0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)
254 vues15 pages
For Immediate Release: January 30, 2014
ONLY 1.24% OF UW-MILWAUKEE STUDENTS VOTED IN EXTRALEGAL STUDENT ASSOCIATION CONSTITUIONAL REFERENDUM; ONLY 0.9959667462% OF ALL STUDENTS VOTED YES
— student voter turnout for (‘not-recognized’) 2013-2014 SA Elections = 12.91% —
Milwaukee, WI: On Monday, the University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee Board of Trustees (BoT) d/b/a UWM Student Association (SA) released a summary of the results of their extralegal Student Association Constitutional Referendum that they put to students from January 22nd-26th, 2014. The referendum passed by an 80% margin. But after public records requesting the raw numbers from the University Student Court (USC), who is administering and overseeing the BoT, the picture becomes very different.
NUMBERS: In the raw numbers provided by USC Chief Justice Justin Welch, attached hereto, we see that only 301 students out of the 24,298 students provided a ballot voted in the extralegal Student Association Constitutional Referendum, which equates to only 1.24% of students voting. Only 242 of those students voted yes on the referendum, meaning that approximately 0.9959667462% of the student population voted for the new Constitution. The Board of Trustees have stated that they indeed intend to recognize this vote as valid and the ratification of the new constitution will take effect May 1, 2014.
This “recognized” referendum vote pales in comparison to the 12.91% student voter turnout in the 2013-2014 Student Association Elections that were “not-recognized” by UWM Chancellor Michael Lovell; subsequently leading to the extralegal “emergency order” by the USC creating the hand-picked Board of Trustees to replace the legitimately elected representatives. It is interesting to note that if, presumably, all 34 members of the BoT/USC voted ‘yes’ in favor of their own Constitution, that would account for a full 14.05% of the students that voted ‘yes’ in the referendum.
REFERENDUM ISSUES: The constitutional referendum was originally slated to be put to a vote of the students on January 21, 2014, but was postponed until January 22 due to unknown reasons. Neither the Board of Trustees, nor the University Student Court has the authority to put forth a Student Association Constitutional referendum, and doing so, in the manner they did is in-violation of the student-recognized current Student Association Constitution (which the USC purports to have suspended). But when a student asked the BoT Chairman how a student would propose his own Constitution, the Chairman noted that the student would have to get a petition of 5% of the student population, a requirement that the BoT/USC themselves did not adhere to. 301 votes, which is the total number of students that ’participated’ in this referendum, is well less than the (approximately) 1,214 students it takes to engage 5% of the student body. Additionally, student enrollment registration doesn’t close until February 3, 2014; so admitted or intended students that will be registering late are completely disenfranchised by the BoT/USC of their right to vote on a new Constitution which purports to represent them.
Can this referendum really be taken seriously and legitimately?
CONSTITUTION ISSUES: Students were first notified on January 13, 2014, by email, that a new Constitution had been written for them. This email expressed that the Board of Trustees had essentially completed a new and improved constitution, and they were seeking student input. On January 19, 2014, the Board of Trustees approved a final Constitution at a meeting. Before approving it, they made “amendments” to the constitution, some of which may be potentially substantial changes. They then used this new and changed constitution on the referendum that they administered. Additionally, there are many legal and otherwise compliance issues in the new Constitution on top of placing requirements on students running for office that would, arguably, create different discri
For Immediate Release: January 30, 2014
ONLY 1.24% OF UW-MILWAUKEE STUDENTS VOTED IN EXTRALEGAL STUDENT ASSOCIATION CONSTITUIONAL REFERENDUM; ONLY 0.9959667462% OF ALL STUDENTS VOTED YES
— student voter turnout for (‘not-recognized’) 2013-2014 SA Elections = 12.91% —
Milwaukee, WI: On Monday, the University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee Board of Trustees (BoT) d/b/a UWM Student Association (SA) released a summary of the results of their extralegal Student Association Constitutional Referendum that they put to students from January 22nd-26th, 2014. The referendum passed by an 80% margin. But after public records requesting the raw numbers from the University Student Court (USC), who is administering and overseeing the BoT, the picture becomes very different.
