Bull SH*T on May 05, 2008 at 09:12 AM:

United Council is even more corrupt than the UWM Student Government. They are trying to find every way around robbing students of more money next year. This is a SHAM. Stop UC--why are they so scared to put the vote to the students?!? Even if they did not receive the first email, they were notified 13 days before this election--1 day should not compromise democracy. If they are truly a "DEMOCRATic organization" then they will put the vote to the student body.

Resident Punster on May 05, 2008 at 09:20 AM:

UC = Uncouth Connivers

A Crow Left Of The Murder on May 05, 2008 at 12:23 PM:

Agreed. UWM would be better off without both UC and SUFC

Ben Manski on May 06, 2008 at 03:52 PM:

Democracy? Democracy requires that there be a debate and that the voting public be noticed. That's why it's a matter of law that the United Council be given sufficient, two week notice of a referendum. The notice requirement insures that the voting public -- the members of the UWM student body --- be given the opportunity to engage in debate over affiliation referenda. An attempt to schedule a referendum without sufficient notice violates not only the writ law, therefore, but also the spirit of the law. In others words, what's the UWM SGA trying to pull here? Follow the law, let the people debate, and all will be well. There was a legal vote last year; there will be another next year.

• Ben Manski, Attorney at Law, UW-Madison alum

Kyle Duerstein on May 06, 2008 at 04:28 PM:

Ben-

Good of UC's lawyer to show up. Here are the facts:

UWM did notify UC on time. How convenient that the only way our election commissioner found to contact was UC was the web form on their website. Not via an email address where an original sent mail would be saved, but a web form on UC's server, controlled by UC. Funny how they didn't manage to get the first notification which would cause them to get off their asses and actually do some work...only to save their own jobs and the future of the organization, and not actually to do anthing substantive for the students they're supposed to represent.

The UWM public was given notice on when the elections will be held. Everyone knew the election date for this referendum as May 8. No secret about it. It's foolish to advertise too soon, as people would forget...that's just how the collective public is. The commissioner set a date for this election before our SA elections were held, and told anyone who cared to know. Just because UC purposely deleted the official notification sent to them doesn't mean that we were trying to pull some scam here.

There was a legal vote last year, there will be a legal vote this Thursday, and hopefully, come July 1, UWM will legally no longer be apart of this shithole organization. And you won't find the hard truth like that in any of your law books...or don't you read law books? Maybe, if UC is paying you, you just sit on your dead ass like all the UC directors seem to do, and just collect the paycheck.

Ben Manski on May 06, 2008 at 07:27 PM:

Greetings Kyle,

If I were representing UC at this point, you would have heard from me via postal mail, which is the form that you should have used (certified mail) had you wished to establish that you provided the required timely notice. The notice requirements have been on the books since long before the advent of email; what do you think people did pre-1991?

That said, you might have been ok if you had sent an email on time and with the ability to verify. But it sounds like you did not do that, and the excuse that "the only way . . . was the web form on the website" doesn't cut it. I just did a google search of ""United Council of UW students" email" and found a bunch of emails. Easy.

You could also have called their office and asked them what the proper email address was for notice purposes, and then asked them to confirm reception after you'd sent the message. All of that would have established that you did provide notice; the burden is on you to establish that.

I will add that the burden to establish that your provided notice rests especially heavy on you considering your clear and demonstrable prejudice against UC.

Kyle Duerstein on May 06, 2008 at 11:43 PM:

Except I'm not the election commissioner. I'm just a student that's sick of this black hole money sucking organization that only gets things accomplished when it comes to some liberal Multicultural or LGBT or Women's issue, and is completely and udderly 100% ineffective on the single most important issue it should be concerned with: TUITION. Vote no on UC, and keep voting no until they actually start doing something that benefits ALL OF US!!!

Dan Bahr is lying! on May 07, 2008 at 12:10 AM:

Contact

Our offices are located at 14 W. Mifflin St. Suite 212, Madison, Wisconsin 53703. Our office is open Monday through Friday from 10am-6pm. You can reach us by phone at (608) 263-3422, or by fax at (608) 265-4070.

