated on this transfer:

Under section 254/255 in Wisconsin Act 28 it explicitly dictates: "20.285 (1) (h) Auxiliary enterprises. Except as pro- vided under subs. (5) (i) and (6) (g), all moneys received by the University of Wisconsin System for or on account of any housing facility, commons, dining halls, cafeteria, student union, athletic activities, stationery stand or bookstore, parking facilities or car fleet, or such other auxiliary enterprise activities as the board designates and including such fee revenues as allocated by the board and including such moneys received under leases entered into previously with nonprofit building corporations as the board designates to be receipts under this paragraph, but not including any moneys received from the sale of real property during the period before July 1, 2007, and the period beginning on October 27, 2007, and ending on June 30, 2009, and the period beginning on the effective [LRB inserts date], to be used for the operation, maintenance, and capital expenditures of activities specified in this paragraph, including the transfer of funds to pars. (kd) and, (ke), and (kj) and to s. 20.235 (1) (ke), and to nonprofit building corporations to be used by the corporations for the retirement of existing indebtedness and such other payments as may be required under existing loan agreements, for optional rental payments in addition to the mandatory rental payments under the leases and subleases in connection with the providing of facilities for such activities, and for grants under ss. 36.25 (14) and 36.34. A separate account shall be maintained for each campus and extension. Upon the request of the extension or any campus within the system, the board of regents may transfer surplus moneys appropriated under this paragraph to the appropriation account under par. (kp). In fiscal year 2009−10, the amount in the schedule under s. 20.235 (1) (ke) shall be transferred from this appropriation account to the appropriation account under s. 20.235 (1) (ke), and the amount in the schedule under par. (kj) shall be trans- ferred from this appropriation account to the appropriation account under par. (kj). Of the amounts transferred to s. 20.235 (1) (ke) and to par. (kj), no more than $3,500,000 may be drawn from the account of the extension or any single campus. From this website.

This is explicit and says that the Legislature didn't intend for allocable segregated fees to be touched and didn't even legislate the transfer in such a way.

The Associated Students of Madison acting in Student Council do enact as follows:

Be it resolved, that ASM Student Council recognizes a violation of policy on a legal level.

Be it also resolved, that ASM Student Council does not support “giving up the fight”.

Be it also resolved, that if a Memo of Understanding is drafted it would contain provisions that would allow ASM to fight the transfer of funds from its reserve account.

Be it also finally resolved, that ASM Student Council requests Director of Staff to investigate the Wisconsin Foundation and the availability of funding for legal counsel.

Tenacious Transparency

2010-03-06T20:21:00.000-08:00

Hope you all are well. I am only updating this for the sole purpose of prepping you all for a post I will be releasing in the coming days. It concerns the University System auxiliary enterprise transfer (don't worry if you don't know what this is, check out this article by the Badger Herald granted it's way out dated) and action I hope will be taken in council.

Wednesday March 3rd, 2010 Student Council Liveblog

2010-03-03T19:03:00.001-08:00

Not sure if there will be anything interesting tonight. It looks like someone left some cookies in the room. So maybe free cookies? I guess that warrants a little shout out. (Editor's note: I forgot to message, get ready for a boring ride because we're really not doing much tonight, or so says the email I received from Chair Junger about this meeting). What do you know, we have quorum!

Open Forum
Chair Beemsterboer is talking about appointees to the Finance Committee. He emailed a few hours before the meeting, within the Open Meeting time limit, to notify council that these would be appointed at the meeting.

Open Forum is closed and Beemsterboer moves to add the appointees to the agenda. The appointments are added to the agenda. The agenda is adopted.

New Items
Union naming referendum is being discussed, this would put the names on the ballot in the spring for which name students would prefer for the Union that "is being paid for largely by students". This is just being discussed and will be debated at the next meeting.

Appointments
Finance committee appointees are being discussed. 20 applied, nine were interviewed, and four were selected. (Editor's note: the thing I am most interested in is finding out whether there is a written criteria/questions/selection process and I believe there is but it's something I need to find out, essentially how one candidate is selected over another).

Constitutional Amendments
These are amendments to the Constitution that have been introduced by Paulson which would remove UC obligations for student council members and clarify the term limit. Both of these pass and students will be voting in the Spring.

Intern Project
This legislation means that intern projects would have to be passed through Council as a whole. The projects are as follows:

Legislative Affairs
Housing Fair
Leasing Legislation
Lobby Training Day

Shared Governance
Move Out Night

Academic Affairs
Affordable Textbook Campaign
Madison Community Academic Outreach
Financial Aid Fact-Finding and Targeting

Student Activity Center Governing Board
SAC Cafe Space

Essentially we have to vote on whether or not we approve these projects. There is some debate about the Madison Community Academic Outreach project. This is illustrative of the fact that we shouldn't be voting on this tonight because there has been not enough information provided on this project. Finally someone yields to the Intern Coordinator who is in the room it's like we're debating something that no one has knowledge on and the person who coordinates this is in the room. These pass and we're on to specifically debating the Madison Community Academic Outreach intern project.