NUMBERS: In the raw numbers provided by USC Chief Justice Justin Welch, attached hereto, we see that only 301 students out of the 24,298 students provided a ballot voted in the extralegal Student Association Constitutional Referendum, which equates to only 1.24% of students voting. Only 242 of those students voted yes on the referendum, meaning that approximately 0.9959667462% of the student population voted for the new Constitution. The Board of Trustees have stated that they indeed intend to recognize this vote as valid and the ratification of the new constitution will take effect May 1, 2014.
This “recognized” referendum vote pales in comparison to the 12.91% student voter turnout in the 2013-2014 Student Association Elections that were “not-recognized” by UWM Chancellor Michael Lovell; subsequently leading to the extralegal “emergency order” by the USC creating the hand-picked Board of Trustees to replace the legitimately elected representatives. It is interesting to note that if, presumably, all 34 members of the BoT/USC voted ‘yes’ in favor of their own Constitution, that would account for a full 14.05% of the students that voted ‘yes’ in the referendum.
REFERENDUM ISSUES: The constitutional referendum was originally slated to be put to a vote of the students on January 21, 2014, but was postponed until January 22 due to unknown reasons. Neither the Board of Trustees, nor the University Student Court has the authority to put forth a Student Association Constitutional referendum, and doing so, in the manner they did is in-violation of the student-recognized current Student Association Constitution (which the USC purports to have suspended). But when a student asked the BoT Chairman how a student would propose his own Constitution, the Chairman noted that the student would have to get a petition of 5% of the student population, a requirement that the BoT/USC themselves did not adhere to. 301 votes, which is the total number of students that ’participated’ in this referendum, is well less than the (approximately) 1,214 students it takes to engage 5% of the student body. Additionally, student enrollment registration doesn’t close until February 3, 2014; so admitted or intended students that will be registering late are completely disenfranchised by the BoT/USC of their right to vote on a new Constitution which purports to represent them.
Can this referendum really be taken seriously and legitimately?
CONSTITUTION ISSUES: Students were first notified on January 13, 2014, by email, that a new Constitution had been written for them. This email expressed that the Board of Trustees had essentially completed a new and improved constitution, and they were seeking student input. On January 19, 2014, the Board of Trustees approved a final Constitution at a meeting. Before approving it, they made “amendments” to the constitution, some of which may be potentially substantial changes. They then used this new and changed constitution on the referendum that they administered. Additionally, there are many legal and otherwise compliance issues in the new Constitution on top of placing requirements on students running for office that would, arguably, create different discri
Droits d'auteur :
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Formats disponibles
Téléchargez comme PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
For Immediate Release: January 30, 2014
ONLY 1.24% OF UW-MILWAUKEE STUDENTS VOTED IN EXTRALEGAL STUDENT ASSOCIATION CONSTITUIONAL REFERENDUM; ONLY 0.9959667462% OF ALL STUDENTS VOTED YES
— student voter turnout for (‘not-recognized’) 2013-2014 SA Elections = 12.91% —
Milwaukee, WI: On Monday, the University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee Board of Trustees (BoT) d/b/a UWM Student Association (SA) released a summary of the results of their extralegal Student Association Constitutional Referendum that they put to students from January 22nd-26th, 2014. The referendum passed by an 80% margin. But after public records requesting the raw numbers from the University Student Court (USC), who is administering and overseeing the BoT, the picture becomes very different.
NUMBERS: In the raw numbers provided by USC Chief Justice Justin Welch, attached hereto, we see that only 301 students out of the 24,298 students provided a ballot voted in the extralegal Student Association Constitutional Referendum, which equates to only 1.24% of students voting. Only 242 of those students voted yes on the referendum, meaning that approximately 0.9959667462% of the student population voted for the new Constitution. The Board of Trustees have stated that they indeed intend to recognize this vote as valid and the ratification of the new constitution will take effect May 1, 2014.
