funding on May 05, 2008 at 08:10 AM:

since when was de-funding a newspaper a violation of free speech?

the post is a thriving newspaper, and completely independent of student funds.

SA is not saying they cannot be published, they are saying that the students will not continue to fund a publication that will not abide by its guidlines and stipulations that are placed on their funding.

Since when did this attitude of entitlement come up? that's what happens when you just start giving out money - people think they have an entitlement and right to it, regardless of the rules.

No. rules, especially when it comes to student money, and organizational funding must be followed.

Melissa Campbell on May 05, 2008 at 02:28 PM:

"funding:" Do you have any idea how much money it takes to make and publish a newspaper? The answer: A lot. The printing costs alone for each Leader are probably around $1000. Not the kind of chump change you just have lying around.

While the Post is independent, it has taken the us a very long time to become so. If we had never been funded by the school, we would not be where we are today. We also have the advantage of time on our side: we have been around since 1957; the Leader has only been around since 1992.

I agree that the Leader should be punished for not following the rules, though cutting their funding completely seems a little extreme. Maybe the SA could have put them on probation. Having only one large newspaper on campus hurts everyone. Competition among campus news sources is best for you the student and reader.

Common Sense on May 05, 2008 at 08:02 PM:

Rob Grover gave his defense of his veto and it was a very weak argument. He essentially punished the new leadership of the Leader for past mistakes of former officers. They made the comparison to the Wrestling Club scandal in which documents were forged. It was a poor comparison.

Then you have non-intellectual zealots like Wartick who just want conflict for the sake of. The bitch is crazy.

Rob Grover showed exactly why he is an unfit leader. He gave a status quo "rules are rules" defense. I think he seemed to forget that he represents all students, that even means showing leniency to students who have every desire to be in compliance but were placed in a bad situation from the get go.

Rob Grover is a coward and a bully. Maybe next year he will grow a set of testicles.

Carolyn on May 05, 2008 at 08:24 PM:

It was a recent article by Kevin Lessmiller who covered yesterday's meeting and it was probably the student association who told him this but in the article it claimed that we didn't get funding because we failed to make SAC large grant meetings.

Now as far as I am concerned that is incorrect. I was present for both SAC large grant meetings held on April 19th and 20th. I have friends to prove of my attendance.

Fall of 2007 we were not present for large grant meetings because a former member handed our forms in too late, five minutes past the deadline, and was unable to hand in our forms for review. In that case we were not even able to have our forms reviewed to be invited for a large grant meeting.

And as far as I am concerned many years prior we have attended all large grant meetings that we sent forms in for. The reason why they gave Kevin a different reason, which is untrue, is because they don't want the student body to know that the reason why they are punishing us is a direct attack and an error made on their part by not notifying new staff members and myself who has taken on new roles as an editor that we had set roles to take on this semester through the SAO.

The SA will deny this of course because they just "can't make mistakes" as a government. Oh no...

Kelsey Dionne on May 05, 2008 at 08:30 PM:

Melissa is absolutely correct, the printing costs for the Leader are around $1000 per issue. That's not the kind of money a publication can just scrounge up overnight, especially not with the smaller staff the Leader has.

It's clear that several members of the SA didn't even understand the process of how a publication goes independent. It's not something that the paper just decides to do one day, as Wartick clearly thought, but rather a process that takes time, cultivation, and a base pool of money.

If the Leader had previously been able to go independent, believe me when I say that it already would have. Trying to negotiate with the SA for a properly-sized office, a comparatively small amount of funding and a shred of humanity is like stepping into the monkey cage at the zoo. When you finally get out, you're covered in shit, bruises and you somehow think less of yourself.

The SA is unforgiving of others, but easy to forget its own mistakes. The Leader did nothing fraudulent and has made every effort to open the lines of clear communication -- it's simply that the SA does not want to reciprocate. There's no reasoning with the unreasonable, and the SA has proven itself to be exactly that.