Why has this been split off? I have no idea. I could not tell you. It seems people have an issue with a project they know nothing about and are only going off information that Jonah provided Adam Johnson with in an email. Kelly spoke on it but it sure seems like people have disregarded what she had to say. Brandon wants to see students working towards a goal that is held accountable. Manes motions to postpone until the next meeting. Thank you Manes, taking into consideration the fact WE STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS PROJECT WILL FULLY ENTAIL. Tom is now speaking out in opposition of postponing, he's made up his mind. Postponed thank you some bit of intelligence that graced the room. (For those that care I tried to break quorum with Theo because Brandon was already out of the room but I found out that quorum was actually 14 and they had it).

There has been a motion to postpone the next two items until the next meeting. Good idea, they need to be discussed at a larger level.

Update: I think we broke quorum but they're still in there so I'm unsure. WAIT, nevermind, I have no idea. Sorry people, I left the meeting. I couldn't handle it. Theo, Ingram (because he had to), and I left. Hopefully that broke it.

Views

2010-02-24T23:28:00.000-08:00

I'll be updating my blog tomorrow or in the coming days with a few personal responses to issues that have come up specifically after writing my Opinion piece in the Herald. A few people are frustrated (and some are under the assumption I'm setting up a political career within ASM) and a few people have agreed with my grievances. I'll attempt to dissect a few comments and state what needs to happen next.

Here is the article from the Badger Herald and here is the article from the Daily Cardinal.

Student Council Meeting on February 24th, 2010

2010-02-24T16:39:00.001-08:00

LIVEBLOG (or events as how I perceived them, remember this people)!

Open Forum
Tina Trevino-Murphy talking on the internal budget and how the process is a serious problem. Manes questions whether or not the students on SSFC count as students. Tina believes that students should have the overall say in the budget decisions.

Melissa Hanley is discussing the Shared Gov. Appointees. She is very open to constructive feedback. She is looking to expand the Shared Gov. Committee

Erik Paulson is resigning from Council. He's moving to D.C. (should have told you all before).

I spoke on the budget and you all know how I feel about it.

Written Responsibility Act
Let's have chairs update the students on what's going on and if not they shall forfeit their stipends. Seems very logical to me. A few questions were raised about when they would be due and whether "actions speak louder than words". I think they're both important but without knowledge of what's going on the actions don't necessarily mean the same thing.

Madison Property Rating Funding Proposal
Internal budget amendment for this year to shift around money into the MPR line items. $5,000 consolidation.

GSSF Budgets
Tuition remission was added into the budget but some debate was raised as to whether this was allowed under F50 (I'll update on this later). I am also curious if it was appropriate that the Webmaster salary was added in the realm of Conference Committee but it seems like this wasn't a problem? I'm unsure on this. Question called on the GSSF budgets. Question called and the GSSF budgets are approved.

ASM Internal Budget
Chair Williams is discussing the ASM Internal Budget and the changes made in Conference Committee:

-$500 added to the Cosponsorship of Student Organization Fairs
-$5000 added to the Grant Application Website
-$2791 added to consolidate Tenant Rating Website
-$8000 added for Shared Gov. Directors
-$2500 added to General Travel
-$1000 added to Computer Equipment
-$10000 subtracted from Tenant Resource Center (because it will not be up and running the whole time)
-$500 subtracted from Text Book Swap
-Clause attached to line item 62 (Tenant Resource Center) so that if there is no proposal for the center the money will disappear
-Clause attached to text book swap so that no more than $200 can be used for food

Computer equipment is addressed in question and answer. The Tenant Resource Center is discussed in the capacity of the committee that is being created to decide what the Center should be. Brandon is questioned about the effectiveness of large Student Council projects above $10000 that never get implemented.

Brandon believes it is fiscally responsible, based on the work the Chair and Vice Chair do, to increase their salaries and create a Chief of Staff.

Motion to end Question and Answer and move to debate and motion carries.

Matt Manes is discussing the increase in the budget this year in comparison to last year. I'm not really going to try to break down his argument.

"Students don't give a flying f*** what we do here..."

That's the best quote I could pull out of his statement.

I am not going to discuss the debate. I'm sorry, please request the audio for this meeting, I really can't recount everything that is going on.

The internal budget passes by a vote of 16-6-0. I guess we have more important things to do?

Term Limit Removal
The bill is killed by the author, he doesn't feel this is the best time to do this.

United Council Constitutional Amendment
Removing United Council obligations from the Constitution but it would have to go referendum... so still not sure exactly why this is coming about. Erik makes some good points but still...

Term Clarification
Really confused.

Paulson Amendments
Really lacking motivation. Editor's Note: This is why people dislike (extremely hate) Student Council and ASM as a general entity. We legislate on things that are solely internal and do not affect the general student population. I am so lost in this quagmire that I could not begin to explain why we are arguing about the order in which Student Council elects their leaders. We've spent more than 45 minutes talking on this matter when we could be hearing Chair, Vice-Chair, Secretary, and Grassroots updates. Honestly.

