**(UPDATED)** New student government party splitting off of SUFC
Students’ segregated fees may have been used for upcoming political campaign
By Amanda Throm and Isral DeBruin
E-mail
Print- Share on Facebook
-
Seed Newsvine
- Text size:
UPDATE (1/30/08) - A.J. Piwarun and Tyler Draheim met with the Post to discuss Students for Responsible Government, a new student organization they plan to create. While the original document published with the story did include some correct names and information about the SRG platform, Piwarun and Draheim denied creating or printing the document. They each provided the Post with written responses to the document, published at right.
Please look for expanded coverage in a full follow-up story to be published in the February 2 issue of the Post.
The letters can be viewed on this article page at the top-right corner in the images section. Simply click the ">" button.
Copies of a document found on a shared student organization printer may have been created in violation of certain bylaws. The document outlines the officers and platform of a yet-unannounced student political party and was likely printed with student segregated fees.
Three Students United for Change (SUFC) party members are listed as members of the new and unofficial Students for Responsible Government (SRG) party. A.J. Piwarun (SRG President), Tyler Draheim (SRG Vice President) and Alysson Wartick (SRG Chief of Staff) are current Student Association (SA) members and presently belong to SUFC. In addition to naming the officers of SRG, the document also goes on to outline the basic platform of the party. Plans apparently include repealing cuts to the Women’s Resource Center and the LGBT Resource Center – listed as the party’s top priority, limiting government positions and repairing the image of both the SA and the conservative movement.
The document, which was brought to the Post by three anonymous SA members who discovered it, also lists several names in parentheses next to various SRG party positions. These appear to be people SRG plans to recruit to fill these vacant positions. The sources said they are concerned because these parenthetical names belong to several members of the SA who have no knowledge of the new party or any intention to participate in it (these names have been redacted from the document as printed here to protect those named).
Furthermore, the sources said they were worried about the potential damage the political scheme could cause to SA and its reputation. “We’re students concerned about students,” said one of three sources.
One of the sources went on to point out an apparent contradiction in policy presented by the document, saying that the three SRG officers listed on the document were those originally “leading the charge” to cut funding to the WRC and LGBT Resource Center. The three sources said they discovered two hard copies of the SRG document on a shared student organization printer on the third floor of the Union. The copies appeared to have been recently printed, probably from either the office of a student organization or the SA. This printer, another source said, was purchased by the Senate Appropriations Committee (SAC) and is funded by student segregated fees paid by student tuition dollars. This type of use may be a violation of SA Independent Election Commission Bylaws.
Since an Independent Election Commissioner (IEC) hasn’t been appointed yet for the upcoming spring election, the legality of the document’s printing cannot be determined at this time. However, one of the anonymous sources said an IEC will most definitely assess point deduction penalties for this issue when the time comes.
Part “f” of section one of article nine of the SA IEC bylaws states that “up to 100 points for using resources of any UWM governing body defined as governmental by the SAO” can be assessed. Since two copies were printed, it’s possible that an IEC could assess 200 points for the incident. According to SA IEC Bylaws, any party to receive a sum of 500 points will be disqualified.
The use of this printer also seems to violate parts of the Segregated Fees Policy and Procedures Manual, a set of rules that all organizations receiving student segregated fees must follow. On page four of the manual, it reads that “activities which are politically partisan or religious in nature” are “ineligible expenditures” for segregated fees. Later, on page ten of the manual, it reads that equipment “may not be used for personal, political or other purposes.” The use of the printer may or may not have been a political activity in and of itself.
It was not clear from the document whether or not SRG plans to attempt an immediate recall election of the current SA administration or if they plan to run in the coming spring elections.
According to the document, SRG will release its official platform on Tuesday. A.J. Piwarun, apparent SRG president, was not available for comment at press time.
Jonathan Anderson and Ryan Cardarella contributed to this report.
> Comments
Alum on Jan 28, 2008 at 07:34 AM:
My guess is this is someone just trying to sabotage the reputations of A.J. and Tyler. Anyone could have printed off that sheet of paper. That opinion sure is not reflected in this article, but that does not surprise me. The Post has been trying to make their own stories for years. It wouldn't surprise me if the Post created the document and printed it out themselves.
Linus on Jan 28, 2008 at 09:21 AM:
her name is spelled really wrong.
IEC on Jan 28, 2008 at 11:08 PM:
The people who run this newspaper are idiots. I CAN'T believe they printed this trash. A sheet of paper found in a student organization printer?? Is this newsworthy??? How about the standard for redacted names???? If A.J. and Tyler are being sabotaged, the Post has still failed to protect those "unassociated with the party in question." Good luck getting the next IEC to assess points for this. Trust me, you will need it.....