This “recognized” referendum vote pales in comparison to the 12.91% student voter turnout in the 2013-2014 Student Association Elections that were “not-recognized” by UWM Chancellor Michael Lovell; subsequently leading to the extralegal “emergency order” by the USC creating the hand-picked Board of Trustees to replace the legitimately elected representatives. It is interesting to note that if, presumably, all 34 members of the BoT/USC voted ‘yes’ in favor of their own Constitution, that would account for a full 14.05% of the students that voted ‘yes’ in the referendum.
REFERENDUM ISSUES: The constitutional referendum was originally slated to be put to a vote of the students on January 21, 2014, but was postponed until January 22 due to unknown reasons. Neither the Board of Trustees, nor the University Student Court has the authority to put forth a Student Association Constitutional referendum, and doing so, in the manner they did is in-violation of the student-recognized current Student Association Constitution (which the USC purports to have suspended). But when a student asked the BoT Chairman how a student would propose his own Constitution, the Chairman noted that the student would have to get a petition of 5% of the student population, a requirement that the BoT/USC themselves did not adhere to. 301 votes, which is the total number of students that ’participated’ in this referendum, is well less than the (approximately) 1,214 students it takes to engage 5% of the student body. Additionally, student enrollment registration doesn’t close until February 3, 2014; so admitted or intended students that will be registering late are completely disenfranchised by the BoT/USC of their right to vote on a new Constitution which purports to represent them.
Can this referendum really be taken seriously and legitimately?
CONSTITUTION ISSUES: Students were first notified on January 13, 2014, by email, that a new Constitution had been written for them. This email expressed that the Board of Trustees had essentially completed a new and improved constitution, and they were seeking student input. On January 19, 2014, the Board of Trustees approved a final Constitution at a meeting. Before approving it, they made “amendments” to the constitution, some of which may be potentially substantial changes. They then used this new and changed constitution on the referendum that they administered. Additionally, there are many legal and otherwise compliance issues in the new Constitution on top of placing requirements on students running for office that would, arguably, create different discri
Droits d'auteur :
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Formats disponibles
Téléchargez comme PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
ONLY 1.24% OF UW-MILWAUKEE STUDENTS VOTED IN EXTRALEGAL STUDENT ASSOCIATION
CONSTITUIONAL REFERENDUM; ONLY 0.9959667462% OF ALL STUDENTS VOTED YES
STUDENT VOTER TURNOUT FOR (NOT-RECOGNIZED) 2013-2014 SA ELECTIONS = 12.91%
MILWAUKEE, WI: On Monday, the University of WisconsinMilwaukee Board of Trustees (BoT) d/b/a UWM Student Association (SA) released a summary of the results of their extralegal Student Association Constitutional Referendum that they put to students from January 22nd-26th, 2014. The referendum passed by an 80% margin. But after public records requesting the raw numbers from the University Student Court (USC), who is administering and overseeing the BoT, the picture becomes very differ- ent. NUMBERS: In the raw numbers provided by USC Chief Justice Justin Welch, attached hereto, we see that only 301 students out of the 24,298 students provided a ballot voted in the extralegal Stu- dent Association Constitutional Referendum, which equates to only 1.24% of students voting. Only 242 of those students voted yes on the referendum, meaning that approximately 0.9959667462% of the student population voted for the new Constitution. The Board of Trustees have stated that they in- deed intend to recognize this vote as valid and the ratification of the new constitution will take effect May 1, 2014. This recognized referendum vote pales in comparison to the 12.91% student voter turnout in the 2013-2014 Student Association Elections that were not-recognized by UWM Chancellor Michael Lov- ell; subsequently leading to the extralegal emergency order by the USC creating the hand-picked Board of Trustees to replace the legitimately elected representatives. It is interesting to note that if, presumably, all 34 members of the BoT/USC voted yes in favor of their own Constitution, that would account for a full 14.05% of the students that voted yes in the referendum. REFERENDUM ISSUES: The constitutional referendum was originally slated to be put to a vote of the students on January 21, 2014, but was postponed until January 22 due to unknown reasons. Neither the Board of Trustees, nor the University Student Court has the authority to put forth a Student Association Constitutional referendum, and doing so, in the manner they did is in-violation of the student-recognized current Student Association Constitution (which the USC purports to have sus- pended). But when a student asked the BoT Chairman how a student would propose his own Constitu- tion, the Chairman noted that the student would have to get a petition of 5% of the student popula- tion, a requirement that the BoT/USC themselves did not adhere to. 301 votes, which is the total number of students that participated in this referendum, is well less than the (approximately) 1,214 students it takes to engage 5% of the student body. Additionally, student enrollment regis- tration doesnt close until February 3, 2014; so admitted or intended students that will be regis- tering late are completely disenfranchised by the BoT/USC of their right to vote on a new Constitu- tion which purports to represent them. Can this referendum really be taken seriously and legitimately?