Chair Reports
Finally for the first time in three months we find out what's going on. Except for Adam Johnson and the occasional grassroots committee.

Badger Herald Guest Column

2010-02-22T23:39:00.000-08:00

Here is my guest column in the Badger Herald addressing the flaws of Conference Committee and the problems specifically.

Conference Committee (CC) Live Blog

2010-02-21T08:13:00.001-08:00

We'll see what I can do (a quick note: this is how I perceived events and not necessarily exactly how they went down):

Open Forum
One of the directors from GUTS speaks on needing extra capacity to facilitate a transition of leadership and to ease the burden on current graduate students. They are also looking for a competitive salary for a webmaster as many tutors register through the website and encounter problems. Used the argument that ASM is raising salary for webmaster (as ASM encountered the same problem; not making the job competitive enough).

Matt Manes is curious as to the intent of Conference Committee (CC). Will be addressed later in Open Forum. Kurt Gosselin suggests an answer as the only person who has sat on Conference Committee in the past and will approach this budget as making sure it will be accepted by the majority of SC and SSFC. He also believes that Student Council didn't reach all the line items that may have been contentious (Editor's Note: I agree with this) and isn't sure about a certain order CC needs to take. Tyler Junger takes a similar view to Gosselin. Brandon Williams observes that the numbers from SSFC and SC are represented disproportionately thus the playing field is leveled and SSFC is to check policies that SC may feel necessary. Definition of fiscal responsibility: charging more than necessary goes beyond the realm of fiscal responsibility.

Agenda Adoption
Agenda adopted.

GSSF Budgets
GUTS budget is printed out: it is moved the floor, it can be amended and approved by majority. $16,000 moved back to tuition remission. Gosselin says that it has been moved in the past. F50 says that we can't provide money to GSSF groups to provide financial aid. Financial Aid Office considers the tuition remission as financial aid which creates a conundrum. Kurt is not willing to remove tuition remission as he believes it is misguided system policy to designate it as financial aid. Manes speaks to SSFC decision: decided that they couldn't pay for it per Rich's advice so it was taken out, but now it appears possible that they can pay for it. Tyler discusses how and why it went to CC. He argues that tuition remission is not financial aid because there is no transfer of money, rather the fee is waived. This is passed unanimously: $16,000 moved to tuition remission.

Move to raise the Webmaster position line item to $5,000 from $3,216.50. This increases the wage and leaves the hours the same. Kurt is comfortable with 10 hours a week for the position and believes this is sufficient time for the Webmaster to work on weekly updates and setting up new material. Junger believes from his time on SSFC that numbers can sometime limit the capacity of job positions and this is appropriate. Motion is passed and Webmaster positions is raised to $5,000.

Motion for GSSF budgets to be approved. (Editor's note: I'm unsure of the role the CWC budget is being taken into account, I believe even if their appeal goes through they will be added back into the GSSF budget in the near future but I am unsure on this). Budgets are approved by a 6-0-2 vote.

ASM Internal Budget
Manes motions to reduce the ASM Textbook Swap to $1,500. This is a $500 reduction but the catch is that it was just added back in by Student Council. General argument on CC is that the numbers were not presented definitively and that $1,500 would be enough. I argue that this money would be a one time fee to increase capacity and thus it wouldn't be needed in the future. Kurt believes that he is comfortable with this number and could even see it decreased. Manes believes ASM added a graduate student for as a Webmaster and thus the $500-700 estimate for software isn't needed. Question is called. Motion passes.

Motion made to tag this not to be used for food. Beemsterboer suggests that it be limited to $75 to $100 because food is a good incentive for volunteers. Motion to call previous two questions. They pass.

Motion to add $200 to Leadership fair. Kurt said we were asked to contribute $600 each semester and thus $1,200 is needed. Andrea Nichols believes the Union was insufficient space for this fair and the extra money would be going to use the Kohl Center. Beemsterboer moves to add $300 more because we as primary funders and resources for student organizations we owe it to them to give them the best opportunities possible. I'm curious as to why we would want to raise it if they requested a certain amount but I definitely agree it would be nice to get ASM's name out there. Sianipar does not support an increase above what they asked for. Junger imagines that they made cuts elsewhere to put on the Organization Fair but he is unsure. The difference becomes so that we make it so they can stop cutting programs in order to put on the Organization Fair. Previous two questions called. First question passes, as well as the second.

Kurt is curious as to whether or not he should wait until after lunch to address a contentious point that he hasn't brought up. Tyler would prefer that we heard it after because the debate should be had in here.

I thought it would be important to discuss stipend changes for Student Council leadership (as well as four decreases and two positions that remained the same) with the addition of a Chief of Staff, I was just curious as to why stipends would be raised by SSFC after Student Council votes not to change them what-so-ever as their own body. I brought this up and am unsure as to when I'll get an answer but I will post it here when I do...