Nick on May 05, 2008 at 09:20 PM:

The Student Association has become nothing less than a joke, and if it weren't for the SA's blatant hypocrisy (http://media.www.uwmleader.com/media/storage/paper980/news/2006/04/12/News/Investigation.Launched.Over.biased.Elections.Chief-1987622.shtml) and attempts to trample students' rights, it would be a VERY funny joke. But in all actuality, the shit just keeps bubbling over the edges onto UWM students without most of them even knowing it.

The fact is that it doesn't matter whether or not the sedition act passed. All the right mechanisms are in place to make sure dissent can be quashed the second it appears.

Daniel V. Bahr on May 06, 2008 at 02:34 AM:

While I have not agreed with every editorial he has written, Chris Walker has captured the imagination of those who take an interest in campus political issues. I would like to wish him well. I am happy to be held to account by those who have questions or concerns. While people may choose to agree or disagree with his views, I feel that it is positive that Chris brings SA issues to light. I should also mention that while Chris and I do not always agree, I do have to concur with him that there is certainly room for improvement in the UWM SA. Without out some outside pressure who knows if people in office would reach their fullest potential. Rob Grover has done a great job this year moving the organization forward and should be congratulated. Remember, he is only one person.

To make strides in the coming year, the entire organization must work as a whole for reasonable and moderate goals. Past mistakes must be recognized and corrected. Tyler Draheim will do great, but he needs support, including Senators who act with reason and with an open-minded view on ALL issues regardless of personal feelings, grudges, or ideology. It would not hurt for the Post to acknowledge some positive accomplishments in the organization every now and then either.

I am lucky to have worked with the fine people in the SA and I am proud and never afraid to call them my friends. They are absolutely outstanding people. Congratulations on your win SUFC, you should enjoy it and consider how you might improve things for the students. Remember however, that it is the hope of many including myself that the term "MAINSTREAM, NOT EXSTREAM" will be more than a slogan in the coming school year.

Best Wishes!

Dan

Redemption? on May 06, 2008 at 08:23 AM:

Let SUFC seek redemption for all the corrupt and illegal things it has done by complimenting and encouraging the Senators on the good they have done and will do.

I'm surprised you didn't mention how the organization has "moved forward" and created progress in our student government, despite stuff like embezzlement...

If you ask me, embezzlement seems a bit Extreme* (the correct spelling). And far as I am concerned embezzlement is a crime.

re: Redemption? on May 06, 2008 at 10:05 AM:

Hey, dope, different political party, different students. Prove that someone involved in SUFC currently did something illegal. You can't, because they haven't. Stop living in a situation three years ago.

Daniel V. Bahr on May 06, 2008 at 10:06 AM:

I would agree though, Wartick is not mainstream. She really is crazy.

Re: Daniel V. Bahr on May 06, 2008 at 11:12 AM:

yup... suckahs.

you lost Piwarun and gained Wartick

WHAT??? on May 06, 2008 at 11:59 AM:

The Inane Elections Corruptor is calling one of his own crazy?

I suppose he would know his own best however.

After all, he's the one that recruited her to the senate last fall.

Amazing... on May 06, 2008 at 12:27 PM:

You guys are making such a big deal out of this... since when did anyone listen to the things Dan Bahr says anyways?

Fairweather Romantic on May 06, 2008 at 01:06 PM:

Sen. Wartick is one dramatic dame of a fashion template who bakes a mean pecan pie! Wowza

... on May 06, 2008 at 01:07 PM:

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

Common Sense on May 06, 2008 at 02:37 PM:

Why did Dan Bahr allow Tyler Draheim and AJ PIwarun to have access to the IEC office the night that ballots were being held overnight?

The truth of the matter is that the SUFC is a corrupt and despicable organization from the top down. It is amazing that the only campaign strategy they had was to have their opponents kicked off the ballot.

By the way, why did AJ bring the college Republicans to the college Democrat meeting last night to rig the election? Questions, questions, questions...

Lastly, Rob Grover is a tool.

Probation on May 06, 2008 at 02:37 PM:

"I agree that the Leader should be punished for not following the rules, though cutting their funding completely seems a little extreme. Maybe the SA could have put them on probation. Having only one large newspaper on campus hurts everyone. Competition among campus news sources is best for you the student and reader."