CONSTITUTION ISSUES: Students were first notified on January 13, 2014, by email, that a new Consti- tution had been written for them. This email expressed that the Board of Trustees had essentially completed a new and improved constitution, and they were seeking student input. On January 19, 2014, the Board of Trustees approved a final Constitution at a meeting. Before approving it, they made amendments to the constitution, some of which may be potentially substantial changes. They then used this new and changed constitution on the referendum that they administered. Additionally, there are many legal and otherwise compliance issues in the new Constitution on top of placing re- quirements on students running for office that would, arguably, create different discriminatory classes of students, among innumerable other issues, such as institutionalizing hand-picked inter- ests to advocate for and institutionalize the Administration-run illegally-funded Student Associa- tion Professional Staff Office (SAPS); which, for all intents and purposes, may very well have sig- nature authority and final say in the disposition of student segregated university fees (SUF). This is a right inherently vested to the students, as a body, of UWM. PAGE | 1 ACTION TO STOP REFERENDUM: Shared governance advocates Taylor Q. Scott and M. Samir Siddique filed a joint motion for an ex parte restraining order against the UWM Administration/BoT/USC in case Siddique, Scott v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, et al. 14CV000386 in Milwaukee County Circuit Court, 32nd Branch. The motion was to enjoin the UWM Board of Trustees d/b/a UWM Student Association from conducting the extralegal referendum on the ratification of a new Student Association Constitution. Hon. Judge Michael Goulee decided against granting the re- straining order and ultimately dismissed the case. The Plaintiffs in the case released the following statement: We apologize, but due to the fact that this issue is still ongoing, we can only give you facts about what transpired in court. We arrived in court for a hearing that was set, by the court, to consider a temporary restraining order (TRO). This hearing was initiated on 1/21/14 and contin- ued to 1/23/14. The TRO hearing originated from our motion for an ex parte TRO, regarding a con- stitutional referendum. The judge determined that we were unable to prove the elements of grant- ing a TRO, including, but not limited to substantial irreparable harm and likelihood of the case succeeding; both are among the criteria necessary to prove a TRO. We strongly believe that the TRO should have been granted, considering the facts. The judge followed this adjudication with a subsequent one, wherein he dismissed the case in its entirety. We disagree with this deci- sion. The Board of Trustees, who purport to assume the responsibilities and authorities of the Student Association (SA), under Wis. Stats. 36.09(5), have put forth a constitutional referendum that will take affect in May, 2014. The current SA Constitution explicitly states that "[a] mendments to this Constitution shall be adopted by a majority vote of SA members (UWM Students) during Student Association Elections." Student Association elections are to take place, accord- ing to the current constitution, "in April." The current referendum is not in compliance with the current constitution, and we feel that moving the current constitutional referendum would have no substantial effect on the Board of Trustees, and will give the students more time to par- ticipate in the formulation of the Constitution. How we got here: The Board of Trustees and University Student Court promised to hold reelec- tions in October. Around October, the Board of Trustees and University Student Court changed the election date to December. Thereafter, they again changed the election date from December to April. I, Plaintiff Siddique first heard about a new proposal to the SA Constitution, via email, on Jan- uary 13, 2014. This email expressed that the Board of Trustees