For general inquiries, please contact Executive Director Nicole Juan at (608) 263-3422 Ext. 11, or email her using the form below. For media inquiries, please contact Patrick O'Connell, Organizing and Communications Director, at (608) 263-3422 Ext. 13, or email him using the form below.

What was so difficult about a phone call?

UC's Opinion Not Relevant on May 07, 2008 at 01:05 AM:

This is a matter for the board of Regents to decide. Not UC!!

a phone call? on May 07, 2008 at 10:47 AM:

You guys couldn't even handle not lying about an email, imagine if he would've called. "Um....of course we never got that call...oh and look....there's no record of it." Go fly a kite.

Gabe Bohn on May 07, 2008 at 01:54 PM:

To clear a few things. Fact as define: "a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened." This is certainly not verified info..As far as I know, the UC server is not controlled by UC, it's not sitting in Nicole's office for her to delete things at her wish. Even if it was, I don't think she would know where or how to delete everything. And if notice WAS sent by an email, why isn't there a email in your sent/outbox? ALSO, the UC Board of Directors does NOT get paid to "sit on our dead ass" as you put it. We do quite a bit more work than sitting on our "dead ass." Especially compared to the whining you do (kyle)on a no name blog... ALSO, there are such a thing as phone records.

ConsolerOfTheLonely on May 07, 2008 at 02:09 PM:

Hey, Duerstein, Bahr, and Co. -

(1) UWM students don't care about SA because they've never had a legitimate student government that isn't the LAUGHINGSTOCK OF THE UW SYSTEM.

(2) If they did care, and if you and your cronies hadn't forced the opposition off of the ballot, we wouldn't have to deal with waste-of-time, non-legally binding referendums because you pr*cks wouldn't be there to act irresponsibly in the first place.

Students want representatives of the students; Not people like Dan Bahr, who tries forcing student media out of PUBLIC meetings, or a party that will use any technically to avoid a ballot featuring two choices

Question for Dan Bahr on May 07, 2008 at 08:18 PM:

On what planet is filling out a web form considered legal notice?

There's a reason UWM's SA is a statewide joke: When you're not embezzling thousands of dollars or fixing elections, you can't even master the post office.

Kevin Straight on May 07, 2008 at 10:31 PM:

If you really wanted to make sure you had done this right and honestly wanted a legal vote, you would done as said earlier and sent a notice via certified mail. There's a reason that nowhere in this country is a web form considered legally binding. Do you honestly think filling out a little box on a web page is legal notice? Does the US Government send you urgent notices from a blog? Hell no. Computers malfunction, networks are insecure, and servers lose data. If you had half a brain or an IQ above 12 you might have thought to look. It sounds to me that you're wanting to screw up and point fingers at UC so that you can prove a point. The reality is, the point you have proven is that you are incompetent, sir. I have worked closely with many of the UC directors and representatives and found them all to be extremely intelligent activists who do more in a day for students than you probably have in a year.

Kevin Straight, 2007 National Queer Student Coalition Vice-Chair, Board of Directors, United States Student Association

To: Kevin Straight on May 07, 2008 at 10:49 PM:

I think you have shown a critical bias. Yeah, sure it's great that they work on so many illustrious, and wonderful LGBT issues in UC, but the fact of the matter is that they were created for other purposes. Switching out the shared governance (main activity of student government in WI) director for an lgbt director is hardly representing the majority of Wisconsin's students. Also using our tuition dollars to pay directors, who never went to a UW school upwards of $40,000 (not to mention their out of state student loans) is nuts! One must only look up how many schools (and big schools) have withdrawn from UC in the last two years to recognize that the "grassroots" (useless) direction the organization has taken is certainly not working. LGBT conference = kind of neat. Maybe we should have a UC for that, Wisconsin students have already shown that this is not what they want from the organization they formed nearly fifty years ago to fight for their rights, and their pocket books.

To: ? on May 07, 2008 at 11:22 PM:

I wasn't even referring to UC's work on LGBT activism. I only included that to show that my previous ties to USSA had tied me to UC because I had worked with many of their directors and students and wasn't a random internet blogger diving in to stir the pot.