Manes motions to add $1,000 to Line 80 which is the computer line. Beemsterboer suggests that the computer hardware line needs an increase. Sianipar believes that there should be discussion and that most students use laptops. Chair Junger believes that he has heard ASM "cannot have nice things". Do we need to? Yes absolutely. He will approve a digital camera for the Press Office and this will limit computer updates. He believes that this is fiscally responsible. Kurt believes there should be an increase as well. I'm unsure that we need this increase for capacity. Manes believes this is something we need. We may have 26 computers but how many of them are workable; many of the intern computers don't work well and others on the other side don't work as well. Note: I still don't know whether I will be voting on this but that is because I feel like personally I have not seen the problems in the office and been convinced that they exist. Nichols believes that this is reasonable despite SSFC cutting it because of the extent of debate. Called to question and passed.

Beemsterboer is addressing Grant Application Website. Website is not housed internally and ASM would need money to house the website while the work is being done and we are forced to pay DoIt costs. Kurt adds that part of this is a scripting language that has gone out of style which DoIt supports and that once it is phased out it will not be physically functional; we are increasing because we have to improve our dirt roads to paved. This is a $5,000 increase. Kurt is in support of the increase. Manes is curious as to switching to a paper system while the website is being built. Beemsterboer believes this is possible but we would have to increase financial staff's salary because they would have to do more work. I'm curious as to whether this could be done over summer and Beemsterboer explains that once the website is up and running there would still be support needed from DoIt. Gosselin discusses the Madison Property Rating website in correlation with the Grant Application Website and suggests that the website would be anywhere from $25,000 to $40,000. Point of information: do student groups request funding over summertime? Starting in July grants are heard. Motion carries.

Adjourn for lunch.

I motioned to restore funding to line items 20 and 22 (Campus Program and Organizer Position). Manes seconds this in order to disagree: long speech with many points that I will address as soon as possible. Sianipar believes people should have listened to the debate about SSFC and feels that this is becoming a personal discussion. Beemsterboer has evaluated arguments from both sides and believes that leadership need to go through a hard experience to become better leaders not have someone there to hold their hand. Manes sees this position as more of a helper and he doesn't see anything falling down on the students. Manes also believes that we don't need this position anymore. Kurt discusses the handful of meetings he sat through on the ad-hoc committee that delineated the position. The main debates being made against restore the funding are vast and consist generally of ASM funding 10 staff members (roughly) while Oshkosh can run their government and be proud of it with 2 staff members (this is Chair Junger's primary argument. Also, leadership development which shouldn't be facilitated by staff and should consist generally of students building their own skills. Also, a handful of other things including the intern program which is argued won't fail without this position, and the Elections Committee which doesn't need a staff member to oversee it because DoIt handles the website and we only need to put information into the matrix.

Writer's note: I will address these discussions in the near future. I hate doing so because I detest putting people's words in their mouths although I feel like I have done a fair job evaluating my peers' arguments. Call to question and the motion to restore the position fails.

Gosselin motions to tag Housing and Tenant Support Services (Line Item 63 or $50,000) to read: The money in this line item should revert to 0 if a committee formed and led by the SSFC Chair has not taken affirmative action through a vote and procured a tentative request for proposal from May 1st. People believe this sunset clause is the best way to go about this. Sianipar believes that this is fiscally irresponsible and double-taxing students who live in University Housing. This motion carries.

I motion to defund the Chief of Staff position to a less of a capacity (I'll get the number in a second it's around $5,000). Something like 36 weeks with 15 hours a week at $9.19. The reason why I'm doing this is because people find it contentious that we are raising stipends and adding an assistant. I feel completely whole-heartdly that it would be ridiculous to do so. Beemsterboer believes that this position needs less hours because of the large amount it is being paid. Kurt believes that there is just that much to do that would require the increase. He also equates the Chair to being the face of ASM, Vice-Chair to external affairs, and Chief of Staff to send important things to the two but allow them not to be burdened with things they shouldn't have to deal with (not sure if I did this justice). Tyler argues that things are getting missed in this conversation. With a COS position Tyler will be able to do more things that will help the organization. I speak to the fact I haven't seen a job description (which is being brought to me at the moment), the fact that there will always be more for the Chair and Vice Chair to do and we need to evaluate those positions perhaps. There will always be more to do. My major premise for this argument is that I have not heard a justification that I feel comfortable explaining to students. Beemsterboer questions why this position is being valued at a higher level than a chair. He suggests to lower it and make it a stipend position. Manes is addressing why this is hourly and not stipend. This is a job and not a leadership opportunity, this is a job that needs to get done. Stipends are negating an opportunity cost and this is not an opportunity it's a job. Motion to call to question. Vote is four to four and the motion fails.