Grow a brain morons!
re:IEC on Jan 29, 2008 at 12:21 AM:
No Points assessed for this. Take it to the bank......
Women Count on Jan 29, 2008 at 08:00 AM:
So I can't understand why there are only three names that are printed in The Post. This has got to be some of the worst journalism I've ever seen. There was no effort made to talk to anyone except these "anonymous SA members" who clearly are out with an agenda to ruin someone's reputation. You have three names there to contact between Tyler, AJ, and the Chief of Staff candidate, whose name was spelled completely wrong. Why was there no attempt made to contact the others? Why were there no attempts made to contact the members of SUFC, much less the SA President, or perhaps the speaker of the senate, if there is such a mutiny going on here?
This is what you define as investigative journalism and PUBLISH to represent the student voices on the campus?
I'm disgusted. Who the hell is running the post over there? Anyone in charge? Are there any editors lying about anywhere who actually read what comes across their desk before putting it on the front page?
Alum on Jan 29, 2008 at 09:34 AM:
Bradley Wooten obviously is not at the Post anymore :) At least he investigated his articles.
The Clueless Post on Jan 29, 2008 at 11:45 AM:
Even w/out Bradley Wooten, it would be nice if some of the reporters had a bit of a clue!
The Clueless Post on Jan 29, 2008 at 11:45 AM:
Even w/out Bradley Wooten, it would be nice if some of the reporters had a bit of a clue!
The Clueless Post on Jan 29, 2008 at 11:46 AM:
Even w/out Bradley Wooten, it would be nice if some of the reporters had a bit of a clue!
Postie on Jan 30, 2008 at 08:01 AM:
Gasp! Corruption in student government! Say it isn't so. It's such a shame that the Post has to go and report about it because students certainly don't want to know where their money is being spent. I know I'd rather just give my money away blindly...
Money on Jan 30, 2008 at 10:19 AM:
Hey smart one this isn't even about money in government, it's about people who are being exploited by leftists on campus. Why not release all the names? Why just a few? Why is her name circled?
This doesn't have anything to do with money, it's all about malicious intent and trying to slander people.
Money on Jan 30, 2008 at 10:19 AM:
Hey smart one this isn't even about money in government, it's about people who are being exploited by leftists on campus. Why not release all the names? Why just a few? Why is her name circled?
This doesn't have anything to do with money, it's all about malicious intent and trying to slander people.
Money on Jan 30, 2008 at 10:19 AM:
Hey smart one this isn't even about money in government, it's about people who are being exploited by leftists on campus. Why not release all the names? Why just a few? Why is her name circled?
This doesn't have anything to do with money, it's all about malicious intent and trying to slander people.
Triple Poster on Jan 30, 2008 at 12:54 PM:
Every post three times. Three times. Three times.
Three-peat?
We're lookin' at a minimum 8peat.
Isral DeBruin on Jan 30, 2008 at 04:32 PM:
Please see the update at the top of this story, along with the posted responses from A.J. Piwarun and Tyler Draheim. They should appear around 6 p.m. on 1/30/08.
Also, look for our full follow-up story in Monday's issue.
Thanks for reading and for commenting.
3rd Party on Jan 31, 2008 at 11:18 AM:
Does it really take 4 people at the post to write such one article--Jonathan, Ryan, Isral, and Amanda?
haha on Jan 31, 2008 at 12:56 PM:
good point, this is one of the worst stories I've ever seen, and it's written by not just one moronically incorrect author, but 4...
poor students at UWM, I feel bad for them that they dont have a reliable news source on campus.
Except for the sports. sports are good.
Anonymous on Jan 31, 2008 at 01:49 PM:
Yeah the sports section is basically the only one worth reading. It's funny, it's accurate, and it gives the right info. Way to go sports!
this article is trash and reminds me continually why I just toss the other sections without a second glance.
Innocent until SUFC "prove" themselves innocent on Jan 31, 2008 at 08:28 PM:
It's clear SUFC and friends have come out in force to comment. It's interesting that Piwarun talks about a bloated government when he's been a part of it and held one of those assistant positions without doing much work.
Alum on Feb 01, 2008 at 08:11 AM:
People like you make my degree look less and less prestigious everyday...you moron, it is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY--where are you from, Cuba?
SUFC is Innocent!! on Feb 01, 2008 at 12:55 PM:
Did ya see that? SUFC has proved themselves innocent... I never knew they were trying to prove anything! The have already proved themselves. They have done everything that they ran on to do, and then some.
sounds like innocent til innocent is a bit pissed about a certain position being cut!
wtdfyjma on Feb 02, 2008 at 04:41 PM:
<a href="http://kqaopetk.com">yqrqvlii</a> kupwzjhg http://johnsiyu.com mxkjqkik rwrzacvs [URL=http://pbjdtdye.com]wperogew[/URL]