E-mail
Print
Student Association Senate passes LGBT, SHAC resolutions
Senate appointments also on last night’s agenda
By Savannah Hunnicutt and Kevin Lessmiller
“We are very, very unhappy with what has happened tonight” – SHAC President Nikki Senrick
The University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee Student Association (SA) Senate’s Sept. 21 meeting included appointments to the Senate and two pieces of legislation, one more controversial than the other.
A motion was made after roll call to push comments and reports back to the end of the agenda, putting three Senate appointments and new business ahead of them.
Also after roll call, which began at 6:35 p.m., a motion was made to table approval of the Sept. 7 meeting minutes until the next Senate meeting. Complications with an e-mail reflector were cited as the reason.
Matthew Capristo and Anthony Dewees were appointed to the Senate as at-large senators and Ali Hassan was appointed to one of two Sheldon B. Lubar School of Business Senate seats.
The Senate discussed student involvement in LGBT issues, passing the LGBT Resource Center Advisory Act. This first piece of new business effectively established a student LGBT Advisory Committee.
As of last night, the Student Housing Administrative Council (SHAC), is a standing committee of the Senate, as defined in resolution SB 0809-009. After a series of friendly amendments proposed by the Senate, the resolution was amended and passed with an 18-5 roll call vote.
“This legislation would bring them together,” said SA Vice President Tommy Hughes during discussion.
Nikki Senrick, president of SHAC, spoke against the legislation during the meeting. “We are very, very unhappy with what has happened tonight,” said Senrick in an interview with the Post. “We can function with them. We don’t have to be engulfed by them.”
In a statement released late Sunday evening, Senrick questioned the validity of the legislation.
“Many members of the current SA Senate would be ill prepared to pass judgment or approval of SHAC legislation,” said Senrick. “Tyler Draheim is not a resident of University Housing and therefore should not have the ability to veto anything that residents put forth.”
Senrick said she plans to meet with SA President Tyler Draheim, as well as University Housing administration, this week. Senrick said SHAC is prepared to appeal the matter to the University Student Court if Draheim doesn’t veto the legislation, and that SHAC has researched an appeal to the UW Board of Regents- although such a prominent appeal would not be preferred by SHAC at the present time.
Following brief comments and reports by SA officials, the meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m., lasting nearly one hour. SA had established a 7:30 p.m. deadline for adjournment at the start of the meeting.
The next Student Association meeting will take place on October 5th at 6:30 pm, in the Union Fireside Lounge.
Jonathan Anderson contributed to this report.
> Comments
Joseph Ohler on Sep 22, 2008 at 06:02 PM:
This would be the SECOND time that SA has encompassed SHAC. From my interactions with prior SHAC officials, SA cannot manage SHAC any worse than SHAC managed itself over the years, so it’s worth a shot. Here’s to progress through returning to prior methods! I’m sure the residents will become more attuned to the SA now that such incorporation has been set into motion. Besides, SHAC pretty much only did programming and never let students have a say as to whether they actually wanted to pay the SHAC fee towards whatever inane events the Residential Assistants or the SHAC crowd wanted to push on them, so perhaps SA will incorporate SHAC into a fee allocation process. I imagine this process would be similar to the Senate Finance Committee but differ in terms of from who the fee is collected (UH residents only) as well as what positions comprise the committee (at least a majority of voting members would be UH residents). Now maybe UH residents can actually HAVE a control mechanism over how much SHAC fee they pay!
Outside Observer on Sep 23, 2008 at 07:23 AM:
Awww how cute! The miniature freshman student government is "very, very unhappy"! Perhaps if they were able to create and follow their own bylaws this would not have happened!
An ACTUAL Resident of UH on Sep 23, 2008 at 02:24 PM:
A couple points:
First: Housing residents DO have the ability to abolish SHAC fees. It has been put forth to the residents on two prior occasions since I've lived in housing and the residents have elected to keep the fee in place. Besides- SA would not have any influence on that, besides the now proximate eventuality that Housing will revoke the fee due to it's displeasure at SA's intrusion. [That CAN and very possibly WILL happen.]