Gosselin moves to create line item 33A and create Shared Gov. Directors. If I understood this concept and had a bit of prior knowledge to this I could do a better job explaining it but I just don't understand yet. I believe it's something that would delineate the Shared Gov. Chair's job description so they can actually do things instead of overseeing appointments. Manes agrees with this assessment. Junger believes that Shared Gov. is a bit inexplicable and large and expansive at this point and she didn't bring this up because of time issues. This is going to be a tough sell to Student Council. Sianipar believes that we should put this on the shoulders of the interns. He also feels that interns are already serving on the different Grassroots Committees and they should be the ones to do this without pay. Kurt argues that if Student Council cannot spend this money (a modest amount he argues) then they should be impeached. I just can't agree; Adam Johnson from Legislative Affairs has two Vice-Chairs that are appointed without pay. He argues that if Student Council does not appoint this he will sign the impeachment evaluation request for every member who does not support it (Editor's Note: I guess that means I will be going through an impeachment hearing because I cannot support something that is coming to Conference Committee in this manner and is throwing $8,000 at these positions, Kurt also argued that one way we can pay for this is because we've already cut $57,000 extraneous dollars; once again not a sound financial argument; just because something is cut doesn't mean others should be added in and vice-versa). He argues Interns cannot do this. Tyler argues that we don't do Shared Gov. right. Sianipar argues we don't need this big governance (i.e. making big government). Called to question and passes: four new paid positions created.

Beemsterboer revisits Chief of Staff positions and wants it to be stipend at roughly $5,130. Tyler wants this to be a hired position and not elected so there would be some degree of agreement between the future Chair and Vice-Chair (Editor's note: although he said himself and Tom). Things are just being repeated at this time and I'm a bit lazy at this point. It looks as if we will be reconvening on Tuesday. Motion fails once again.

Andrea Nichols motions to cut $5,000 from the Housing and Tenant Resource. Junger argues he doesn't want this to fail because of a lack of $5,000. Call to question and motion fails.

Manes moves to add $2,000 to the Recruitment and Marketing drive. Beemsterboer personally feels like he would run for co-chair next year to do this and thinks this would be a great idea to have more money. Williams feels this doesn't warrant an increase and that throwing money at this and providing them food and entertainment without them knowing about the organization. I can't support any increase because we're debating this in Conference Committee and there is no plan; we are literally throwing money at this! Manes believes this is a systemic problem (deciding the budget) and the changes have to come now. I had to go to the bathroom but the motion to only add $1,000 failed and we are now debating adding $2,000. Motion fails.

Motion from Secretary Gosselin to move consolidate line items 15, 16, 17, 18 into Madison Property Rating Website and to add $2,791 to make it $5,000. Doesn't represent the level the project would need. He wants to maintain flexibility for next year. Requires a $5,000 investment for this year to operate and a beta would be done after graduation. Question is called and these are consolidated and total becomes $5,000.

Motion to restore $2,500 to General Travel line item. This is something with high value says Tyler. I don't feel comfortable adding this money back in after SSFC has cut it. Question is called and the motion carries.

Manes moves to cut $10,000 from the Tenant Housing Support Service (lowering it to $40,000). Manes said it wasn't apparent that we need the $10,000 because this will only be in operation for half the year. I am unsure as to where this information is coming from and suggest that we should be making decisions based on whether we need the money and not that we have added a lot and need to cut a lot. This is what people have been saying and I disagree.

Manes motions to move $1,000 to Recruitment Drive that failed before. Brandon believes that this is financially unsound and I completely concur. Where does this number come from. Motion fails.

Final Budget Changes

$500 deducted from Book Swap
$500 for student org fair
$1,000 for Computer Equipment
$5,000 for Grant Support Website
$8,000 for Shared Gov. Directors
$2,791.36 added to Madison Property Ratings Website
$2,500 for General Travel
$10,000 deducted from Tenant Support

Question is called on the Internal Budget. By a vote of 6-0-1 ASM budget is passed by Conference Committee.

Longer Than Expected Hiatus

2010-02-11T20:26:00.000-08:00

If you care to know the structure of this post to read relevant information here it is:

1. United Council (student lobbying) Convention and Building Unity

2. SSFC Approval of ASM Internal Budget

3. ASM Kick-off

4. ASM Student Council Meeting

I'm back! I know you all are so excited to read all the frivolous updates I provide for you from student government. The past weekend I had the opportunity to attend the UC convention in UW-Marathon County which was super awesome and I learned a lot. Highlights of the convention including spending time with council members and meeting people from other schools and getting some great ideas from them.

Madison attire was addressed at the meeting which was interesting and I'll refrain from commenting on it too much although I have been on both sides of the issue (unfortunately dress has such an impact on how we interact with people).

I highly suggest everyone to look into attending Building Unity which will be held in Madison this year! This is a student empowerment conference put on by United Council which I strongly support. There is a possibility I will be giving a workshop on the WHEG (Wisconsin Higher Education Grant) and the lack of funding this year. Talk to me about getting registered or fill out the registration form.

A week and a half ago SSFC finalized the internal budget confirming the defunding of the Campus Program and Organizing Position. This is something I fervently spoke out against at the meeting for reasons I'll list later on.