However, since you brought it up, I won't dispute that many students may or may not want to see UC fighting for certain groups at times. I completely understand that. However, my comments were pointed more at the fact that legally UC is in the clear and that UWM isn't.

Every SSA has it's issues, and should be handled internally. Backdooring your way out isn't one of them. If that many students have an issue with how UC is operating, they need to be the ones to blow the whistle and fight it. Isn't that why SSAs formed, anyway? I still support UC, but I also support democracy. Posting on this site isn't bringing about a whole lot of change. I'm just as guilty of it as you are - the difference is I'm not the one who wants to see things happened differently. I'm all about student activism and empowerment.

Gabe Bohn on May 07, 2008 at 11:33 PM:

Just like in other convos on this subject. You need to be sure of what you're talking about before giving misleading information.

The Shared Governance Director was not switched for the LGBTQ Director. It was incorporated into a different position. $40k a year is not a lot of money. And I wouldn't be talking much with the way UWMSA spends money.

Point of Information on May 08, 2008 at 12:05 AM:

UWM SA cut its own budget in half only two years ago, and has a reletively small operating budget compared to SGAs of similar size. If you are referring to the trip to New York, that got so much attention from the unbiased UWM Post, keep in mind that it was a conference attended by several schools from all around the country with smaller budgets than UWM. The travel budget was approved by the Senate at the beginning of the year, if the amount was such a vital issue before the week of elections it probably would have been brought up.

Re: Point of Information on May 08, 2008 at 01:21 AM:

You mean the conference set up by "student government consultant" Butch Oxendine, designed to sell magazine subscriptions and business books? The one where SA decided to be secretive about who was going, as if the state open records law doesn't apply to it?

Yeah, they probably will take over the world soon on May 08, 2008 at 01:37 AM:

SA was strongly advised by the student activities office not to release the names. I know what comes next... Nikki Pfeifer. Let's also keep in mind she has been active in the SA longer than almost anybody, and was considered strongly for a cabinet position. Her service to the students has been imeasurable. And let's not forget SA is not an organization of the state, it is an association made up of students to advocate their rights. Applying state sanctioned freedoms, and open meeting records requirements to SA is like applying them to a labor union.

uc on May 08, 2008 at 02:47 AM:

UC is a terrible waste of students money. Their performance is garbage. Withdraw from UC NOW!!!

rumor has it on May 08, 2008 at 02:49 AM:

that UC is done with for good if uwm pulls out. i wonder if that is a reason that the UC referendum is being deemed by some as not "legally binding."

Notice? on May 08, 2008 at 07:09 AM:

Who says in what way Commissioner Bahr had to notify UC? It was public knowledge that the election was going to occur on that date...there was even debate over it on this forum! We should not have to stamp it on their foreheads to make them aware of it...

Second, UC knew that UWM had to have a vote this year. Why did they not contact the UWM Student Government? If they are such a "legitimate" organization that "helps" students, then wouldn't they want a vote of confidence from the UWM Student Body.

UC--if you are so "DEMOCRATic" then put the vote to the students and let them decide....WHAT ARE YOU SO AFRAID OF?!

Not for students on May 08, 2008 at 09:14 AM:

just looking at what the UC commentators have had to say on here about our SA... they clearly don't know anything about what's going on here at our school.

Amazing how the only time they've shown up all year at our campus is right now... begging for money and badgering students.

Re: UWM not understanding basic laws on May 08, 2008 at 10:35 AM:

"And let's not forget SA is not an organization of the state, it is an association made up of students to advocate their rights. Applying state sanctioned freedoms, and open meeting records requirements to SA is like applying them to a labor union."

SA is created under the authority of 36.09(5). A "governmental body" under the open records and meetings laws is defined as having been "created by constitution, statute, ordinance, rule, or order" (19.82(1), Stats.). Therefore the law applies.

"Who says in what way Commissioner Bahr had to notify UC?"

Regent Policy 30-4: "Written notification must be received by all organizations funded by the MRF two weeks in advance of an upcoming referendum at any member or non-member institution."