Thery can still apply for grants, they just weren't given this one.

So in a way, it is like being put on probation.

Carolyn on May 06, 2008 at 03:27 PM:

Yeah but $700 won't cover even one issue. What would be the point?

Check off funds on May 06, 2008 at 04:24 PM:

What about check off funds?

re: Amazing on May 06, 2008 at 05:12 PM:

Big deal out of what. A lot of people listen to Dan Bahr actually. Most of the time, he displays not-so-common common sense, and this would be one of those cases. SUFC needs to rid themselves of Wartick....she can't help them if she's always hurting them....and she is always hurting them. Maybe she should ask permission from smarter people in her party before she opens her mouth and says something dumb.

re: common sense on May 06, 2008 at 05:19 PM:

Why are you trying to disenfranchise the republicans who might want to see a decent, sensible, non-crazy, non-idiot be the college dems chair? It's not such a bad thing to ask for, yet, you seem to want to stifle them. Some Democrat you are...you sound more like a butt boy for our resident football player Scott Dettman. Go back to the bedroom, I'm sure he's waiting. Questions questions questions.

The real Daniel Bahr on May 06, 2008 at 05:27 PM:

Please do not post under my name. I did not post any comment regarding Ms. Wartick. Piwarun and Draheim were not in my office the night the ballots were stored.

Try again with a more believable conspiracy theory.

Carolyn on May 06, 2008 at 05:38 PM:

Check off funds this year were about $50.

We haven't received check off funds yet for next year and that won't be enough either.

Leaderphile on May 06, 2008 at 06:24 PM:

yah, Allyson's actions on lidding the Leader really puts the "ICK" in WART-ICK

free speech? on May 06, 2008 at 06:47 PM:

It is overrated. We should just allow the Conservatives to run everything. They do a wonderful job as it is.

GOP of Wisconsin on May 06, 2008 at 07:02 PM:

Why would the College Republicans at UWM want to contribute so much money to the Democratic Party?

GOP of Wisconsin on May 06, 2008 at 07:03 PM:

Why would the College Republicans at UWM want to contribute so much money to the Democratic Party?

lol on May 06, 2008 at 07:05 PM:

"Piwarun and Draheim were not in my office the night the ballots were stored. Try again with a more believable conspiracy theory."

... it's not there were witnesses, or maybe there were...

bullshit on May 06, 2008 at 07:51 PM:

SAC = Welfare for the leader

Carolyn on May 07, 2008 at 03:58 PM:

Well yeah. The SAC was our source of financial assistance, unfortunately.

Mark Zeihen on May 08, 2008 at 02:25 AM:

Hey Carolyn, I wanted to clear up an issue that you were discussing in your post. You wrote that "but the article claimed that we didn't get funding because we failed to make SAC large grant meetings." This was not the issue. I can attest to you being at the meetings because I am on the senate appropriations committee, so if that were the issue, I would have your back in a heart beat.

The issue was that SAC had put stipulations in place that you meet with SAO before every issue is published. We were informed that you had not once met with SAO, which lead us to our decision in SAC that if you didn't meet with SAO, for every meeting you missed, would be docked some funding from the allocation we were to give you.

"...they don't want the student body to know that the reason why they are punishing us is a direct attack and an error made on their part by not notifying new staff members and myself who has taken on new roles as an editor that we had set roles to take on this semester through the SAO.

The SA will deny this of course because they just "can't make mistakes" as a government."

This is false. We put it out in our SAC and SA minutes that members of each organization felt that it was human error in leadership within your organization. If you play back the tape recorder from the SAC meeting you will hear us agreeing that this was most likely a case of human error. It is not our job to notify you of these stipulations. These stipulations were through SAO which means if you had a problem with not being contacted about them, you should talk to SAO. Also remember, each of these meeting, SAC and SAO, are open to the public for everyone to hear.