ASM had their kick off/birthday party last night, on Wednesday, February 10th to commemorate the SAC's one year in existence. In my opinion it was a little outdone (with the pig roast and all) and not enough options for vegetarians (people will think I'm being nit-picky but three separate people commented on this to me). I am appreciative of the time ASM leadership put into organizing this event though am a bit distraught that people came for the free food and the free food only (this is natural but the structure could have been re-arranged to ensure that at least a few important ASM announcements could have been made). There was enough interaction going on in the line for food between ASM representatives and students that I'm not wholly disheartened by the matter.

I have a lot to talk about from the Student Council meeting from last night. First off, find the agenda here and the live-blog here.

You may note that we did not follow the Legislative Reading bylaws that we just set for ourselves last meeting (unanimously I might add). I attempted to raise this point on a few separate occasions the first of which being open forum and suggested that since nothing really needed to be decided last night, it could all wait and we should only work on the internal budget. I do not say approve the internal budget because there a few things that need to be discussed as they may mean serious ramifications for ASM structure.

There were various levels of support for my position but in the end we just ended up rearranging items on the budget which is in technical violation of the ASM bylaws.

We discussed internal appointments to Student Council which I disagreed with on a few levels (essentially valuing ASM knowledge and experience over diversity of ideas, or the possibility of such). I however did not disagree with the actual appointments, it was no personal matter, rather a matter of principal.

The major debate we had throughout the night (after open forum lasted for quite a while) was the auxiliary ASM budgets (being SSFC, Student Judiciary, Student Activity Center Governing Board). SSFC has of course spent quite a bit more time on these budgets but some members of ASM thought it inappropriate to increase stipends (I'm among them but I also do value the work SSFC does to the point where if this is what they feel I will generally agree with them).

I will have a lot more personal issues with the internal budget for a few different reasons but you'll just have to wait until that discussion (or close to it) to hear those.

Hope you all are well. Contact me if you would like to set a meeting to discuss anything. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Oh I'll leave you with one quote.

James Madison said, "In Republics, the great danger is, that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the minority".

Hiatus

2010-01-23T09:53:00.000-08:00

If people would take a look at this and read this I think it could help with where the direction of ASM could be and in some ways should be headed. I know I have been gone for quite a long time and have not posted much in the way of my official duties as a council member, but I am struggling to get back in the swing of things and will have as many updates as possible from this next Wednesday's meeting.

Also Thursday the 28th will be a campus wide action day to raise funds for Haiti.

United Council

2009-12-12T16:29:00.000-08:00

This update is about a week overdue, but I just want to let everyone know what is going on at the state level surrounding student issues. I was privileged to be able to attend the United Council retreat in Waukesha this past weekend. United Council is a great organization that organizes and lobbies on behalf of students; mostly by students with some support staff. Most campuses around the state are members but a few are not, and a few are backing out at this very point (this is due to some internal politics in my opinion and not the organization and what they represent). Every student who is part of a member school pays $2 to fund United Council and their efforts. This is money well spent and is going to defend students and their education. In the past they have worked for maintaining a tuition freeze at the two year schools, keeping tuition increases low at the four year schools, winning $20 million in extra aid, and securing domestic partnership benefits for staff at the University level.

United Council and the board just voted on their budget priorities. These include fighting for a 2/3 state funding for education, sustainable goals on campuses, and regaining WHEG funding which was taken away (more on this later I think).

I then attended a breakout session put on by the lovely Monique Teal from USSA (United States Student Association) who talked about issues at the national level. These include the protesting in response to tuition hikes going on all around the state and the fact that higher education only receives 2% of the federal budget (I would suggest following here and here if you are interested in these issues).

We then went into a caucus meeting for the research institutions (after which Milwaukee pulls out there will be solely Wisconsin) where we voted for new board members, including Carl Fergus (he won with all of the votes except one who voted for Karl Marx).

After this I went to another breakout session on open meeting rules. This interests me because I want to maintain a high degree of transparency in the student council actions.

I will hopefully be writing a letter to the editor soon about WHEG funding because around 250 Madison students are affected with an average grant of $2,000. The nature of this grant means that those students may be relying on this aid to attend University and may be forced to drop. A little background: WHEG stands for Wisconsin Higher Education Grant. It is a need based grant that is based on FAFSA data. It was funded in Doyle's budget but underfunded by the legislature and the need was underestimated meaning that 25,000 students state-wide are affected. Essentially they were promised money for fall that they never received.

Look out for information from Monday's council meeting which will be at 7:45 in the Caucus room.

Update

2009-12-09T13:23:00.001-08:00

I'll be posting soon with an update on what happened this past weekend at the United Council convention.

Campus updates.

2009-12-04T10:33:00.000-08:00

Just thought I put some plugs in for events I wish I could attend this weekend. Both tonight and tomorrow there will be a free showing of District 9 (looks like a great movie) at Play Circle in the Union. Tonight is also Toki Wright at the Union and tomorrow is the Leak featuring local hip-hop artists.