A Note from the UWM Student Association on May 08, 2008 at 11:57 AM:

Today, we have the important opportunity to vote on whether or not we should be part of a state-wide student organization called United Council. SA writes to you to express my concerns with this organization, and encourage you to vote NO on tomorrow's referendum question regarding United Council.

The most important issue a statewide organization of UW students can fight for is tuition. For those of you about to graduate, you've seen tuition nearly double in the past 4-5 years. Despite the United Council's half-hearted attempts at influencing the Wisconsin Board of Regents, the goals that we would like to see out of this organization have gone unrealized. Instead, United Council has a bloated staff of directors, making $28,000 per year or more and not accomplishing the single most important goal that a statewide student organization should attempt to accomplish.

United Council's idea of lobbying the Board of Regents for lower tuition includes marching up the stairwell inside a building leading chants with a bullhorn, causing everyone involved to almost be arrested. At UWM, it is my belief that we don't support making a scene. UWM students have shown repeatedly their propensity to be reasonable, and their desire to employ effective, reasonable, and appropriate solutions to the challenges we face. Those solutions often times don't involve making ourselves look like fools by using bullhorns inside buildings.

Additionally, one would expect that an organization that each of us pays membership dues to would spend more time on our campus, or more time advocating for things important to us. United Council has done an absolutely deplorable job of advocating against widespread changes to Chapter 17, which as you know would allow the University to sanction students for conduct off campus, including minor offenses such as municipal violations. This issue is another example of a state-wide issue that this organization should be working on tirelessly on our behalf. As with ineffective efforts in the area of tuition, United Council fails to see the importance of fighting for Chapter 17. They consider this state-wide rule change to be "a Milwaukee issue" and are only half-heartedly addressing it.

Vote NO on United Council. Say NO to:

• High salaries
• ineffective, foolish lobbying efforts
• using YOUR tuition money to pay off the student loans of their employees
• Twice as many staff members as they should have ($100,000 waste)

We've been expressing these concerns to United Council for the past two years. Nothing has changed. It's time to leave United Council. No more chances for this broken organization. VOTE NO FOR UNITED COUNCIL today in the Union, EMS, Sandburg, or Riverview.

Sincerely,

The UWM Student Association

Rob Grover SA President

Kyle Duerstein on May 08, 2008 at 01:39 PM:

ConsoleroftheLonely:

Way to put your real name on something you coward. And FYI, my blog has statewide and national recognition, with more articles written about it in conventional media than I've seen in 6 years about UC. no-name blog, I think not. No-name UC, well, most definitely that is more believable.

hey gabe on May 08, 2008 at 01:41 PM:

Why don't you stand up for a real cause that can actually accomplish something, instead of wasting your breath advocating for UC?

SA money on May 08, 2008 at 06:00 PM:

i didn't know anything about SA until these elections and I'm not sure where I sit on the issues as of right now. All i have to say is DROP THE FUCKING NEW YORK TRIP. who gives a shit? it's over. it's done. AND IT WASN'T EVEN ILLEGAL. I don't know. If that's all you people have to bitch about, SA probably isn't that bad.

Bye Bye UC!! on May 08, 2008 at 07:38 PM:

202-No 164-Yes

Non Binding on May 08, 2008 at 07:41 PM:

the vote is absolutely non binding

Students Spoken on May 08, 2008 at 07:51 PM:

Hard for the regents to disagree... I think the students of the whole system have spoken. UC is done. Triumph for UWM!

AJ Piwarun on May 08, 2008 at 08:48 PM:

Congrats UWM!

Congratulations on May 08, 2008 at 09:27 PM:

1.3% of students voted right before finals in a Zimbabwesque referendum that won't even count because your elections commissioner is too lazy to buy a stamp. Viva la Revolucion, indeed!

The students have spoken? on May 08, 2008 at 09:52 PM:

Seriously, the students have spoken? With 364 votes? I'm no UC fan, but you have to realize how ridiculous that sounds. And I suppose an election with 1,187 votes where SUFC wins by 115 votes against an opponent not even listed on the ballot gives SUFC some sort of "mandate" from the students too.