Second: This "miniature freshman student government" is a longstanding institution that has handled itself perfectly well over the years, effectively changing housing policies and providing services and leadership opportunities to the residents without any problems, barring a few unscrupulous individuals (which, let's be frank, SA has quite enough of) SHAC has created and followed it's own bylaws- take a look at them and see. Why SA feels the need to meddle with a small, resident based organization is beyond me- it seems as though SA's executives already have enough on their plates- they seem to have trouble effectively handling the issues and budget concerns currently facing them. The president of SA is so busy, in fact, that he needs to have a special staff parking pass, not granted to any other students, and paid for out of student's seg fees. Why add yet another worry to his long list of exhausting problems? No worries, the residents of UH can handle this "miniature" organization just fine. That way SA can focus on its own issues.
Pluto on Sep 23, 2008 at 03:22 PM:
I would like to introduce my new best friend in the realm of irrelevance: SHAC
Closet Fan on Sep 25, 2008 at 06:56 PM:
UH residents don’t need SHAC / Thinking otherwise is simply wack / SA absorbed SHAC just in time / There’s no need to get all mad / At Tom Hughes and Ty Draheim / ‘Cuz they’re the ones who make me glad!
hahahaha on Sep 25, 2008 at 10:10 PM:
I want to hear the audio of that rap. "Tom Hughes and Ty Draheim" lmao!!!
UWM Alum on Sep 26, 2008 at 07:47 AM:
Shared governance is a complex idea that a large majority of students at UWM do not understand. The administration uses this to their advantage to make important decisions effecting student life, service and interest without student input (illegal). This happens EVERYWHERE on campus; however, shared governance is especially absent in the dorms. As a UWM Alum and a true believer in shared governance, I hope that you SA officials mold the SHAC representatives to understand shared governance. That is the single, most important aspect that can come out of this merge.
Nikki- I don't know you, but this is your opportunity to become a true leader on campus. This is a very positive and important move for all students on campus. You have the opportunity to learn from students who truly understand how to make change at UWM. Nikki, being a student leader is far more than programming bingo and dances in the dorms- it's affecting the lives of the students you were elected to serve--through University Policy.
This is going to be a challenge for you, but I hope that at the end of this year you understand shared governance and can walk into Scott Peak's office and say- why didn't you ask for a student input on this? The administration is not "being nice" to you when they invite you to meetings or let you "sit in on" interviews- this is a RIGHT that the state legislature granted you and MANY students have fought hard for you to have. You were elected to serve the students and without understanding shared governance and working with and standing up to the administration- you're not doing your job. If you work with the SA officials, hopefully, someday, you will be the next SA President. Fighting this merge isn’t going to get you anywhere. You could spend the entire year fighting it and then what good would you have done for your residents? Best of luck to you!
P.S. - Don't try to take this to the Board of Regents- you will lose (partly because you don't understand shared governance and the student organizational structure at UWM - if you did, you would have never made that comment)
$ly$py on Sep 27, 2008 at 04:16 PM:
You do make a good point.
Maybe I should think before I start writing on here so I don't sound like a complete idiot.
$ly$py
PS. Maybe someday I will use my real name. I am very very insecure! Right now, I am too scared that I will actually have to take credit for my completely ridiculous statements. Until then $ly$py will be filling the comment boards with lies, fairytales, and uneducated, long winded comments!
I'm back baby!
SA/SHAC Alum on Sep 27, 2008 at 10:54 AM:
It has been almost four years since I was in SHAC (I was involved for two years), it would have been a pretty big deal if things had changed so significantly. Putting on programs is an important part of SHAC's role in Housing, but not its purpose, it is their purpose to stand up for the residents they were elected to represent. Thinking anything other than that is being seriously out of touch, or not understanding the fundamentals of student governance. You bring up some interesting ideas in your long comment (crosswalks for the blind), but most of them would be impractical. A 24 hour library, buying Columbia, or having a drinking party in Spaight's would all be entirely too expensive, or in the case of beer on Spaight's, very illegal. Clearly you are writing these comments to stir things up, and you were probably involved in last years election. It is clear you understand some things about SHAC, and a little about SA... get more involved, maybe you will understand them better.
The fact of the matter is... This has worked before, works other places. You present no argument about why it wouldn't work now, besides that SA doesn't have the time. I don't know what SA is working on, but I cannot imagine they would be undertaking a shared governance project, unless it was completely necessary. Making the argument that SA doesn't have time is completely irrelevant, because they certainly do. University Housing falls completely under the umbrella of SA (As it heavily impacts student life, services, and interests). Though I doubt complaining will get you anywhere, your only actual recourse is getting the SA President to veto it. Good luck.