Tomorrow during the day will be the Statewide March for Civil Rights on the Capital and the Hmong Human Rights Forum at the Pyle Center. Then if you want to get dressed up real spiffy, you should check out the Pakistani Student Association's formal at the University Club.

Just hold up, I'm not done yet. The gospel choir is performing on Sunday and I'm pretty sure there's some sort of pageant going on as well. Next Wednesday will feature a diversity dialogue at Chadbourne which I just realized I will have to miss because of an ASM meeting.

If any of you have any questions for me let me know, anything about student issues, I am sadly canceling my office hours today because of the United Council convention.

Maxwell.

A teensy update.

2009-12-03T09:43:00.000-08:00

Hey everyone,

Hoping some people are still finding a reason to check this blog out. Anyways, I'll be heading to Waukesha this weekend for a United Council retreat where I'm sure I'll be updated on tons of goodies surrounding student issues and you bet your bottom dollar that I'll be updating this blog in a flurry. In the meanwhile, hope everyone enjoyed their time off last week.

On a separate note. I'll be hitting up College Library tonight to hear about local food in a student diet and then heading to the Red Gym fro Taste of Iran, a fascinating and delicious country.

Peace and love. Maxwell.

ASM Student Council Meeting on Wednesday, November 18, 2009

2009-11-18T18:54:00.000-08:00

Hello everyone, I hope at least a few people are gaining some sort of insight into student government through my regular posts here, if not, well what a shame.

Our meeting started with an Open Forum in which a few people advocated for ASM to help the night shift workers who are not being given sufficient time off for union events. Another person talked about the bus pass and safe cab policy addressing the fact that the safe cabs are being used as regular transportation for some people and not just emergencies. There was some discussion about the balance of safety and managing costs for students but I feel like more research needs to be done to figure out to evaluate the rides better to limit waste and promote the highest degree of safety.

A resolution was debated to have ASM support 2nd and 3rd shift workers rights so that workers could organize for their own interests. The resolution ended up getting passed, thankfully, to suggest that Chancellor Martin investigate the matter and consult with the union and the UW HR office.

A few resolutions were tabled to the Coordinating Committee and these mostly revolved around internal efficiency matters such as hiring and insuring the interns are held accountable for their projects.

ASM also passed a resolution to support Mark Woulf to represent students on the ALRC (Alcohol License Review Committee) but some regrets were expressed about not being able to do search and screen more effectively. Thankfully Mr. Woulf knows quite a bit about this committee as he has already been serving on it for a while in a technical advisor position.

The last thing to be debated was a piece of legislation I am helping sponsor that would require a piece of ASM legislation to be read into the record a week in advance of the meeting (instead of submitting legislation a few days before the meeting and then some representatives and the public only finding out about it right before the meeting). I'm hoping this would promote transparency but I think the bylaws need to be worked out a bit better to insure that this wouldn't be abused and that public notice would be required after the reading meetings. These bylaws were not decided on because it takes two meetings to finalize and because the legislation was postponed so it will be a while before action on this occurs.

Let me know if you have any questions or see anything wrong with my post. AS always, I will make mistakes but I'm trying to do my best.

If you missed the meeting or don't care about my thoughts you can check out a live-blog here.

Diversity at Madison

2009-11-18T18:38:00.000-08:00

After reading many articles in both the Badger Herald and the Daily Cardinal which seem to be calling for an end to Affirmative Action and with the latest, found here, declaring that

"...while we do see acts of intolerance and ignorance on a daily basis, in general it is much harder to be racist than to be a minority on campus."

I decided to write a response which I will repost here identifying what I believe to be a few issues that were quite contentious contained within that article.

Here it is:

After I read the article "Race deserves no place in university admissions" in Tuesday's issue of the Daily Cardinal, I struggled with how to explain the intent of the author. I was caught wholly off-guard by the call for an end to affirmative action.

Furthermore, to declare that UW-Madison students are relatively colorblind is not a true statement, nor would those that believe in the benefits of a diverse education wish to be labeled as so. It is essential that we as students in search of a liberal education maintain an effort to become culturally and ethnically competent and this means recognizing, and respecting, fundamental differences. To claim that it is easier to be a minority (under-represented) student on campus than to be a racist is certainly absurd. Perhaps the author intended to state that a racist would receive more flak from their peers than a minority (under-represented) student does. I am not an under-represented student at UW-Madison but for the three months that I have been at this school I have heard of the vast injustices committed against under-represented students; whether that be a professor asking them to comment on something from their ethnicity's point of view, or to having my friends tell me that they were forced to defend themselves after being told to go back to Mexico when, in fact, they have been living in the United States for the entirety of their life. These examples, my friends, are just the tip of the iceberg.