Wake up guys. Those votes don't represent the student voice, they represent the friends you could get to the polls. On both sides, ASAP included. The only thing students have clearly said, through their lack of voting, is that they're sick of the broken system and, sadly, they don't care. And until more of them start caring it doesn't matter who wins the election, because the administration, the faculty, the board of regents, the legislators, etc. will never take you seriously. You want to actually do something meaningful? Quit playing politics and start taking meaningful steps to work TOGETHER and fix SA.

How is? on May 08, 2008 at 09:55 PM:

How have the studedents spoken when you violated state law in not giving UC proper notification?

Stupid SA on May 08, 2008 at 11:10 PM:

Its funny how you think that UWM has pulled out of United Council. Go ahead enjoy your moment of triumph. It doesn't matter because your vote was invalid. You didn't send proper notice of the refferendum, you sent an e-mail not written notice like the regent policy states. Regent Thomas has already stated that she is behind UC on this and how the regents will not allow this one day too late notice to validate the vote. So go ahead enjoy it while it lasts because you will still be members of UC and I highly encourage you to take advantage of what UC has to offer. If you don't like what we have to offer or what we do then be apart of the change that is taking place in UC. How do you expect an organization to change if you don't put any effort into making change?

Regents on May 08, 2008 at 11:35 PM:

Keep in mind that the UWM SA has close contacts with many of the Milwaukee regents both publicly and privately. UC can act like they run the show, but most of the regents privately could care less about the organization.

I have no doubt that this election will be upheld and hopefully many of the students who waste their time trying to pad their resume by running for UC positions will go back to their campuses and try to make REAL progress for their fellow students.

oh boy on May 09, 2008 at 07:29 AM:

"Regent Thomas has already stated that she is behind UC on this and how the regents will not allow this one day too late notice to validate the vote."

she probably didn't want to hurt your big hippie feelings.

Perhaps, if the UC was doing a better job of responding to the e-mails that they recieve through their website, this wouldn't be an issue.

I wonder how many other students' concerns have just conveniently slipped through the cracks?

Factoid on May 09, 2008 at 08:13 AM:

SA isn't the first student government to try and pull out of UC with a finals week referendum. People have been doing that for years.

They are, however, the first bunch of clowns whose incompetence will ruin an otherwise successful plan. Good work!

Love, UWGB

Stupid SA on May 09, 2008 at 10:15 AM:

It doesn't matter whether or not you have talked to regents and they support you. It is a regent policy that is set in place. Just because there are some regents that may not agree with the policy doesn't mean that they can go against it. Also to remind you of why its invalid, is because they UWM SA failed to send WRITTEN notice of their refferendum. They sent an e-mail, which doesn't count at all. And even if it did count it was still a day late. This is all in Regent Policy 30-4, so go ahead and think that they will uphold the election because it will be overturned in UC's favor.

Regents on May 09, 2008 at 10:25 AM:

UC,RIP.

Stupid SA on May 09, 2008 at 10:55 AM:

Also by the way who exacty are these regents? You keep saying that we have the support of regents in upholding the vote, which regents are those? You have yet to say which ones and I was curious to know who supports you?

How? on May 09, 2008 at 01:32 PM:

How does the current SA and Dan Bahr sleep at night? Lies.

UWM Alum on May 09, 2008 at 02:09 PM:

A stupid SA would be one that replies and tells you which regents are on their side ;)

Stupid SA on May 10, 2008 at 10:40 AM:

Trying to act like you have talked to people and gotten their support really won't hold up when I have talked to Regent Thomas and gotten her full support in backing up this regent position.

re: stupid SA on May 10, 2008 at 07:27 PM:

I love how you think you know everything. We have spoken with other regents, more than one, and gotten their full support. newsflash, the regents dont like UC! duh

OMG on May 10, 2008 at 11:49 PM:

This story has about as much truth to it as the SRG saga! ahhhahhha!

Wow on May 11, 2008 at 11:45 AM:

This is like watching two children fight on a playground. Who cares what regents said what to whom? News flash: when push comes to shove, none of them will go to bat for either of you, because you're both insignificant to them.