When the SAC appropriations were brought to the senate, they were pulled out and examined by the full senate. The funding for the Leader passed the first time with stipulations, President Grover vetoed it under the understanding that there are rules in place and if you break those rules, you should be held accountable. The veto was then sent back to the senate which needed a 2/3rds vote to over-ride the veto, and was not successful. The people who voted to sustain the veto have no bias against your paper. In fact, everyone that I talked to would love to see your paper in production, however, the fact still remains that some people saw your organization as breaking the rules not once, not twice, but many times (which putting out about 6 issues a semester would mean breaking the rules 6 times in a semester).

I can understand you anger and why you are upset with the result. I can tell you that I will honestly help you in fundraising if you need help, because I would love to see your org continue its great work. Hopefully we will see you applying for grants next year and continuing to work with SA.

Keep up the good work. I know it will be a struggle without the funding, however, I know that with the support of the great student of UWM, we will make sure that the Leader keeps on working!

hey you on May 08, 2008 at 02:33 AM:

"I bring these items up not for any personal reasons or to rehash past events. These events are important because we mustn’t forget about the current state of First Amendment rights here at UWM when we leave for the summer."

If that is true Chris, then why did you fail to mention any of the conservative union's events in which people attempt to stop the free speech of speakers they brought in. Instead, you talked about the Sedition Act, which DID NOT pass, might I add.

Remember this Chris????

"Free Speech Is Expensive at UW Milwaukee

The price of free speech just went up at the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee. The Conservative Union booked Walid Shoebat, a former PLO member to present "Why I Left Jihad." There is a good deal of controversy associated with Shoebat's presentations. Wiser minds can decide if he is a hero or snake oil salesman.

The speech may never be presented. A group of Muslim students oppose the speech saying that it will inspire violence against them. Sorry, go read the Constitution. Hateful or not so hateful speakers, whether they incite a crowd or not, are protected under the Bill of Rights. As they do not make a call to violence, the speech is protected; and even some remarks that incite violence are protected.

Of greater concern is the position of UW Milwaukee. They are requiring the sponsors pay a fee of $2500 for extra security for the event.

Wrong. Very wrong.

This was the tactic used against Freedom Riders struggling for Civil Rights in the South. It was used against the anti-war movement in the 1960's. Charge for a parade permit, charge for the extra security so that those wishing to exercise their right to free speech are prohibited from gathering.

The United States Supreme Court has made it clear that fees for security or permits that prevent the public exercise of free speech are a violation of our Constitution. The Court made it clear that stopping a speech based on the fear that others will become agitated or excited is unacceptable."

Ya, "no personal reasons or to rehash past events." Sure, but yet anything you bring up which is not currently happening is a past event. Invalid argument, you lose. Learn to write articles that aren't so obviously slanted if you are going to continue writing.

Mark Zeihen on May 08, 2008 at 02:40 AM:

"Well yeah. The SAC was our source of financial assistance, unfortunately."

Carolyn is correct in saying that. A large majority of student orgs go to SAC while the large resource centers go to SFC for financial assistance. Although I am a proponent of student orgs and resource centers seeking outside funding, I do understand the need for them to seek financial assistant while they work towards the path of becoming an outside funded entity, such as what WRC and LGBT centers did.

What a load of shit on May 08, 2008 at 08:09 AM:

"

The issue was that SAC had put stipulations in place that you meet with SAO before every issue is published. We were informed that you had not once met with SAO, which lead us to our decision in SAC that if you didn't meet with SAO, for every meeting you missed, would be docked some funding from the allocation we were to give you."

The problem with this argument was that only one person on the Leader team was informed of this requirement, who ended up leaving the Leader. How can someone abide by this if they don't even know they have to do it?

"These stipulations were through SAO which means if you had a problem with not being contacted about them, you should talk to SAO."

How the hell can someone contact SAO and complain about a problem they don't even know about?

"Keep up the good work. I know it will be a struggle without the funding, however, I know that with the support of the great student of UWM, we will make sure that the Leader keeps on working!"

How the FUCK can you say this after you willingly defunded the paper? What the fuck is wrong with you? You're obviously talking out of your ass (do you even have a head?).