had essentially completed a new and improved constitution, and they were seeking student input. On January 19, 2014, the Board of Trustees approved a final Constitution. Before approving it, they made changes to the constitution that they presented on January 13, 2014, to all students. They then used this new constitution on the referendum that they administered. Mind you, this referendum began on January 22, 2014 (even though it was originally scheduled for January 21, 2014), which is one day after classes began. Also note that the Board of Trustees released the Constitution during win- ter break and asked students for their input during this break period; that a fraction of stu- dents attend or are involved in collegiate activities during winter break; that the Board of Trustees continues to ask students to make an uninformed decision by soliciting student votes in the electronically administered referendum, for which the subject thereof reads: "Vote Yes, UWM. We are on our way Onwards and Upwards". The inaccessibility of this constitutional referendum is clear, when observing the, what we believe to be, embarrassing outcome of the number of partici- pants in the adoption of this constitution. The Board of Trustees and University Student Court also failed to recognize, among many things, that the final date of enrollment and registration, into this semester, is February 3, 2014. Among the many issues, this is what we see as the most obvious, with respect to the administration and proposal of this constitutional referendum. We cannot comment on why Hon. Guolee, M. dismissed the full case. We respect his right as a judge and trier of fact. Yet, we feel strongly that this complaint has merit. How we handle this issue from hereonforth is yet to be determined. We hope that the public understands that we sincerely believe that the rights, voice, and representation of students is being ceded and abol- ished; we and other advocates of shared governance will do our best to reestablish a truly stu- dent-driven shared governance organization at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. -Taylor Q. Scott & M. Samir Siddique
PAGE | 2 For Immediate Release: January 30, 2014 ONLY 1.24% OF UW-MILWAUKEE STUDENTS VOTED IN EXTRALEGAL STUDENT ASSOCIATION CONSTITUIONAL REFERENDUM; ONLY 0.9959667462% OF STUDENTS VOTED YES
EXPECTATIONS: Again, in light of the numerous issues with the timing of the referendum and blatant discrimina- tion and disenfranchisement of late registering students in the referendum, the compliance issues in the refer- endum, the delay of the referendum, the low turnout in the referendum, etc., ASAP would like to reiterate its expectations of UWM Administrations actions regarding the referendum. In keeping with consistency, we expect that UWM Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Michael Laliberte, being the extremely principled person he is, will send a letter to the Chancellor iterating how unfair, un-open, and partial the referendum process was. We expect him to follow that up with a statement recommending the Chancel- lor to not recognize the results of the referendum. Subsequently, we hope and expect that the Chancellor will then send a letter to the Board of Trustees informing them of his decision to not recognize their referendum.
--
Previous press releases regarding the case and the ongoing issues at UWM can be found at: http://asap-4-uwm.tumblr.com/pressreleases
A summary of the concept of shared governance can be found at: http://asap-4-uwm.tumblr.com/sharedgovernance
An explanation of recent concerning events regarding shared governance at UWM can be found at: http://asap-4-uwm.tumblr.com/yourvoice
For any further information or inquiries please contact ASAP at asap4uwm@gmail.com or visit: http://asap-4-uwm.tumblr.com/contactus
Disclaimer: ASAP is not a party to any case mentioned herein and its statements have not previously, and do not currently, nec- essarily reflect the opinions or statements of parties to any case mentioned herein or otherwise.