So what, as majority students, can we do? There are many first steps that can be made; among the most important being education on white privilege. What is white privilege you ask? I hadn't heard of the term until I began attending weekly discussion to discuss multiculturalism either and was stunned when I learned about the everyday privileges I have as a person who is white. These privileges include (but are not nearly limited to): being able to open a paper or watching T.V. and seeing people of my race widely represented, being told about my civilization and being shown people of my race made it what it is, using checks and counting that my race will not work against the appearance of financial responsibility, and finally, being sure that when I pick out a "flesh" colored bandage it will more or less match the color of my skin. The biggest privilege of all is not having to worry about this list (and not even knowing these privileges existed which was my privilege until very recently).

It is the job of every human being in this society to take action to end racism. Unfortunately, like you had stated, the overwhelming majority of students do not actively seek out and love interacting with diverse and new people. Maybe if they did, this article would not have been written because the author may in fact understand that there are fundamental differences between people of different ethnicities.

Maxwell Love
Freshman

ASM Student Council Meeting Wednesday November 11th

2009-11-14T20:53:00.000-08:00

So... here's my attempt to recap what happened at the meeting.

The large issue I will focus on is ASM's internal budget. The process involves a recommended internal budget from the Finance Committee, this budget comes to the ASM student council for approval and modification, then to the SSFC committee, then back to the ASM committee for the final acceptance.

Wednesday night was the first round of the budget evaluation.

The original proposed budget seemed fairly reasonable with an increase of only 3.74% to bring the budget to $1.078 million dollars (this includes operation and event grants for RSOs, staff for ASM, and various ASM initiatives).

At this point, representatives are invited to amend the budget. During the meeting Secretary Kurt Gosselin introduced a wide array of amendments (somewhere around 2 dozen). These included (but were not limited to):

1. cutting a staff position
2. increasing the amount of money for the Creative Works fund (to fund pieces of art on campus)
3. striking funding for a Webmaster and Media Specialist while adding a Asst. Press Director position
4. funding an internal chief of staff position (argued that this will promote productivity in the office and allow ASM to take on more initiatives)
5. funding a Graduate Student Tech position to update the website and work on other projects
6. funding more travel for ASM members (hopefully to lobby other levels of government)
7. cutting $5,000 from the Disabled Student Services fund (most controversial for me, I'll explain later)

These amendments were met with general acceptance by the Student Council representatives. I was a bit unsure on how to vote on some of the proposed amendments that were raised later, including a $50,000 tenant resource for students looking to rent.

I was a bit frustrated that an approximately $8,000 line item was being added to fund a chief of staff (hourly rate) when the chair makes this amount as a stipend yearly (is this really the best way to spend student money); this is something ASM will just have to evaluate in the future to see how much this position will actually help ASM function.

Towards the end of the meeting I proposed an amendment to restore $5,000 to the Disabled Student Support fund, not only because I believe this is important funding but for these reasons:

1. disabled students came to speak at the meeting during open forum and stated they were unaware this fund could be used to fund certain student organizations when in fact it could (they didn't even know they could use the money to hire interpreters for the ASM meeting...)
2. this fund provides money for students who aren't able to participate in certain student organizations because of their disability in order for them to fund a interpreter, transport, or a translator... and I'm on ASM to insure that students who aren't represented on campus receive at least some sort of support or a voice

Unfortunately the council was running out of time for debate and ended up rushing the vote causing the 10-10 tie to be broken by the Chair with a nay vote. This was unfortunate as the main argument against my motion was that the funding hadn't been touched this year, and that it had only been half used last year; when in reality, the students hadn't been properly educated on the funding use and could have accessed it for more reasons.

These were just a few of my qualms about the meeting, but overall it was nice to at least semi-understand what was going on. I'm more than willing to talk about any of these issues with anyone, my office hours are from 1-3 in Gordon Commons. I'm trying to get the word out about these office hours because no one showed up on last Friday (understandable, we're all busy).

Anyways, provide some feedback, and like always, I'll make, and have made mistakes, but I'll do the best I can.

Peace. Love. Maxwell.

Refer to this article from the Badger Herald and this article from the Cardinal for more information.

First Post: Wohooo!

2009-11-13T18:59:00.000-08:00

Hello all. My name is Maxwell Love and I was recently elected as a freshman representative to the 16th session of the Associated Students of Madison Student Council (ASM SC). Thanks to everyone who helped make this a democratic affair by voting (and especially those that helped me get elected).

Anyways to cut to the chase, when talking with voters about ASM SC many relayed the facts including;

1. they didn't know what ASM SC was.
2. and if they did know what it was they didn't think it reflected students interests.

Perhaps their point could be represented effectively by this quote (found here about 3/4 of the way through the comments):

"Campus politics involving students in authority positions are fraught with sneaky, drawn-out, underhanded pissing contests between resume padders and people with personal agendas."

This is exactly the type of reputation I hope to combat. There are a lot of good people involved with student government who put a lot into the system to ensure the best things for students.

Granted, there are probably a few people who do conform to the statement above; and hopefully there is room to change.

I will continuously attempt to keep the information on this blog relevant (hopefully I will be updating soon with budget information from Wednesday's meeting).

Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. I am available at mlove@wisc.edu or at (608) 318-3629.

Thanks for reading this,
respectfully yours,
Maxwell John Love.