Leader-shit on May 08, 2008 at 08:32 AM:

Well that was really professional....

If you want to make sure that the leader isn't defunded for personal bias reasons, perhaps you should conduct yourself with some SIMPLE manners and decency.

You sure make me want to fund you... NOT!

??? on May 08, 2008 at 11:39 AM:

What the hell are you going on about?

re: What a load of shit on May 08, 2008 at 11:53 AM:

its called accountability and good leadership. it is kind of like the real world. the more laws you break the more likely you are to go to jail. the leader went to jail.

no wonder the leader got defunded if they conduct their business like half of their post on here.

Napoleon Dynamite on May 08, 2008 at 11:54 AM:

YOU GUYS ARE RETARDED.

Mwahaha on May 09, 2008 at 11:49 AM:

Maybe the Leader should change its name to "Mediocre Follower of Trends" or something along similar lines. If they can con some monied group(s) outside SAC into giving them funds, then way to go. If not, then "All is lost" X5.

Carolyn on May 10, 2008 at 09:21 AM:

I'd like to see how the "Mediocre Follower of Trends" is like when it surpasses all of the expectations people have regarding the Leader.

Next semester will completely put every doubt people had about the Leader to shame.

And all I can say now is, thank you to the SA for making us go independent. You will see what I mean in the Fall. :-P

Aaron Jeske on May 10, 2008 at 08:49 PM:

"And all I can say now is, thank you to the SA for making us go independent."

SA and the UWM students thank you!!

Carolyn on May 11, 2008 at 01:41 AM:

For what?

KB on May 11, 2008 at 06:34 PM:

He's probably thanking you because SA isn't giving you any money and they can blow that extra money on another vacation. I still think that before the SA cuts funding for a student resourse or service in the name of lowering our segregated fees that they need to forgo any money they get for being in a leadership position in SA. They can start with their own fine example of saving students money be working for free. If they're so committed they'd do it.

Allyson on May 11, 2008 at 09:48 PM:

"Next semester will completely put every doubt people had about the Leader to shame."

I never doubted the leader's capability to sustain themselves.

So go ahead, I hope you prove me right that you will put out a fantastic publication and be totally independent. :)

Kelsey Dionne on May 17, 2008 at 04:09 AM:

I may be beating a dead horse here, but there are a few things that still need to be said.

Allyson, thank you for the encouragement. But it should be mentioned that our funding was in serious doubt until we encountered a very lucky, very unforeseen situation. And unfortunately, I don't feel that throwing the Leader's funding to wild chance is a responsible or praiseworthy thing to have done. In hindsight we came out okay, but it was really the most unlikely thing that could have happened.

Mark Zeihen, there are flaws in your argument. The main one is that the Leader staff was not able to know that new stipulations had been set out for the organization because nobody told them. Certainly the Leader could not have been expected to uncover the new rules for itself, even though that was what it came down to. The SAO failed to adequately inform the Leader of the SA's new rules, and that is not the Leader's fault in the slightest. Furthermore, not a single person from the SAO ever mentioned to the Leader staff that there was a stipulation being continuously broken, even though Leader staff came into the SAO office very regularly to sort out business matters. It's as if the SAO itself didn't realize that it was supposed to be meeting with the Leader. If it did know, then it was hiding the information. If it did not know, then how could the Leader have possibly known?

How could the Leader staff ask about something they didn't know existed? How can they be held accountable for the SAO's failure to communicate the new stipulations? Why wasn't the SAO's egregious failure in communication addressed, punished or even noticed?

This demonstrates that the SA can make rules behind closed doors, make no effort to inform people of these rules, and then punish people who innocently break them. This also shows that the SAO can get away with deficient communication to the point of hiding crucial information from a student organization. Finally, this demonstrates that just over 1/3 of the SA can't recognize the root of a problem, can't understand how a newspaper functions, can't be trusted to use ethical judgment, and can't draw accurate comparisons (the Leader's situation was in no way similar to the Wrestling Club's because the Leader didn't steal or mishandle finances).