# # #
The ALLIANCE OF STUDENTS ACHIEVING PROGRESS (ASAP) is a movement, currently active in the UW-Milwaukee campus community. ASAP has had a long history as a party in UW-Milwaukee Student Association Elections and in student advocacy for 20+ years. Previously known as Achieving Student Action through Progress, the name may change but our progressive values and integrity in student and shared governance advocacy will not. We remain a unit- ed movement of like-minded individuals standing up to ensure everyone has a voice. We believe in a truly shared system where all governance groups under WI Stat. 36.09 work together to advance the goals of their respective Institution, the UW-System, higher education, and the Wisconsin Idea. PAGE | 3 For Immediate Release: January 30, 2014 ONLY 1.24% OF UW-MILWAUKEE STUDENTS VOTED IN EXTRALEGAL STUDENT ASSOCIATION CONSTITUIONAL REFERENDUM; ONLY 0.9959667462% OF STUDENTS VOTED YES 1/29/2014 pantherLINK https://pantherlink.uwm.edu/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=518409 1/4 From : Justin Kane Welch <jkwelch@uwm.edu> Subject : Re: Public Record Request - 1/28/2014 To : Taylor Q. Scott <tqscott@uwm.edu> pantherLINK tqscott@uwm.edu Re: Public Record Request - 1/28/2014 Tue, Jan 28, 2014 02:56 PM 2 attachments This email will serve as a receipt of and response to public records request dated 01/28/14, requesting the following: 1.) "The complete 'raw' results and voting totals and numbers and any and all other documents or the like regarding the Student Association Constitutional Referendum, including, but not limited to, Qualtrics data and reports." I have attached official referendum report, as well as the raw data from the Qualtrics database concerning the recent Student Association Constitutional Referendum as requested. There are several notes for your reference: - The column heads V1, V2, V8, V9, V10, and Q1, are internal Qualtrics tracking values, unrelated to the referendum - Column heads V3-V7 have been redacted as personally identifying information (First Name, Last Name, UWM Student ID #, UWM PantherID, and IP Address of computer voting from) - Column heads remaining are: V1 = ResponseID (internal Qualtrics event tracking number), V2 = ResponseSet (is a search value - the Default Response Set is all votes cast, versus a response set where only certain votes are searched for), V8 = Start Date (the date and time the student entered the system to vote), V9 = End Date (the date and time the student exited the system from voting), V10 = Finished (the survey was completed, i.e., the vote was cast), Q1 = Survey/referendum question - Yes in the Q1 column means they voted for the referendum, No in the Q1 column means they voted against the referendum - Final totals for yeses and nos are at the end of the spreadsheet I have denied your request for "any and all other documents or the like regarding the Student Association Constitutional Referendum," as being not reasonably specific enough for a response. To go through every record of the Student Association, 1/29/2014 pantherLINK https://pantherlink.uwm.edu/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=518409 2/4 and attempt to collect all documents or the like referencing the topic requested would place an undue burden on the Public Records Custodian, and to perform such a search would place such an undue burden, as to severely impair the normal functioning of the office in which I serve. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me, or come in during my office hours listed below. Justin Kane Welch Chief Justice UWM University Student Court jkwelch@uwm.edu UWM Union Room 373 414-229-5295 Office Hours: Mondays 12:00pm-1:45pm Wednesdays 9:00am-10:45am, 12:00pm-1:45pm Fridays 1:00pm-4:00pm And by appointment ----- Original Message ----- From: "Taylor Q. Scott" <tqscott@uwm.edu> To: "Justin Kane Welch" <jkwelch@uwm.edu> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 2:17:02 AM Subject: Re: Public Record Request - 1/28/2014 UWM University Student Court Justice Justin Welch, This is to request, under the State of Wisconsins Public Records Law, Wis. Stat. 19.31-19.39 inspection of: 1. The complete "raw" results and voting totals and numbers and any and all other documents or the like regarding the Student Association Constitutional Referendum, including, but not limited to, Qualtrics data and reports. Wisconsin's Public Records Law states, in relevant part "In recognition of the fact that a representative government is dependent upon an informed electorate, it is declared to be the public policy of this state that all persons are entitled to the 1/29/2014 pantherLINK https://pantherlink.uwm.edu/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=518409 3/4 greatest possible information regarding the affairs of the government and the official acts of those officers and employees who represent them. Further, providing persons with such information is declared to be an essential function of a representative government and an integral part of the routine duties of officers and employees whose responsibility and duty is to provide such information." The law continues "To that end [the Public Records Law] shall be construed in every instance with the presumption of complete public access consistent with the conduct of governmental business. The denial of access generally is contrary to the public interest and only in exceptional cases can access be denied." Wis. Stat. 19.35(4)(a) states, "Each authority, upon request for any record, shall, as soon as practicable and without delay, either fill the request or notify the requester of the authority's determination to deny the request in whole or in part and the reasons therefore." If my request is denied, please do so in writing and state what part of the law you believe entitles you to do so, and advise me of the process through which I may appeal. Additionally the WI State Department of Justice has further defined " as soon as practicable and without delay" as meaning no longer than 10 working days. There should be little time and no cost taken to obtain these records and ensure their integrity as this is a "simple, straightforward" request, (Per Wis. Stat. 19.35 [4]). I would like to reaffirm that correspondence while in your capacity as an official of the UWM Student Association University Student Court (USC) is public record and subject to public record request per Wis. Stat. 19.31-19.39 , 36.09(5) , 20.001(1) , and judicial decision. University of Wisconsin System Board of Regents is a body politic and state agency, statutorily charged under Wis. Stats. 36, that operates the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee (UWM). UWM is defined as an "Institution" as that term is defined in Wis. Stats. 36.05(9). The University Student Court (USC) is the judicial branch of the Student Association at UWM, which is a body politic organized under Wis. Stats. 36.09(5). U pon information and belief, the Student Association at UWM is an "active participant[ ] in the immediate governance of and policy development" of the University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee. Sec. 36.09(5), Stats. , and , upon information and belief, the Student Association at UWM is an integral part of 1/29/2014 pantherLINK https://pantherlink.uwm.edu/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=518409 4/4 the principal administrative unitthe University of Wisconsin Systemunder the authority of the Board of Regents which assist[s] the principal administrative unit [UW-System Board of Regents] in the administration and governance of the unit. KAYE v. BOARD OF REGENTS, 158 Wis.2d 664 (1990) This judicial decision classified student governments as official administrative bodies of a Wisconsin state agency and requires that they adhere to all regulations and laws that state agencies follow. These regulations and laws include Open Meetings Law, Public Records Law and the prohibition of obtaining a lawyer without approval from the governor. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this request. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Best, Taylor Q. Scott ~ What Matters Most is How Well You Walk Through the Fire.~ - Charles Bukowski SA Constitutional Referendum Official Report 01-27-14.pdf 72 KB SA Constitutional Referendum Raw Data (redacted) 01-28-14.pdf 74 KB
The Inuepenuent Election Commission of the Stuuent Association at the 0niveisity of Wisconsin-Nilwaukee (SA) officially openeu a iefeienuum to vote on the new constitution foi the SA at miunight on Weunesuay, }anuaiy 22, 2u14.
In total, 24,298 ballots weie sent to stuuents at 0WN to invite them to cast theii vote. The question poseu was "I, as an eniolleu stuuent at the 0niveisity of Wisconsin- Nilwaukee, heieby vote foi the Stuuent Association at 0WN to auopt the new constitution, as piesenteu heie", with the potential iesponses of "Yes" anu "No". The iefeienuum was open until 8pm on Sunuay, }anuaiy 26, 2u14.
0pon closing, we can confiim that the final iesult was as follows:
F%) G HBI J* G ABI
We can heieby ueclaie that the above iesults aie official anu accuiate. As a iesult of this iefeienuum, the new constitution has passeu anu will be enacteu as the SA's official, piimaiy goveining uocument on Nay 1, 2u14.
Joey v. Gutierrez, Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee/cross-Appellant, 953 F.2d 579, 10th Cir. (1992)